NASA not responding to FOIA about atypical size and luminisioty of Apollo moon "sun" photos

Does anybody here understand what this picture means? DAMN!



Jaxa Elevation Data vs. Photo from Nasa:



AND NOW INGNORE THIS AGAIN.....







!APOLLO 11!







OMG ATS Members !

Originally posted by elfie

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
[
I think the point he was trying to make was the fact that there was ZERO I mean ZIPPO radiation insulation on the LM... I don't think he meant that the LM was actually boosted to the moon directly....

all the best,

Korg.

Going back to the A11 Press Kit--the suits themselves contained some degree of radiation shielding (starting on pg. 121 of the pdf which corresponds to pg. 117 of the document).

[edit on 17-3-2010 by elfie]

Nowhere near enough to protect them against particle radiation that is so prolific in space from sources such as the Van Allen belt, cosmic radiation not to mention the obvious direct solar sources...

I found this NASA article and thought it was almost laughable.. If they were in any of my old classes it would have got an [F] as the conclusion totally contradicts the evidence presented within the body of the document. Almost as if the person writing the conclusion plucked the exact opposite view point to the rest of the article.

read it here..

BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO - SECTION II - CHAPTER 3 - RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION

The Van Allen belt alone would be enough to cause serious health issues.

Van Allen radiation belt

The inner Van Allen Belt extends from an altitude of 100–10,000 km [6] (0.01 to 1.5 Earth radii) above the Earth's surface, and contains high concentrations of energetic protons with energies exceeding 100 MeV and electrons in the range of hundreds of keV, trapped by the strong (relative to the outer belts) magnetic fields in the region.

Radiation poisoning

During human spaceflights, particularly flights beyond low Earth orbit, astronauts are exposed to both galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) and possibly solar particle event (SPE) radiation. Evidence indicates past SPE radiation levels which would have been lethal for unprotected astronauts.[9] GCR levels which might lead to acute radiation poisoning are less well understood.[10]

All the best

Korg.

Post flight debriefing, section 5.40 Dosimeter

The Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing July 31st 1969

Dosimetry during Space Missions

ieeexplore.ieee.org... cision=-203


RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION

See table 2 for combined results of exposure over the missions.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


We were typing at the same time. In tune, though...

Originally posted by elfie
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

We were typing at the same time. In tune, though...

Hahah that's funny

Great minds think alike or is it fools seldom differ?

btw one of things I found laughable about the article was the The Van Allen belt dosimeter... o.k. so they have a sensor on board that tells them they are getting too much radiation?? What do they do then?? Hold a mirror up infront of thier face and hope for the best?? lol

All the best,

Korg.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Korg Trinity]

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by elfie
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

We were typing at the same time. In tune, though...

Hahah that's funny

Great minds think alike or is it fools seldom differ?

btw one of things I found laughable about the article was the The Van Allen belt dosimeter... o.k. so they have a sensor on board that tells them they are getting too much radiation?? What do they do then?? Hold a mirror up infront of thier face and hope for the best?? lol

All the best,

Korg.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Korg Trinity]

Ionizing radiation and heat

1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see radiation poisoning). Some hoax theorists have suggested that Starfish Prime (high altitude nuclear testing in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions.[102] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[103] The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt and the low-energy outer belt. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[104] The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[105] However, only twenty-seven astronauts left Earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.[106] 2. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation. The film was kept in metal containers that prevented radiation from fogging the film's emulsion.[107] In addition, film carried by unmanned lunar probes such as the Lunar Orbiter and Luna 3 (which used on-board film development processes) was not fogged. 3. The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted. There is no atmosphere to efficiently couple lunar surface heat to devices such as cameras not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. The physics of radiative heat transfer are thoroughly understood, and the proper use of passive optical coatings and paints was adequate to control the temperature of the film within the cameras; lunar module temperatures were controlled with similar coatings that gave it its gold color. Also, while the Moon's surface does get very hot at lunar noon, every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing site. During the longer stays, the astronauts did notice increased cooling loads on their spacesuits as the sun continued to rise and the surface temperature increased, but the effect was easily countered by the passive and active cooling systems.[108] The film was not in direct sunlight, so it wasn't overheated.[109] Note: all of the lunar landings occurred during the lunar daytime. The Moon's day is approximately 29½ days long, and as a consequence a single lunar day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly fifteen days. As such there was no sunrise or sunset while the astronauts were on the surface. Most lunar missions occurred during the first few Earth days of the lunar day. 4. The Apollo 16 crew should not have survived a big solar flare firing out when they were on their way to the Moon. "They should have been fried." No large solar flare occurred during the flight of Apollo 16. There were large solar flares in August 1972, after Apollo 16 returned to Earth and before the flight of Apollo 17.[110][111]

Source:
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by cushycrux
Does anybody here understand what this picture means? DAMN!
Jaxa Elevation Data vs. Photo from Nasa:

AND NOW INGNORE THIS AGAIN.....

!APOLLO 11!

OMG ATS Members !

So what are we supposed to be discussing here, cushy?? I mean just concluding with a very laconic, "OMG ATS Members!" followed by three 'Lols' isn't helping matters.

