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: 181
377
<< 178  179  180    182  183  184 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
By the Numbers


In one of my last posts I asked did a major flare occur during any of the Apollo missions. I realized, based on the different responses that the definition of what a major flare is still vague. Or at least some people have a difficulty agreeing upon what major is.

DJW001 says it best:



You even provided a definition of "major flare," although not all of your sources seem to be using that definition. They also tend to use expressions like "large" in a subjective, comparative fashion. Most solar flare research has focussed on the interaction of the Sun on the Earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere with an eye on their effects on communication. A solar flare that is highly disruptive of the ionosphere, and hence, radio communication may be considered "large" by such a researcher, although it may have no proton flux and be considered as "mild" by someone concerned with astronaut safety.


So for example:


During the last 6 hours, it has produced three major solar flares. The most intense in x-rays as a class X1.2 event at 00:43 UTC on 15 January. However, this flare was weak compared to the punch produced several hours later by a long-duration class M8.6 event at 06:38 UTC. The M8.6 event is shown in an x-ray image taken by the SXI instrument on the GOES spacecraft:

This long-duration major flare accelerated energetic protons that reached the Earth in less than two hours which have the potential to increase radiation levels in space where spacecraft operate (no danger exists to humans on Earth).

www.spacew.com...

A situation where the normally more powerful X-type flare has less energetic proton "punch" then the lesser M-type flare.
So was both the X-class flare and M-class flares have the potential to be "major" flares in terms of their proton flux.
We also have this article:


As a result, we selected 166 proton events that were associated with major flares; 85 events associated with X-class flares and 81 events associated with M-class flares.

www.fin.ucar.edu...

Again, both X-class flares and M-class flares are potentially dangerous for space travel in terms of their proton flux. But using the X, M, C class system can be confusing in terms of determining energetic protons. Because:


The X-ray solar flares are classified according to their X-ray brightness in the wavelength range 1 to 8 Å. This brightness is measured as the peak intensity of the burst by the GOES satellites.
• X-class flares have intensities greater than or equal to 10-4 W/m². These events that can trigger planet-wide radio blackouts and long-lasting radiation storms.
• M-class flares have intensities greater than or equal to 10-5 W/m² and lower than 10-4 W/m². They can cause brief radio blackouts especially in the Earth's polar regions.
• C-class flares have intensities greater than or equal to 10-6 W/m² and lower than 10-5 W/m². They have few noticeable consequences on Earth.

sidstation.lionelloudet.homedns.org...

Another way to measure solar flares is optically:


The optical solar flares are classified according to their solid angle at the time of maximum brightness in H-alpha (at the wavelength of 656.3 nm).

• a class 4 flare has a solid angle greater than or equal to 24.8 square degrees
• a class 3 flare has a solid angle in the range 12.5 to 24.7 square degrees
• a class 2 flare has a solid angle in the range 5.2 to 12.4 square degrees
• a class 1 flare has a solid angle in the range 2.1 to 5.1 square degrees
• a class 0 flare has a solid angle lower than or equal to 2.0 square degrees
The class is usually followed by a brightness qualifier F (Faint), N (Normal), or B (Brilliant).

sidstation.lionelloudet.homedns.org...

Where
Class 1 Frequency of occurrence 82% duration 20 minutes - energetic particles up to 500Mev
Class 2 Frequency of occurrence 16% duration 30 minutes
Class 3 Frequency of occurrence 1.7% duration 1 to 2 hours
Class 3+ Frequency of occurrence 0.16% duration 2+ hours (I assume)


Information regarding the VABs we get that:

The proton belts contain protons with kinetic energies ranging from about 100 keV (which can penetrate 0.6 mm (0.23 inches) of lead) to over 400 MeV (which can penetrate 143 mm (5.62 inches) of lead)


We know that lead (11.36g/cm^3) is denser than aluminum (2.70g/cm^3)

Lets take a look at the Command Module

The CM was a conical pressure vessel with a maximum diameter of 3.9 m at its base and a height of 3.65 m. It was made of an aluminum honeycomb sandwhich bonded between sheet aluminum alloy. The base of the CM consisted of a heat shield made of brazed stainless steel honeycomb filled with a phenolic epoxy resin as an ablative material and varied in thickness from 1.8 to 6.9 cm.

(nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...)

