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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 172
377
<< 169  170  171    173  174  175 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Now imagine the belts extends five Earths wide.


FoosM, do you even understand the difference between a radius and a diameter? That might explain some of your confusion here. Even if we take the maximum measurement of 10 Re at the equator, they extend only 67780 kilometers. The Moon is 384,403 kilometers away. This means that the Van Allen Belts only extend 1/6th of the way to the Moon. Why do you keep thinking they're "huge?"




posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Now imagine the belts extends five Earths wide.


FoosM, do you even understand the difference between a radius and a diameter? That might explain some of your confusion here. Even if we take the maximum measurement of 10 Re at the equator, they extend only 67780 kilometers. The Moon is 384,403 kilometers away. This means that the Van Allen Belts only extend 1/6th of the way to the Moon. Why do you keep thinking they're "huge?"



I cant believe out of all the things that have been posted, you find this question to be pertinent or relevant for this thread. If you don't think these things are huge, well NASA has sure done a good number on you.
So, you can stop baiting me into saying something derogatory.

Its quite clear that NASA wasnt worried about Solar Flares because they couldn't even get passed the belts.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
That's weird Foos, because your sources of info for the belts all say they weren't an issue. You just post up some 'big' numbers without understanding them and think it'll scare people into submission

You can't even tell the difference between Proton Flux and Electron Volts.

You probably think that 100 MeV is like, way big man. Like you know, 100 MILLION electron VOLTS man woooooah!
WRONG!
To put it into perspective,about 600 Eev (600,000,000 Tev or 600 Million Trillion Electron volts) is the equivilant of lighting a 10 watt bulb for one second.
One TRILLION electron volts is the equivilent kinetic energy of the awesome mosquito flying.
(Source Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...)

Stop trying to make it sound like some sort of instant death zone, yes it's something to be wary of - but it's nothing like what you're trying to imply!



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Its quite clear that NASA wasnt worried about Solar Flares because they couldn't even get passed the belts.


Well, one of your own sources disagrees with you, I posted this earlier, you must have, er, missed it:

From the website where you got those images of flux energies (you know, the pretty red ones):


Apollo astronauts, however, were forced to traverse the most intense regions of the Belts in their journey to the Moon. Fortunately, the travel time was only about 30 minutes so their actual radiation exposures inside the Apollo space capsule were not much more than the total dose received by Space Shuttle astronauts.

This fact counters some popular speculations that the moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have instantly died as they made the travel through the belts. In reality, they may have experienced minor radiation poisoning if they had been in their spacesuits on a spacewalk, but no spacewalk was ever scheduled for these very reasons. The shielding provided by the Apollo space capsule walls was more than enough to shield the astronauts from all but the most energetic, and rare, particles.



So once again your own source contradicts you. Do you stand by your source?

And earlier you made this statement:


"High energy protons travel at the speed of light...."


Do you still stand by that?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Radiation Belts - Van Allen's
"It is populated by very energetic protons in the 10-100 MeV range (by-product of collisions by cosmic rays with atoms of the atmosphere)"

source:
www.centennialofflight.gov...

www.esa-spaceweather.net...

An interesting document about space shielding:
www.int.washington.edu...



(Off topic:- I have found a sister image of weedwhacker avatar on page 24 :-))))

[edit on 17-8-2010 by crustas]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by crustas
reply to post by Phage
 


Radiation Belts - Van Allen's
"It is populated by very energetic protons in the 10-100 MeV range (by-product of collisions by cosmic rays with atoms of the atmosphere)"

source:
www.centennialofflight.gov...

www.esa-spaceweather.net...


And?

Where are the area of greats flux energies?

What is their shape in relation to the earth?

What was the TLI trajectory for the Apollo spacecraft in relation to the VABs?

How long were the spacecraft in the areas of highest energy?

Are there any scientists around who question the ability to transit the VABs?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Do you have fingers? Use them and look for yourself on the links in my other post
2nd Line.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!

So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: "Both are worse."Mitrofanov is Principle Investigator for the other radiation-sensing instrument on LRO, the Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND), which is partially funded by the Russian Federal Space Agency. By using an isotope of helium that's missing one neutron, LEND will be able to detect neutron radiation emanating from the lunar surface and measure how energetic those neutrons are.

The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe.



You know what they say, if it aint broke, dont fix it, why worry with new space-suits? What was wrong with the Apollo suits? Those astros came back with no radiation problems. But wait, weren't there test done during Apollo? What was this for:


Neutrons created by cosmic rays in collision with lunar materials were postulated to be a potential hazard to Apollo crewmen (ref. 6). It has been proposed that the neutron hazard be evaluated by the use of whole-body activation measurement of crewmen to determine the extent of neutron-induced sodium-24 and by use of neutron- resonant metal foils that have a known activation response for the type of neutrons expected. Both methods for neutron-dose assessment have been used at the NASA Manned Space- craft Center (MSC). Whole-body counting and neutron-resonant foil techniques had been initiated on the Apollo 11 mission. The results of these analyses indicated that neutron doses were significantly lower than had been anticipated. Activation products were below the limits of detection by whole-body spectroscopy, and activities were ex- tremely low even in the neutron-resonant foils (ref. 7). The whole-body and neutron-

resonant foil methods of neutron-dose determination have been retained because of the remaining potential for neutron production by solar-event particles or for excessive crewman exposure to neutrons from the SNAP- 27 radioisotope thermal generator used to power the Apollo lunar surface experiments packages.



history.nasa.gov...
www.universetoday.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
dbl post

[edit on 17-8-2010 by FoosM]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by crustas
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Do you have fingers? Use them and look for yourself on the links in my other post
2nd Line.


