It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FoosM
That all depends on who you believe regarding the intensity of radiation in the VABs.
And Aluminum, as shielding, creates deadly secondary radiation.
Originally posted by FoosM
At ignition, the ascent stage rises at about 3 meters/sec2 (about 10 feet/sec2), creating a accelerating force equal to about one-third of Earth's gravity, only twice that what the astronauts were experiencing standing in the cabin. Acceleration increases gradually until cut-off, when it will have built to about two-thirds that of normal Earth gravity. After the ascent stage reaches an altitude of only 50 feet (15 meters), it pitches about 54° face down to build horizontal velocity as it climbs.
02:01:15 PM T+124:29:15.67 LM lunar latitude = 0.73° N, longitude = 12.99° E,height = 11.5 mi (60800 ft), flight path angle = 0.28°, heading = 251.85°,speed = 3775.8 mph, pitch = 92°, apolune = 55.2 mi, perilune = 10.8 mi,CSM/LM range = 313 mi. APS shutdown
Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by AgentSmith
Many folks visiting this post (like myself) probably don't know half what you know on this subject.
I am eager to read intelligent, well-informed, decisive arguments that cast doubt on White's arguments. That is all that is required.
If you are looking for a concession from White or his followers, you will be waiting a very long time. Arguments like this are won in the minds of the readers.
Originally posted by FoosM
You said there was a firing FITH firing during Apollo 5. That is correct.
And for that I thank you and anybody else who posts this as an answer.
But tell me, what did this test prove?
Originally posted by CHRLZ
Originally posted by turbonium
I see this failed argument come up all the time.
...Give me just one specific example from these many 'thousands' who would know if it was a hoax. Please explain how a guy who, let's say, tightened bolts on a saturn V rocket, know if it was a hoax?
*You* just failed, only WORSE... If it's just the 'bolt tighteners' and the like, then it is in fact HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS. That figure can be verifed at innumerable sources:
..and many others...
But if we restrict it to those who *would* spot a hoax, ie the supervisors and coordinators, the designers, the overseers, the managers, the astronauts, even the geologists who examined the returned moon samples, the crews on the carriers, ad infinitum - in other words, people who could EASILY spot any hint of a hoax, it's still MANY, MANY THOUSANDS. And that doesn't count the uncountable - *other* astrophysicists, scientists and engineers that were simply watching at the time, and since, who have access to an absolute wealth of information and documentation. There is NOT ONE notable, credible scientist or engineer who promotes the hoax - just web pretenders and idiot cab-drivers like Sibrel, or people who lie about their qualifications/involvement like Kaysing, or delusional dullards whose only skill is the ability to use presets in a video editing program, and steal other people's faulty ideas. Hi, Jarrah.
So, for someone who doesn't do math, has only ever tightened bolts, has never worked in or near the upper echelons of science or engineering and doesn't understand the finer points of either... then maybe you might think that way.
This thread is a 'testament' to those folk - people without a clue about basic logic, let alone space sciences, general science, engineering, photography, and the myriad of other disciplines involved in such a huge project. The Interweb gives them a voice. Hurrah.
If you AREN'T one of those, turbonium, can I ask where is your input to the actual scientific discussions in this thread?
What is your 'favorite' issue? Walk the walk.
Originally posted by turbonium
Not even close to "thousands" would know if it was a hoax. Simulations were run prior to each mission, but they only knew that because they were told it was a simulation. As the 'actual' mission was known to them when told it was. But they had no way to tell one from the other.
The majority of those you claim would know if it was a hoax were not in any position to know. One small part of the whole, which was only known by the few top-level chiefs. Astronauts and stage crews knew, but the total is not in the thousands like you claim it would be.
Originally posted by CHRLZ
By the way, turbonium, can you tell us how you have changed your goalposts? Back in 2005, on this forum, you posted this:
Just a damn picture of the buggy or buggy tracks or lem base will do. Is that really so much to ask for? Why wouldn't NASA do it for PR purposes alone
You made that comment AFTER showing that you didn't understand optics, and being asked what proof you wanted.
Let's be very specific - you asked to see some images from NASA showing buggy tracks, LM base... There's a link below with LOTS of such images from NASA's LRO showing buggy tracks, LM base... I've picked the link below because not only does it show a good sampling of those images, it also has some REALLY EASY TO UNDERSTAND text that fills in the big gaps in your knowledge of telescopes and optics. Stuff like this:
Satellite photos of Earth are taken from about 280 miles up. The moon is 238,857 miles away. If you zoom in (+), cars are visible but fuzzy. Remember, that's from 280 miles away! Satellite photographs are taken by satellites, small spacecraft in close orbit around a moon or planet. We had to put a satellite in orbit around the moon to get satellite-quality photos there!...
At the distance of the moon, the Hubble can't see anything smaller than 60 meters wide. The lunar module's landing gear is 9 meters across...
What would be good enough proof now? They have to take you up there personally?