143 mm is 14.3 cm. 400MeV would penetrate any area of the CM as its thickest area was 6.9cm. And thats just the CM we know that:

"According to John Wilford the SWIP
program (Super Weight Improvement Program) whittled the outer skin of the LEM until it
was, "about the thickness of heavy-duty aluminum foil..."
page 129*

As I just earlier stated, even a Class 1 flare can have energetic particles up to 500Mev. So any flare, Class 1 and up, can be dangerous to even shielded astronauts.

But energetic proton flux is not the only danger from the flare.


Flares release energy in many forms – electromagnetic (gamma rays and X-rays), energetic particles (protons and electrons), and mass flows.

www.daviddarling.info...

You got that one-two punch- left lead right cross.



en.wikipedia.org...
*"NASA MOONED AMERICA !" By Ralph Rene
books.google.nl...=onepage&q=proton%20flux%20led%20f lares&f=false



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Flare Up



The one of interest here is entitled "Problems in Radiation Shielding of Space Vehicles"
co-authored by Keller, Shelton, Burrell and Downey, four NASA experts. On page 244 they
describe the problem, "Space explorers will be concerned with great radiation belts upon
leaving the Earth, with the background of cosmic radiation that pervades all space, with the
violent particle radiation storms associated with solar activity, and with the radiation belts
around planets to be visited."



On page 253, a chart lists the shielding effects from various materials. I was surprised to
see that water is one of the more effective shields. The chart shows the various amounts of
material necessary to stop the primary protons at their different energy levels. Their chart
shows that stopping a 10 MEV (million electron volts) particle requires 10 cm of water, for a
25 MEV particle you need 25 cm of water, and a 50 MEV event seems to call for 90 cm. The
first two are not very energetic particles because the Sun emits particles of several BEV
(billion electron volts). By contrast, a working atomic reactor emits particles in the 18
MEV range.



On page 256 of Astronautical Engineering and Science, there is a chart that shows the
dosage of four different flares. On August 22, 1958 there was a low energy flare that could
have been reduced to 25 rem per hour with 2 cm of water shielding. On May 10, 1960 there
was high flux, low energy flare that would have needed over 36 cm of water to reduce it to
25 rem per hour. There was an intermediate energy flare on November 12, 1960 and it would
have required 18 cm of shielding to reduce it to the 25 rem per hour. A high energy event
happened on February 23, 1956 which would have required over 35 cm (12-inches) of
shielding water to bring it down to 25 rem per hour.



McKinnon, the governments own expert, telling us: "A probability
of 10-20% should be considered a low probability for class M events, ..." Only a large flare
can be a class M which a medium X-ray emitter event. He also says that at least 1 % will be
the deadliest of solar storms, Class X.



there is complete list of the flares for 25 years.
The total number of flares for the period is 134,793. This averages out to 5,391 flares
per year or 14.76 per day. The Apollo astros... spent a total of 85 days in space. Thus
during that period of time the average number of flares that could be expected was 1254. If
we use... the monthly totals for these same periods of time, we find the total to be 1485 flares.
This increase is expected because the trips took place at the high end of that solar cycle.



To send all these missions to the Moon without reporting severe radiation problems,
NASA is effectively telling us is that not one flare emitted heavy X-Rays or protons during
this time period. But McKinnon's probability of 1 % would mean, at least, 13 super deadly
flares of X rated capacity or over one per mission. In addition they should have been exposed
to 268 M class (medium) flares which is 1/5 of the total number. M class flares are also
deadly without the 2 meters of shielding. Referring again to the chart on p. 256 of
Astronautical Engineering... we see that any hull of one cm thickness would have allowed
70,000 rem for each intermediate flare into the module and many times more from an X-
rated flare.



Mauldin states: "Cosmic particles are dangerous, come from all sides, and require at least
2 meters of solid shielding around all living organisms." "Solar (or star) flares of protons, an
occasional and severe hazard on the way out of and into planetary systems, can give doses of
hundreds to thousands of rem over a few hours at the distance of Earth. Such doses are fatal
and millions of times greater than the permitted dose. Death is likely after 500 rems in any
short time, . . . "

page 134-135


Jarrah visualizes further the NOAA data in his videos:



Point is, per day there were between 10 to 30 flares identified during Apollo missions.
If go by 10 flares a day and if say 20% of those emitted proton events that would still leave at least 2 flares
a day to account for.



