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.
About a minute later the camera tilts back down to reveal the astronaut on the ground near the camera!
"We are in a period when the radiation risks are elevated, but still tolerable," Spence said, adding that the levels were about what an X-ray technician or uranium miner might normally experience in a year.
Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.
The Russians were never our mortal enemies (we gave them the plans for the bomb)
The Russians created the N-1 rocket to fail purposefully
So as to make the trip to the moon look like an impossibility
Only Americans can do it
(And most of that was computing power; Moore's Law of acceleration anyone)
We are seeing it in the housing crash currently happening
Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by AgentSmith
I like the idea that it takes now 5 of you to prove me wrong
This is entertaining to watch
You folks dig deeper holes each time
"He who employs emotion is unable to employ reason"
-Cicero
Cheers
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
Finally, you quote some numbers. Sadly, they are expressed in "sandbags," which seems to be a bit misleading. In order to get a better idea of the samples, let's use a different measurement: a "shoebox." The average shoebox will have a volume of about 6,750 cubic centimeters. (30x15x15 cm) Assuming that lunar rock has the same density as basalt, 3g/cm3, each "shoebox" can contain 20.25 kilograms of rock.
Using your own table:
Apollo 11, 22 kilograms = 1 shoebox
Apollo 12, 34 kilograms = 1.7 shoeboxes
Apollo 14, 42 kilograms = 2.1 shoeboxes
Apollo 15, 77 kilograms = 3.8 shoeboxes
Apollo 16, 96 kilograms = 4.74 shoeboxes
Apollo 17, 111 kilograms = 5.48 shoeboxes
Now tell me FoosM, do you think it might be possible to store six shoe boxes under an average sized bed? How about a "triple wide," as they would be stored in the CM?
do you think it might be possible to store six shoe boxes under an average sized bed? How about a "triple wide," as they would be stored in the CM?
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
By the way, since you yourself mention that each mission brought two ALSRCs, let's look at the specifications:
Dimensions:
Overall: 8 in. tall x 1 ft. 7 in. wide x 11 3/4 in. deep, 19.4 lb. (20.3 x 48.3 x 29.8cm, 8.8kg)
Somewhat larger than an actual shoe box. More like an overnight bag. You could easily stow it in the overhead luggage compartment of a commercial jet. What is the volume of each? 20.3x48.3x29.8 = 29,218 cm3. Multiply that by 3g/cm3 and you can see that each overnight bag can hold 87.654 kilograms of rock, for a potential total of 175.3 kilos per mission. Of course, they probably wasted a lot of space on baggies and aluminum tubes, which is why even Apollo 17 could only bring back 111 kilos. Seriously now, FoosM, do you see anything here that doesn't check out... perfectly?
An aluminum mesh liner helped absorb impacts.
Apollo Lunar Sample Return Container. Made of aluminum, this box is used to return lunar samples to Earth.
It is about the size of a small suitcase but is many times stronger.
The ALSRC has changed very little since it was first used on Apollo 11
After a sample is bagged, the thin aluminum strip is folded to close the bag and prevent the samples from becoming mixed with others.
The bags are finally placed in the sample return containers...for return to Earth.
The Apollo Lunar Sample Return Container (ALSRC) is about the size of a small suitcase.
It is made of aluminum and holds 20 to 40 lbs. of samples.
You will likely hear it called the rock box.
The pound or pound-mass (abbreviation: lb, lbm, #) is a unit of mass used in the imperial, United States customary and other systems of measurement.
Apollo 17, 111 kilograms = 5.48 shoeboxes
Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Tomblvd
The numbers do not exist
NASA only put out the specs of what was used
Not if they were sufficient
You are trying to make me prove a negative
When you yourself cannot prove that the PHYSICS behind it is possible
Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by weedwhacker
I also read the part where it said that
Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.
What dose was 'originally expected'? 30-40 percent higher radiation in relation to what precisely? And I do mean precisely, as in an actual measurement. What are the latest measurements in comparison with those from your source? Do the numbers pan out? Is it in fact 30-40%? Are the numbers correct?
Originally posted by Josephus23
www.abovetopsecret.com...
2)We did not go the the moon
Proof:
2)We did not go the the moon
Proof:
-We are JUST NOW finding out that the surface of the moon is radioactive
-The only other information concerning radioactivity came from the space flights themselves
-This piece of information is important to consider
-The original footage of the first moon walk was lost or misplaced for some 30 plus years
-That invalidates the idea of pictures as supportive evidence due to a lack of chain of command
-I know that I have said it before but the "Dutch Moon Rock" seriously calls into question the credibility of NASA
-This invalidates the idea of official accounts
-If we just now realized exactly how much deadly radiation is on the surface of the moon then the information gathered from the official accounts is invalid
You say: We are JUST NOW finding out that the surface of the moon is radioactive
Wrong. There were extensive surveys of the moon and the vab prior to Apollo missions on the Moon. www.encyclopedia4u.com...
You say: The only other information concerning radioactivity came from the space flights themselves.
Wrong again. See above and a zillion other sources. …and how else do you get data about space, other than going into it somehow?
You say: The original footage of the first moon walk was lost or misplaced for some 30 plus years
Wrong. This has been debunked. You really should search the thread and find that part. In fact it might save you some embarrassment later on - like when you said:
-That invalidates the idea of pictures as supportive evidence due to a lack of chain of command
Well, even if you were correct in asserting that NASA somehow lost of misplaced these pictures, I don't see how that invalidates everything else.
You say:
-If we just now realized exactly how much deadly radiation is on the surface of the moon then the information gathered from the official accounts is invalid
So if your brilliant lunar radiation calculations are incorrect, does that mean you will concede you were wrong and admit the Moon landings were real?
Patiently holding my breath in anticipation of your answer...edit on 17-10-2010 by Smack because: tags
Originally posted by FoosM
You see, a fifty pound sandbag is made from sand. Not rocks.
Considering the material is the same, 50 pounds of rocks will take up more space than 50 pounds of sand.