So since you know nothing about the VABs or this thread, for that matter, since all of those questions have been answered multiple times, what, exactly, is your purpose for posting essentially useless information?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


???
???

NOW, you're going on another tangent, about the EVA SUITS????

Gee....this is like saying that the SCUBA equipment that Jacques Cousteau invented was good enough, and never use new technology!!! :shk:



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!

So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: "Both are worse."Mitrofanov is Principle Investigator for the other radiation-sensing instrument on LRO, the Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND), which is partially funded by the Russian Federal Space Agency. By using an isotope of helium that's missing one neutron, LEND will be able to detect neutron radiation emanating from the lunar surface and measure how energetic those neutrons are.

The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe.



You know what they say, if it aint broke, dont fix it, why worry with new space-suits? What was wrong with the Apollo suits? Those astros came back with no radiation problems. But wait, weren't there test done during Apollo? What was this for:


Neutrons created by cosmic rays in collision with lunar materials were postulated to be a potential hazard to Apollo crewmen (ref. 6). It has been proposed that the neutron hazard be evaluated by the use of whole-body activation measurement of crewmen to determine the extent of neutron-induced sodium-24 and by use of neutron- resonant metal foils that have a known activation response for the type of neutrons expected. Both methods for neutron-dose assessment have been used at the NASA Manned Space- craft Center (MSC). Whole-body counting and neutron-resonant foil techniques had been initiated on the Apollo 11 mission. The results of these analyses indicated that neutron doses were significantly lower than had been anticipated. Activation products were below the limits of detection by whole-body spectroscopy, and activities were ex- tremely low even in the neutron-resonant foils (ref. 7). The whole-body and neutron-

resonant foil methods of neutron-dose determination have been retained because of the remaining potential for neutron production by solar-event particles or for excessive crewman exposure to neutrons from the SNAP- 27 radioisotope thermal generator used to power the Apollo lunar surface experiments packages.



history.nasa.gov...
www.universetoday.com...


When are you going to stop being so dishonest?

We all know (at least some of us) by now the discussion you posted involves improvement to space suits that will be worn by astronauts who are going to spend prolonged times on the moon. As has been pointed out over and over and over to you. There is a big difference between short-duration exposure (like through the Van Allen Belts) and long-term exposure, like on a mission to Mars or a permanant station on the Moon.

Your own source, YET AGAIN, contradicts you:


According to the Vision for Space Exploration, NASA plans to send astronauts back to the Moon by 2020 and, eventually, to set up an outpost. For people to live and work on the Moon safely, the radiation problem must be solved.

"We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a few days," says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University.



[edit on 17-8-2010 by Tomblvd]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Moon astronauts face X-ray danger




Future lunar astronauts could be harmed by X-ray outbursts from the Sun that occur without warning and can deliver dangerous doses of radiation in just a few minutes, a new study says. The researchers suggest that lunar rovers be equipped with metal shields that astronauts could duck behind during such events.

Oh noes! Now they got issues with X-rays




there is no warning that X-rays are on their way, as they are among the first signs of a solar flare.


It had been thought that the X-rays were not copious enough to be a major hazard, but a new study suggests X-rays really do pose a threat to astronauts working outside of protective spacecraft or bases. The research was carried out by David Smith at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory in Tucson, Arizona, US, and John Scalo of the University of Texas in Austin, US.




Using the observed rate of solar X-ray outbursts of different magnitudes, they worked out that a lunar astronaut has a 10% chance of receiving a dangerous dose of X-rays from a solar flare for every 100 hours of activity outside of shelters.





The level of radiation they consider harmful is 0.1 Gray or more, which can cause bleeding ulcers and other internal damage, and would certainly increase an astronaut's risk of cancer.

Smith says that because there would be no warning, the X-ray threat should not be ignored. He suggests that astronauts be given protective aluminium shields to carry with them when they roam far from base. "If you're on a rover or something miles from the Moon base, then you have no hope of getting back to shelter," Smith says.





He calculates that a shield with an area of three square metres and with a mass of 21 kilograms would keep astronauts safe from most X-ray flares.



what a joke


www.newscientist.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM



what a joke


Indeed. The questions you keep running away from are piling up, and you yet again manage a post that has nothing to do with Apollo.

Foos, we aren't laughing with you, we're laughing AT you.

A joke indeed.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM



what a joke


www.newscientist.com...