NASA MOONED AMERICA !
By Ralph Rene



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
"X" marks the spot

The use of "X" can signify many things.
For example, it can be used as a deadly warning as in skull with cross bones, or even death as in drawing "x"s for eyes.
Mutation as in X-men, or a marking where something important has been hidden or buried,

In my last post I highlighted flare information gleaned from NOAA data.

Now Im going to point you readers to the following:

www.ta3.sk...

I posted this link before.
It shows the monthly count of LDE flares from 69 to 89.
These flares account for most of the proton particles in interplanetary space.


Apollo 10 -05/18 to 05/26 1969 days in space= 8 X-class flares = 2 M-class flares = 11
Apollo 11 -07/16 to 07/24 1969 days in space= 8 X-class flares = 1 M-class flares = 7
Apollo 12 -11/14 to 11/24 1969 days in space= 10 X-class flares = 12 M-class flares = 12
Apollo 13 -04/11 to 04/17 1970 days in space= 6 X-class flares = 1 M-class flares = 10
Apollo 14 -01/31 to 02/09 1971 days in space= 10 X-class flares = 0 M-class flares = 9
Apollo 15 -07/26 to 08/07 1971 days in space= 12 X-class flares = 0 M-class flares = 7
Apollo 16 -04/16 to 04/27 1972 days in space= 13 X-class flares = 0 M-class flares = 2
Apollo 17 -12/07 to 12/19 1972 days in space= 12 X-class flares = 1 M-class flares = 5

I count at least 17 X-class LDE flares occurring during months of Apollo



The extraordinary solar storms between 18 October 2003 and 5 November 2003 include over 140 flares,primarily from two different large sunspot groups. There were 11 large X-class flares during this period, including an X17 flare on 28 October 2003 and an X28 flare on4 November 2003



cat.inist.fr...



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


As I just earlier stated, even a Class 1 flare can have energetic particles up to 500Mev. So any flare, Class 1 and up, can be dangerous to even shielded astronauts.
You may have said it but you did not provide any source showing that a Class 1 optical flare will produce 500MeV particles.



But energetic proton flux is not the only danger from the flare.

Right. The levels of electromagnetic radiation emitted during solar flares are easily shielded against. As the article you found concerning long term exposure on the Moon pointed out. The skin of the spacecraft was entirely adequate.

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.
www.newscientist.com...



Point is, per day there were between 10 to 30 flares identified during Apollo missions. If go by 10 flares a day and if say 20% of those emitted proton events that would still leave at least 2 flares a day to account for.
Please provide a source for 10 to 30 flares per day for Apollo missions. But why do you say 20% of flares produce proton events when your own source says this:

We found that about only 3.5% (1.9% for M-class and 21.3% for X-class) of the flares are associated with the proton events.
www.fin.ucar.edu...
So, if there were 10 X-class flares a day two of them may have produced proton events (statistically). If there were 10 M-class flares, the chances are very slight that a proton event would have occurred.

Now, since you've been doing your homework (but not very well) here's a prize, the actual catalog of solar flares (M and X). As you found out, there were 12 X-class flares in November of 1969. 7 of them occurred during Apollo 12, the strongest being X5 (3 of them). Based on that 21.3% figure we saw earlier that means that 1 or 2 might have produced a proton event but...referring back to that article, the solar longitude of the flare is very important. Flares which occur between 30ºW and 90ºW are three times as likely to produce a proton event as those between 30ºE and 90ºE. Out of those 7 flares only one occurred in that western range (just barely).
adsabs.harvard.edu...


So. What about those proton events? How many occurred during the lunar missions? None. Proton events are rare. Very powerful ones are extremely rare. Here's another prize for you.
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

[edit on 8/31/2010 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





“I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect.” - Oscar Wilde




Thank you Phage. Nicely done.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   
FoosM, i've made this point to you before but you still dont seem to get it. We are dealing with a past period here, so measured data will exist. You can give all the definitions you want, but the one thing you have never provided is hard data.

If you want to claim that there was a major solar mass ejection event during an Apollo mission, you need to provide the data that measured and quantified that event. Providing probabilities is a pointless exercise here: you could do that if you wanted to talk about the risk to future missions but when dealing with a past occurance it is meaningless. Similarly providing "major flare" occurances without measured ejection data is meaningless, because it is the ejected particles that are the threat and not the occurance of a flare.

We have provided the radiation data that NASA measured during the missions. If you wish to discard this, provide your own. We can then judge it on its merits.

