It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Texas Educators: Neil Armstrong Not a Scientist

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
The proof is in the pudding.

en.wikipedia.org...

Can you say "someone burnt my Pop Tart!"? Well, Neil Armstrong would no longer be with us had he gone through the Van Allen belt.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by pluckynoonez]




posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
Why is everyone here defending Neil Armstrong? The man stole our childhoods! Think about it, he pulled the ruse that he walked on the moon, which we all know is a lie.

No, actually I don't know that at all. In fact, there's ample evidence it wasn't a lie. Tell you what, if I could find the Apollo S-IVB that "supposedly" launched Armstrong to the moon and has been lost in heliocentric orbit for the last 40 years, would you concede that Armstrong was telling the truth?



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
The proof is in the pudding.
en.wikipedia.org...
Can you say "someone burnt my Pop Tart!"? Well, Neil Armstrong would no longer be with us had he gone through the Van Allen belt.


Well, Jeez...why didn't you say it was in wiki? I wouldn't have wasted another thought had I known.

By all means, if you see it on the Net...it must be true.

My profound apologies.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
And, oh yeah, before anyone retorts, space is not like Superman 4: The Quest for Peace. There is no air or wind or Marc Pillow up there trying to look tough. It is a brutal environment, space is, and the Van Allen belts would cook you unless you had something like 16 inches of solid lead (hence the Superman reference).

Neil Armstrong is not a scientist, he's no better than O.J. Simpson in Capricorn One.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 23-9-2009 by pluckynoonez]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
Of course Neil Armstrong is a scientist, an engineer and a pioneer. He was also a teacher. How ignorant can people be nowadays... it's utterly pathetic. I suppose they will start calling creationists who talk about floods moving the continents as scientists. Phulleease, someone get me a sick bucket, cos' these texans make me feel sick.


i have been to texas, and all i can say is "it figures"....this is not a shock to me. what would be a shock to me is if the majority of schools did this.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Wiki is for useful for an overview and by no means intended for legitimate scholarly study or citation. But if you must poke fun, have a laugh, laughy laugherton.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
Can you say "someone burnt my Pop Tart!"? Well, Neil Armstrong would no longer be with us had he gone through the Van Allen belt.

Your critical mistake is that you didn't bother to quantify how much radiation armstrong would have received. I work in a facility with plenty of radioactive materials, in fact I'm due for safety training next week, but I'm clearly not dead. Here's a chart showing Van Allen belt doses for one round trip:
spacetethers.com...
The apollo command module had 4mm of aluminum, not to mention even thicker fibrous insulation, great against van allen belt radiation. Not even accounting for the fibrous insulation or any other mitigating factors, the maximum dose from passing through the belts even slower than Apollo is less than 6 rads, far from lethal.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by pluckynoonez
 



Neil Armstrong is not a scientist


This is just ridiculous!


By definition (see my above post and links) he is a scientist. So am I. So is anyone that has a degree in a scientific field, or follows the scientific process, or becomes an expert in some capacity!

Social Agenda? Social Contribution? Going to moon or not? What does any of that have to do with being a Scientist? Somebody please show me a definition of a Scientist that claims you have to have gone to the moon, or provided some social contribution! None of my Professors or my University told me any of that! All they said was, "Pay your tuition, pass your classes, voila, you are now a Chemist/Scientist!"



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
It is a brutal environment, space is, and the Van Allen belts would cook you unless you had something like 16 inches of solid lead (hence the Superman reference).

Depleted uranium aside, lead is about the worst possible choice for shielding against van allen belt radiation.
www.radprocalculator.com...
Try 4mm lead vs 4mm aluminum and you'll see why you need so much more lead to be safe; it makes your situation worse. You should check your own science credentials before accusing other's of being invalid.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I think something is wrong with that calculator! I get less dose, the less shielding I use!! The more shielding I add, the higher the Calculated Dose-Rate.

I knew something was up, because there is no way Aluminum would provide more radiation shielding. Radiation shielding is all about density, the more dense something is, the more shielding it provides. That is why they use Lead. 1 ft of Lead equals about 12 ft of Cement, or something like that. Aluminum is a light metal (less nuclei per volume) so it won't provide as much shielding.

Not that any of that matters, Armstrong is most certainly a Scientist no matter what sidetracks, and weird arguments people make. He is, by definition, a scientist, and anybody that would say otherwise must be entirely illiterate!



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I think something is wrong with that calculator! I get less dose, the less shielding I use!! The more shielding I add, the higher the Calculated Dose-Rate.

Nothing's wrong, you're reading it right! When shielding against particle radiation, materials made with higher atomic numbers produce greater secondary radiation doses because of how quickly they slow down the incoming particles, which then give off electromagnetic radiation requiring additional shielding, whereas materials made of lighter atoms will act more like "pillows" and attenuate the radiation gradually.


I knew something was up, because there is no way Aluminum would provide more radiation shielding. Radiation shielding is all about density, the more dense something is, the more shielding it provides.

Not all radiation is alike, and the radiation stopped by earth's magnetic field is best handled without lead. Electromagnetic radiation like X-Ray and Gamma ray is just the opposite, but that's not what you find trapped in the Van Allen belts.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Thank you! I hadn't thought of the differences between "particle" and "electro-magnetic." Most of my knowledge of radiation shielding comes from Nuclear bunker building, and lab equipment that uses radiation. It makes sense that particle radiation would behave differently, and possibly even cause a "cascade" that would increase the dose.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
Neil A. Armstrong is most definitely a scientist. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in aeronautical engineering from Purdue University ...CUT


Purdue University!!!!

Can anything good come out of a university with the initials P U!

Something stinks here...

Maybe those Texans are on to something...

I smell conspiracy.

The Illoooominati never leave anything to chance

911.... and now PU!

When will this mind control ever end!



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
The proof is in the pudding.

en.wikipedia.org...

Can you say "someone burnt my Pop Tart!"? Well, Neil Armstrong would no longer be with us had he gone through the Van Allen belt.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by pluckynoonez]


OK, I call your bluff: The link in your post specifically states:

"A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt."

This means that (given the quoted shielding and orbit), you would definitely absorb a fatal dose if you stayed there for 5 months. You would probably get sick if you were in it for a whole month, and not feel a thing if you were in it for a day. In fact, not only did the Apollo missions spend less than an hour-and-a-half transiting the Van Allen Belts each way, they followed a trajectory that avoided the most intense areas of the belts, and they had better shielding than that listed above.

In other words, pluckynoonez, your link provides clear evidence that the Van Allen Belts did not provide any significant hazard to the Apollo astronauts. Thanks for that.

(The proof is in the pudding, indeed!)



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by desertdreamer
reply to post by kleverone
 


That is not the opinion of everyone in the State of Texas.....I assure you.


That's good to know!
Since Texas is home to much of the aerospace industry I think that is an interesting move on the their part.




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join