And speaking of jokes, Foos has YET AGAIN found a source that contradicts him!

An example from the same article he quotes:


NASA has long recognised that protons and other particles spewed out by solar flares pose a threat to astronaut safety, but particles are relatively easy to block with layers of polyethylene.


So all that screaming about the VABs is thrown out the window (heh) with one sentence.

And this:


It had been thought that the X-rays were not copious enough to be a major hazard, but a new study suggests X-rays really do pose a threat to astronauts working outside of protective spacecraft or bases.

****snip****

Using the observed rate of solar X-ray outbursts of different magnitudes, they worked out that a lunar astronaut has a 10% chance of receiving a dangerous dose of X-rays from a solar flare for every 100 hours of activity outside of shelters.


****snip****

Smith says that because there would be no warning, the X-ray threat should not be ignored. He suggests that astronauts be given protective aluminium shields to carry with them when they roam far from base. "If you're on a rover or something miles from the Moon base, then you have no hope of getting back to shelter," Smith says.


So the whole article is about protecting astronauts outside shelter, protected only by spacesuits. Nobody on this thread has ever said an astronaut was not in extreme danger if caught outside the spacecraft during a high intestity solar event.

But then again, according to Foos' own source, that's highly unlikely:


Marcelo Vazquez of Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York, US, who studies the health effects of particle radiation, agrees that there is a risk, but stresses the flares that produce large quantities of X-rays are not common. "The frequency of those events is very rare - it's not likely to happen," he says. "The main concern is solar particle events."


Nice job Foos.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

A 10% chance of dangerous xray exposure in 100 hours of EVA.

Without knowing how that was calculated it's not easy to relate that to Apollo but the EVAs on Apollo 17 lasted a total of 22.1 hours. A 2% chance?

Calculated risk by professional risk takers.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Why are you asking me for something that was already said?
To fill the space? Or just because you want? Or to waist my time?

And i was only answering with sources about a question made by Phage.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

A 10% chance of dangerous xray exposure in 100 hours of EVA.

Without knowing how that was calculated it's not easy to relate that to Apollo but the EVAs on Apollo 17 lasted a total of 22.1 hours. A 2% chance?

Calculated risk by professional risk takers.




Add up total time spent on the moon by Apollo.
Remember, this was all within the solar maximum.
And remember, X-rays pass through aluminum shielding... and as we all should know the LM shielding was very thin.

Calculated risk

You dont get it do you, you cant read between the lies, er... lines.
They didnt know the risks. They simply didnt know enough about the space environment back in the 1960's to risk men. There is risk taking and there is suicide.

Going to the moon is a suicide mission.

Here:

By the last mission to the moon, Apollo crews had traversed a total distance of more than 97 km (60 mi) on the lunar surface and spent over 160 man-hours outside the LM.


And nothing happened? Nothing? And you are right, we dont know what they meant by 10% chance, spread over how many years, during Solar Max or Solar Min? They are being vague. But regardless, its chipping away at the probability of a successful missions. , 10% here20% there


Remember, the Soviets said :

Soviets consider Apollo 8 has no chance of success - . Nation: USSR. Related Persons: Tyulin. Program: Apollo; Lunar L1. Flight: Apollo 8. Tyulin is still complaining that the VVS never signed the L1 design specification.

But the crews are ready for flight. The flight of Apollo 8 to the moon is announced. Kamanin considers this an adventure with no chance of success. After all, there have been only two Saturn V launches, the last one a partial failure. The US has never flown a crew to escape velocity or lunar distance. The whole thing is a risky, unsafe adventure.


This was 1968, only a year before trying to land a man on the moon. Wow.

Again

Kamanin judges that the Apollo 8 mission is only being flown to give US President Lyndon Johnson a triumph before he leaves office. He judges the mission has only a 25% chance of success.




www.astronomytoday.com...
www.astronautix.com...
www.astronautix.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM



what a joke


www.newscientist.com...


And speaking of jokes, Foos has YET AGAIN found a source that contradicts him!

An example from the same article he quotes:


NASA has long recognised that protons and other particles spewed out by solar flares pose a threat to astronaut safety, but particles are relatively easy to block with layers of polyethylene.


So all that screaming about the VABs is thrown out the window (heh) with one sentence.


Yeah because they had that option for Apollo right? Why didn't I see that before



The team is examining new shielding materials that not only block and/or fragment more radiation than aluminum -- the material currently used to build most spacecraft structures -- but also are lighter than aluminum. Spacecraft designers have to be able to shape shielding materials to make various parts of the spacecraft. The material must protect the crew from radiation, and it must also deflect dangerous micrometeoroids. The shielding must be durable and long lasting -- able to stand up to the harsh space environment.

Polyethylene is a good shielding material because it has high hydrogen content, and hydrogen atoms are good at absorbing and dispersing radiation. In fact, researchers have been studying the use of polyethylene as a shielding material for some time







Nice job Foos.




Thanks!

www.nasa.gov...


[edit on 18-8-2010 by FoosM]



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 169  170  171    173  174  175 >>

log in

join