Show us the data, or concede your point.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 


As I just earlier stated, even a Class 1 flare can have energetic particles up to 500Mev. So any flare, Class 1 and up, can be dangerous to even shielded astronauts.
You may have said it but you did not provide any source showing that a Class 1 optical flare will produce 500MeV particles.


But energetic proton flux is not the only danger from the flare.
Right. The levels of electromagnetic radiation emitted during solar flares are easily shielded against. As the article you found concerning long term exposure on the Moon pointed out. The skin of the spacecraft was entirely adequate.

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.
www.newscientist.com...


Point is, per day there were between 10 to 30 flares identified during Apollo missions. If go by 10 flares a day and if say 20% of those emitted proton events that would still leave at least 2 flares a day to account for.
Please provide a source for 10 to 30 flares per day for Apollo missions. But why do you say 20% of flares produce proton events when your own source says this:

We found that about only 3.5% (1.9% for M-class and 21.3% for X-class) of the flares are associated with the proton events.
www.fin.ucar.edu...
So, if there were 10 X-class flares a day two of them may have produced proton events (statistically). If there were 10 M-class flares, the chances are very slight that a proton event would have occurred.

Now, since you've been doing your homework (but not very well) here's a prize, the actual catalog of solar flares (M and X). As you found out, there were 12 X-class flares in November of 1969. 7 of them occurred during Apollo 12, the strongest being X5 (3 of them). Based on that 21.3% figure we saw earlier that means that 1 or 2 might have produced a proton event but...referring back to that article, the solar longitude of the flare is very important. Flares which occur between 30ºW and 90ºW are three times as likely to produce a proton event as those between 30ºE and 90ºE. Out of those 7 flares only one occurred in that western range (just barely).
....
So. What about those proton events? How many occurred during the lunar missions? None. Proton events are rare. Very powerful ones are extremely rare. Here's another prize for you...


Excellent post, Phage. Readers should note how succinct, and to the point, that was. Compare it to the reams of unsupporting text posted out-of-context above by FoosM - it shows the difference between those who know the subject, and those who are working to an agenda.

But may I suggest a PAUSE in this thread. As is obvious, FoosM will continue to scattergun, move the goalposts, change topics, post selective and uncited quotes, and in particular.. HE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS, pretending they come from his quotes and references.

So how about making him face up to it and demanding he explain himself? If he can't support these claims, then it is an admission that he will lie to support his case.

So let's be very specific - up above, as Phage noted, Foosm said this:


Point is, per day there were between 10 to 30 flares identified during Apollo missions. If go by 10 flares a day and if say 20% of those emitted proton events that would still leave at least 2 flares a day to account for.


I think it's time for FoosM to stand up for his claims. SUPPORT THOSE NUMBERS FoosM. BEFORE you change the subject.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The levels of electromagnetic radiation emitted during solar flares are easily shielded against. The skin of the spacecraft was entirely adequate.


Hello, can you comment on Eleanor Blakely's statement from Jarrah's video that aluminium shielding would cause particles to fragment, and rather than shielding it would exacerbate the problem.

Her section starts at 1.15.



Also, here is her CV.

hacd.jsc.nasa.gov...



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by Phage
The levels of electromagnetic radiation emitted during solar flares are easily shielded against. The skin of the spacecraft was entirely adequate.


Hello, can you comment on Eleanor Blakely's statement from Jarrah's video that aluminium shielding would cause particles to fragment, and rather than shielding it would exacerbate the problem.

Her section starts at 1.15.

[SPAM LINK DELETED]

Also, here is her CV.

hacd.jsc.nasa.gov...


ppk I for one am not giving JW any more hits. He has a PROVEN record of lying and distorting facts.

So, YOU find the IN CONTEXT quote you wish to discuss, and give YOUR opinion.

Let me spell this out.. STOP SPAMMING JARRAH WHITE.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Your arguments are quite sound and would be better if they did not contain insults. It is a pity you could not go back and edit them all out, as this thread would be an excellent research resource without them. Alas.

Exuberant won't see this (the 'champion of debate' has me blocked..) but I would URGE the other members here to make exuberant responsible for his words. He should be asked to back up his very clear inference that many or all of Pinke's arguments contain insults.

If he cannot back that up, he should have the cojones to admit he was wrong, and APOLOGISE.


Well, Exuberant has been back to ATS since this, and has posted not once... but ten times on other threads.

Yet he HASN'T returned here. Hoping everyone will forget? Hasn't got the intestinal fortitude to admit error and to apologise?