(Fixed broken link)
[edit on 11-7-2010 by CHRLZ]
Anyone can see it. That tiny white dot is obviously the LM, and a small black speck next to ir can only be the rover!
That sure is undeniable evidence you've presented there!! I must congratulate your efforts!
Funny stuff, but sort of in a sad way.
For walking on the moon, the space suit was supplemented with a pair of protective overboots, gloves with rubber fingertips, a set of filters/visors worn over the helmet for protection from sunlight...
Originally posted by lestweforget
I have learned alot throughout this thread with regards to the radiation belts and the equipments alleged capabilities of the time, but what about the glass sheild on the astronaughts helmet? As far as i know glass wouldnt be able to repel the significant levels of radiation in space.
unless it was "special NASA radiation reflecting glass".
The LEVA was an elegant design, consisting in one assembly of a thermal cover, 2 visors, and 3 eyeshades.
The 2 visors were layered over each other. The inner "protective visor" was made of ultraviolet-stabilized polycarbonate plastic and filtered ultraviolet rays, rejected infrared and, in combination with the sun visor and pressure helmet, formed an effective thermal barrier. The outer "sun visor" was made of high-temperature polysulfone plastic and filtered visible light and most ultraviolet and infrared rays.
The protective visor is an ultraviolet-stabilized polycarbonate shield which affords impact, micrometeoroid, and ultraviolet ray protection. It can be positioned anywhere between the full-Up and full-Down positions and requires a force of 2 to 4 pounds for movement. A coating is added to the inner surface of this assembly. The elastomer seal on the upper surface of the stiffener prevents light passage between the two visors. The protective visor can be lowered independently of the sun visor, but cannot be raised independently with the sun visor in the Down position.
The inner surface of the polysulfone sun visor has a gold coating which provides protection against light and reduces heat gain within the helmet. The visor can be positioned anywhere between the full-Up and full-Down positions by exerting a force of 2 to 4 pounds on the pull tabs. The sun visor cannot be independently lowered unless the protective visor is in the Down position, but it can be raised or lowered independently when the center eyeshade is in the full-Up position and the protective visor is in the Down position.
One of the major considerations in flight was the amount of harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation to which the crewmen would be subjected during extravehicular activity. Prior to Apollo missions, the UV threshold of the eye was unknown. Over a three-year period, NASA-sponsored research determined these levels. The problem was, however, subsequently resolved with the development and use of Lexan in the extravehicular visor assembly, since Lexan was opaque to UV radiation. A minimum of 2000 hours of exposure would be required to produce a corneal "burn" through this plastic.
The astronaut wore two helmets. The transparent "fishbowl" helmet was worn underneath, and the LEVA "hardhat" with the visors attached was placed over this helmet for lunar EVA activities. The LEVA had the gold visor, which could be rotated upward if necessary.
Both the "fishbowl" and the visor were made of Lexan, a polycarbonate which is almost perfectly opaque to ultraviolet. Even with the gold visor up, the astronaut would be subject to very little ultraviolet.
I'm not sure what other forms of radiation people believe are out there. The visor will not stop cosmic rays, but they aren't that plentiful. The Lexan will stop a good portion of ambient x-rays, but they aren't that plentiful either. The particle flux isn't much to worry about either.
The gold on the visor was simply to dim the glare to improve the astronaut's vision. If he worked for prolonged time in the shade, he raised the visor to get a better view of details.
Home Depot sells plastic sheets of Lexan (poly-carbonate) which are printed with claims of blocking UV. Try this stuff. You might find it blocks only 90%, depending on your UV meter. I do not think it depends on thickness, though. I think they take a
clear plastic that transmits most UV, then they soak into one face a "UV dye" that absorbs only UV, just like the PABA or other active chemical in sun-screen lotions. Even says on the cover sheet: "this side towards the sun". This is the side with the
UV-blocking dye, less than 0.1mm deep.
These children suffer from a rare genetic disorder (called Xeroderma Pigmentosum) that puts their lives at risk when they are exposed to the Sun. Their bodies are extremely sensitive to the Sun's ultraviolet (UV) rays. This means they cannot go outside in daylight, except with special protection. Unless all UV is blocked, their skin and eyes may be severely damaged, eventually leading to cancer.......
There are two parts to the suit. The headgear, designed to look 'cool' for children, covers the head and face. It includes a large see-through, polycarbonate visor, an adjustable plastic headband and a fabric hood.
Any shooting glasses lens rating less than 99% or 400nm probably won't provide adequate UV protection. It should be noted that even clear Polycarbonate lens will block or absorb UV rays, so don't become focused on the tint as playing a role in the level of protection.
Better quality coated lenses, most "high index" (thinner and lighter-weight materials) and all polycarbonate lenses block virtually 100% of the UV.
1h.) Spamming: You will not post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums. You will also not create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple "slightly different" threads for a single topic.