Originally posted by cushycrux

Ionizing radiation and heat

1. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions.[102] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[103]
Source:
en.wikipedia.org...

I'm affraid that 5 layers of Aluminum and mylar wouldn't cut down the radiation anywhere near enough.



All the best,

Korg.

The pixels in the foreground of the JAXA images appear to be averaged or substituted entirely--way too smooth for a moon terrain.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


I don't know. Do you really want to completely discard the hard data taken from dosimeters in preference over speculation?

Originally posted by elfie
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

I don't know. Do you really want to completely discard the hard data taken from dosimeters in preference over speculation?

I would say that if the moon landings were a hoax then fake dosimeter readings would be expected.

All the best,

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Korg, the amount of radiation exposure in the Van Allen Belts is well known, since we currently have satellites that transit those Belts on a regular basis as they orbit.

Look it up on the Web, you will find many sources and references.

You will also see just how short the exposure time, through the belts, was for Apollo. AND trajectories were selected to minimize exposure, as well.

A little research is good for your brain...as long as you don't pollute it with the ridiculous 'conspiracy' sites. ALL of those sites are full of baloney.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Korg, the amount of radiation exposure in the Van Allen Belts is well known, since we currently have satellites that transit those Belts on a regular basis as they orbit.

Look it up on the Web, you will find many sources and references.

You will also see just how short the exposure time, through the belts, was for Apollo. AND trajectories were selected to minimize exposure, as well.

A little research is good for your brain...as long as you don't pollute it with the ridiculous 'conspiracy' sites. ALL of those sites are full of baloney.

Hahaha lol like the last comment there

Seriously though, even if the time within the belt was fleeting, the level of radiation recieved is not reduced, only lengh of time of exposure.

What i'm stating is that the radiation shielding available and documented as being used by apollo missions was far too light to reduce the radiation of the belt to 1mev as quoted earlier.

Not to mention the recorded CME the sun was producing at the time

All the best,

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


No, this is wrong.

It has been several months since I went and dug up all of the relevant information...if I have some time I'll try to find my posts from the other thread where it was discussed at some length.

But, really....I found the info quite easily on the Web, so anyone else can as well, and I suggest they do.

Especially since this thread is about the so-called "...atypical luminosity of Apollo moon "sun" (sic) photos"......


Honestly, though...I think the OP is having fun at everyone's expense. AND that really irks me off!

Game developer's lost buggy found on the moon!

The Lunokhod-2 rover was despatched to the Moon in 1973, during the era of competition in space between the USA and the Soviets. It had been lost after it broke down, but new pictures from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) have found its tracks and its final resting place.
www.theregister.co.uk...

Radiation arguments, while tired, are actually better than most of the photo speculation posted so far. They're absolutely right - too much radiation from the Van Allen belts would kill a person. Of course, too much radiation from x-rays at the doctor and dentist would also kill a person, and we've all had that done and are still breathing, right?

I fail to see how evidence that radiation exposure was both planned for and recorded as expected is actually twisted to be evidence that the moon landings were hoaxed.

Originally posted by samlf3rd
reply to post by bochen181

 

Bochen: I would like to point out that the picture that the astronaut took seems to have a very curious aspect that has not been pointed out (on this post that I've read): that is that the astronaut seems to have a shadow that faces directly in front of him, while the spacecraft in the upper right hand corner has a shadow that is protruding to the left. Wouldn't the sun make all the shadows the same?

Now this could be caused by a wide angle lens. And to add more to the subject the moon has no atmosphere (naturally) so light acts a little differently on the moon than it does here on Earth, remember they were in a vacuum, that is freezing cold, and a horizon of roughly seven miles or so which can make the horizon appear a lot closer than it seems.

I'm not trying to debunk the story, simply trying to add some technical aspects to this ongoing story.
Nice pics though Bochen!

I've noticed that too and didn't see any discussion on it.

The photo in question:



Could this be the shadow vs. terrain explanation that Phage mentioned earlier?

Originally posted by TXRabbit

Could this be the shadow vs. terrain explanation that Phage mentioned earlier?

I could go with what sage phage mentioned about this, the way the shadows alter with altitide... IF the Centre of the image where the shadow of the photographer wasn't the centre of brightness... now I know thats not an optical illusion... the bright area corrolates exactly to what a large local light would look like and the shadows correlates exactly to how they would react if the light source was large and reasonable close.. i.e. a large electric light...

All the best,

Korg.

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by bochen181

 

I have enjoyed your presentation thus far. May I have your permission to repost your material elsewhere?

Aw God Almighty! Even when it has been proved beyond an iota of doubt that it's nothing but lens flare you still think it's a conspiracy worth discussing in other forums?

Hats off to your persistence anyway!

*Shrugs and keeps shaking head*

words vs words if u cant accept people who accept other theories, Hats off to you.

peace

reply to post by Korg Trinity

Different shadow angles.



The lightening around the head of the shadow is called heiligenschein.



[edit on 3/17/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Not to mention (has anyone yet?).....

IF someone wishes to infer that the different shadow directions are reslting from different light sources....then there would be multiple shadows.

Just walk down a street at night, and watch how the many streetlights cast your multiple shadows. Really, this is such basic stuff, wondering why it needs to be explained?