Make your own judgement, dear reader. Is he a 'champion of debate'?



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Apollo 12 - Pinpoint For Science



Apollo 12 was the sixth manned flight in the United States Apollo program and the second to land on the Moon (a H type mission). It was launched on November 14, 1969, four months after Apollo 11. Mission commander Charles "Pete" Conrad and Lunar Module Pilot Alan L. Bean performed just over one day and seven hours of lunar surface activity while Command Module Pilot Richard F Gordon remained in lunar orbit. The landing site for the mission was the Ocean of Storms.


Average Radiation Exposure
For Apollo Flight Crews
A11 0.18
A12 0.58
A14 1.14


it comes down to this:

The records also show that no major solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions,

www.xmission.com...

I asked the question many pages ago, is that true?

Forum member Phage proves once and for all, that it is not true.
Major Solar Flares did occur during Apollo. Thank you Phage,
at least you had a the guts to investigate and come with the proof.

Windley should revise his his Clavius website.

tbc



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
The Dirty Dozen




Apollo 12-12-12

The Launch


Apollo 12 launched on schedule from Kennedy Space Center, during a rainstorm. It was the first rocket launch attended by an incumbent US president, Richard Nixon. Thirty-six-and-a-half seconds after lift-off, the vehicle triggered a lightning discharge through itself and down to the earth through the Saturn's ionized plume. Protective circuits on the fuel cells in the service module falsely detected overloads and took all three fuel cells offline, along with much of the CSM instrumentation. A second strike at 52 seconds after launch knocked out the "8-ball" attitude indicator. The telemetry stream at Mission Control was garbled nonsense. However, the Saturn V continued to fly correctly; the strikes had not affected the Saturn V's Instrument Unit.



Legendary EECOM John Aaron (the original NASA "steely eyed missile man")[2]remembered the telemetry failure pattern from an earlier test when a power supply malfunctioned in the CSM Signal Conditioning Equipment (SCE)



Aaron made a call: "Try SCE to aux". This switched the SCE to a backup power supply. The switch was fairly obscure and neither the Flight Director, CAPCOM, nor Commander Conrad immediately recognized it. Lunar module pilot Alan Bean, flying in the right seat as the CSM systems engineer, remembered the SCE switch from a training incident a year earlier when

the same failure had been simulated

. Aaron's quick thinking and Bean's memory saved what could have been an aborted mission.


wow....
BTW, keep that in mind... Bean's memory.

Compare that to this 'attempted' launch:


CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. – The lightning that thwarted today's planned launch of the space shuttle Endeavour is a familiar problem for NASA's shuttle fleet.

NASA called a 24-hour delay to Endeavour's scheduled STS-127 lift off to investigate possible damage after a powerful electrical storm hit yesterday and 11 lightning bolts impacted Launch Pad 39A here at the seaside Kennedy Space Center.



The Florida coast is often the victim of lightning, as frequent thunderstorms and even hurricanes come in from the ocean on the East. If lightning does occur nearby, the giant metal space shuttle standing tall atop its launch pad tends to attract the brunt of it.

In 2006 the space shuttle Atlantis postponed its STS-115 flight after a powerful lightning bolt impacted with a current of 100,000 amps – the strongest lightning strike yet.



And lightning isn't just a risk while the vehicles sit at the pad; If lightning struck a shuttle during flight the results could be disastrous, as the shuttle contains sensitive vital electronics and flammable propellant. The rocket's pyrotechnic system – the fuel materials that undergo chemical reactions to ignite and thrust the shuttle space-ward – could easily ignite if hit with a powerful electric shock.



That's why NASA takes careful precautions not to launch if there is a chance of an electrical storm in the area. The metal shuttle could even cause a lightning bolt while flying through the sky.
www.space.com...

Ummmm.... OK.

The trip through the VABs as 'remembered' by Alan Bean (trained pilot)



That was Alan Bean right? Now how can this highly trained space farer not remember or know about the Van Allen Belts? What he probably meant was, he doesn't remember going through the belts because they stayed in LEO? Or, maybe, as some theorize, they never left Earth at all?


On the Moon.
EVA 1, 60 mm, ALSEP DEPLOYMENT


Remember this, Blue Glowing Astronauts?
This was brought up a while ago on this very thread,
and we have yet to determine how it happened.
Maybe we now have found the answer...
were these astronauts hit with a Solar Flare?
astronaut blues


In my last post I presented some numbers.
And, as I suspected there were some glaring large number that any
keen eyed investigator noticed.

Apollo 12: With its 12 LDE X-class 12 LDE M-class flares
the most out of any mission.

And those are only LDE flares, we are not even considering other types
such as Impulsive flares.

With that many flares the first thing that is apparent the
Van Allen Radiation belts would be charged up.
Meaning areas of low intensity would become highly intense.
It could also mean that a third or even fourth belt could be created.

As a matter of fact, Van Allen said this:




"The two original belts are quite distinct within zone.
But the fact is that you can map almost any number of belts,
depending on what kind of particle you're interested in."

[Popular Science Apr 1963, page 73]

In other words data is open to manipulation.


The closest call came when the Apollo 12 spacecraft's external radiation sensors detected a minor flare,
but the interior sensors did not indicate that any appreciable amount of this radiation penetrated the spacecraft hull.

www.xmission.com...

A minor flare? Oh Windley, you sooooo crazy

Phage you have to admit, with that document you presented, his statement sound very funny

Somebody needs to be sued because those sensors were rubbish.
Someone sold NASA a lemon.
No but seriously, maybe that lightning strike caused some damage?
No? Gremlins?
What about... saboteurs?







en.wikipedia.org...
www.nasm.si.edu...
umbra.nascom.nasa.gov...
epact2.gsfc.nasa.gov...

tbc




[edit on 31-8-2010 by FoosM]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Lets take a look at you provided Phage-
(I must say, when I first discovered this document, my jaw was on the floor, you must of saw this coming right Phage
):



Now it looks like we have 10 flares that occured during Apollo 12:








At 20% comes out to at least 2 of those flares would release
energetic proton fluxes... but wait...
We know all those flares have fluxes




Feel free to PROVE that these flares did not emit any energetic proton flux.
Go find that data in your NASA / NOAA websites and show it to us.
Or better, from independent third parties.

Until someone does so, every single one of those flares caused an interstellar SPE.

So out of those 10 flares, 7 were X-class.
Out of those 7 X-class flares 3 of them,
spread across every part of the Apollo 12 journey (going, landing, coming), had a SID at the maximum of 3+ !!!
I mean thats just CRAZY! And no one sounded the alarm?


Three of the X-class flares were measured up to X-5.
Thats pretty high.

Lets compare them to others


1978
Apr 29/0445 Apr 30/2000 (peak proton flux)
1,000 (PFU >10MeV)
Apr 28/1306 (Flare occurred)
X5/4B

1985
Apr 24/1515 Apr 24/2330
160
Apr 24/1400
X5/2B

1990
May 21/2355 May 22/0750
410
May 21/2219
X5/2B

2000
Jul 14/1045 Jul 15/1230
24,000 (wow!)
Jul 14/1024
X5/3B


So those three flares PFU could range from anywhere from 100 to 25.000!

Now what I want you to pay attention to is the Peak Proton Flux- notice how long after the flare the proton flux peaks! See, the flare, #83, that went off at 5:50 occurred before the astronauts put their boots (supposedly) on the moon. Now I know many will argue... they weren't out on their EVA during that time- which is true, but they very well could have been out on the EVA during the PEAK PROTON FLUX! Which we all know the astros had no shielding for! Even if they were curled up in the LM!






particle intensities can rise above this limit to a peak when the shock itselfpasses over the observer creating a ‘delayed’ radiation hazard, even for protons with energies up to ~1 GeV. The streaming limit makes us blind to the intensities at the oncoming shock...


Lets take a look at what kind of shielding would be needed for the proton fluxes.


As we consider long-duration missions to the moon or Mars or on the International Space Station(ISS) at high latitude, the risk from rare large events increases. Protons of ~30 MeV penetrate spacesuits and spacecraft walls, those of 130 MeV require 20 g cm-2 of shielding. Events, like that of 1972 August 4, would havebeen fatal to poorly shielded astronauts and large events of 1989 September and October produced significant doses, as did the event of 2000 July 14.

(from that X5 flare that I posted)


Wow... devastating find Phage. Devastating.


It only takes about 30MeV to penetrate suits guys. Only 30.
And if the CM Pilot thought he was safe, sorry 130 MeV and its lights out.


... Soft radiation, with E ~40 MeV, begins to penetrate spacecraft walls, while hard radiation, with E >130MeV, can penetrates 5 cm of Al and becomes extremely difficult to shield. Behind 10 g cm-2 of material astro-nauts would receive a dose ~4 rem hr-1 at intensities in the 1989 September event, accumulating their annual doselimit, currently 50 rem...


Again as stated in my previous post the CM varied in thickness from 1.8 to 6.9 cm and it was rated at 7 to 8 g/cm2.
And, so far nobody has been able to explain how those windows in the CM or LM could shield against any kind of radiation besides the kind you can stop with sunblock or paper.

Now how do you explain that many X-class flares with no warnings to the astronauts. How do you explain that they came back with minor radiation exposure comparing to other missions. As a matter of fact, how are they even alive?

I know, many would use that old circular argument 'There was no SPE recorded during Apollo missions'. Well we just proved there SHOULD have been SPEs recorded during Apollo. I mean really, you think a government wouldn't lie to cover up lie?


Again, these are only a portion of the flares that occurred during Apollo.
But the rest are moot, considering the devastating evidence that proves that Apollo 12 could not have occurred. And if one mission is a lie, well you might as well say they are all lies.


en.wikipedia.org...
www.nasm.si.edu...
umbra.nascom.nasa.gov...
epact2.gsfc.nasa.gov...
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu... il=&emailsize=500&emailsplit=YES&send=GET&verified=YES



[edit on 31-8-2010 by FoosM]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

The game never started. You continue to completely ignore or fail to understand the whole concept.


(I must say, when I first discovered this document, my jaw was on the floor, you must of saw this coming right Phage)

What? You discovered nothing. I showed it to you.


At 20% comes out to at least 2 of those flares would release
energetic proton fluxes... but wait...
We know all those flares have fluxes

Do we know that? We are only able to detect the energetic particles which are directed toward Earth by the IMF. But in any case the only particles which are of concern are those which impact the Earth-Moon system. Your 20% figure is wrong, as pointed out earlier. You are ignoring the solar location of the flare. Remember? Your own source?

(1) We found that about only 3.5% (1.9% for M-class and 21.3% for X-class) of the flares are associated with the proton events. (2) It is also found that this fraction strongly depends on longitude; for example, the fraction for 30°W < L ≤ 90°W is about three times larger than that for 30°E < L ≤90°E.
www.fin.ucar.edu...
Note that #83 occurred in the eastern zone, giving it only a 5% chance of causing a proton event. X class flares in the western region have a 15% chance of producing an SEP. Why are you ignoring your own source?

The last resort, a demand to prove a negative. You have it backwards. It is up to you to prove that there was a major SEP during an Apollo mission. Intense proton events are rare. None occurred during any of the Apollo missions. Unless of course you can prove that they did. You're the one saying they happened. Prove it. Saying "it must have happened” doesn't cut it. And apparently you don't understand how statistics and odds work. If something has a 50% chance of occurring it doesn't matter how many times it hasn't happened, each occurrence has that same 50% chance. Each time you flip a coin you have the same odds, even if you got tails for the past four flips it's still 50/50. Each X-class flare in the western area of the Sun has that 15% chance of producing an SEP.

I gave you this prize. Didn't you like it? No strong SEPs.

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

[edit on 9/1/2010 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   
I knew he couldn't do it, and would come back with more pages of out of context and misunderstood irrelevance.

If nothing else he is predictable.

Clipping out all the garbage above, the only attempted point made by Foosm was:

Originally posted by FoosM
..Forum member Phage proves once and for all, that it is not true.
Major Solar Flares did occur during Apollo.


As pointed out, without a definition of the term 'major', that is a STUPID and IRRELEVANT statement. In regard to what would be termed major solar storms in terms of a major risk to the astronaut's health, there were NONE, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH during the Apollo missions, and very few over the entire Apollo era.

In fact, let's look at a REAL graph (well, 2-in-1 actually):


Let me put that in SIMPLE terms. IF any Apollo astronauts had been on the lunar surface, and unable to get to cover in time, it is possible that the August 1972 solar event may have been fatal.

That was the only time during that ENTIRE period that there was an event that would have likely caused an aborted mission.

But as we know, there was no Apollo mission at that time.

Simple really, isn't it.. Note how few words are required? FoosM thinks people will be impressed by reams of text, as he attempts to bury his complete lack of knowledge.

Compared to the risk of, say, the Saturn V exploding, or the ascent engine on the LM failing to ignite, or any of a myriad other things that could have gone wrong, the radiation risk was very small, understood, and manageable.

Or at least it was/is to everyone except the cowardly FoosM and his ilk, who obviously will be cowering in the basement if anyone mentions the magic word "Aurora"..


Note - I am dong a foosm by not citing this graph.. just yet. I will later, when I finish my radiation treatise.. In the meantime, I'm keeping a few sources up my sleeve, for a few little unpleasant surprises for the denier camp...



[edit on 1-9-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Feel free to PROVE that these flares did not emit any energetic proton flux.
Go find that data in your NASA / NOAA websites and show it to us.
Or better, from independent third parties.

Until someone does so, every single one of those flares caused an interstellar SPE.


Congratulations, you've learned something about SPE's. Now you just need to cross the bridge to major SPE and you're there.

I'll even help you out. There are two main variables. These are the energy carried by the protons and size of the ejection (ie how many particles are ejected). So for an SPE to be a threat it needs to be both high energy and a high number of protons ejected. Hence the flux data that Phage provided, which shows the number of particles at difference energies.

Further to the data Phage showed (which is what i was challenging you to post), here's some other summary data for you. In the period 1956 to 1985, there were 140 proton events that had proton energies exceeding 30MeV. Of those, only one was a large enough discharge to actually be dangerous and be classed a major SPE; the 1972 event. Thats how rare these major SPE's actually are.

So now maybe you can complete the picture for yourself. An SPE will have protons at certain energies. You need a high number of high energy particles for an SPE to be dangerous to astronauts. This did not occur during any Apollo mission.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I'm sorry I missed all the excitement here, it looks like everyone has been working overtime. FoosM has copied and pasted a great deal of information. Hopefully some of it wore off on him during the process. His sidebar on Apollo 12 deserves some quick attention, however. As is sometimes the case, you have stumbled upon a potential "dirty little secret," but have distorted it because of your preconceived ideas. Every decision to launch contained a certain amount of built in controversy. Some factions, such as Range Safety, might vote never to launch at all. NASA was working to an arbitrary time table, and political considerations often came into play. As I recall, the contractors were not thrilled about sending Apollo 8 all the way to the Moon on schedule. The presence of Richard Nixon at the launch may well have encouraged the flight team to give the mission a "go" despite the increased risks. A political decision: make the new boss happy. This would not happen today.

The very public loss of two space shuttles works against the current philosophy of the "normalization" of space. Space tourism is now an established (albeit minute) sector of the economy. Travelling into space should be perceived by the (wealthy) public as being no more exotic or dangerous than flying to Brazil. In 1970, astronauts were heroes facing great danger. In the coming years, they will be tourists.

The Apollo spacecraft was primitive in comparison with the space shuttle. The shuttle is highly dependent on thousands of small microprocessors, each of which is highly susceptible to electrical damage. The Apollo electronics were simpler and more robust. (Toggle switches? Incandescent bulbs? Rotary switches? Rheostats?)

Fortunately for the mission, Apollo was planned with "triple redundancy," which means that even the back-up systems has back-up systems. All Alan Bean had to do was flip a manual over-ride switch. He was indeed a trained pilot with an excellent memory. Now you know why NASA spent so much time and effort running simulations. They were prepared for every eventuality.

Why do you question Alan Bean's memory? Why should he remember passing through the Van Allen Belts? It's not as if there was some huge light show going on outside the window. It was just "empty space."



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Your arguments are quite sound and would be better if they did not contain insults. It is a pity you could not go back and edit them all out, as this thread would be an excellent research resource without them. Alas.

Exuberant won't see this (the 'champion of debate' has me blocked..) but I would URGE the other members here to make exuberant responsible for his words. He should be asked to back up his very clear inference that many or all of Pinke's arguments contain insults.

If he cannot back that up, he should have the cojones to admit he was wrong, and APOLOGISE.


Well, Exuberant has been back to ATS since this, and has posted not once... but ten times on other threads.

Yet he HASN'T returned here. Hoping everyone will forget? Hasn't got the intestinal fortitude to admit error and to apologise?

Make your own judgment, dear reader. Is he a 'champion of debate'?


I'm not really concerned about it. Exuberant may have made a snap judgment, read the feeling of the situation, or a generalization.

I'd hope most board readers would forgive these things - I make mistakes when I'm tired at times. So, no worries it happens.

Generally I try to be nice though, and I even think FoosM wouldn't say I've been overly offensive.

The current debate is a distance away from me anyway, but is an interesting read.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 178  179  180    182  183  184 >>

log in

join