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.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
No no. Nasa facricated and completely made up the radiation numbers in space. Then no scientist or 3rd party figured that out in the coming +50 years...
Since serious measurements of dose equivalent in space were started, about twenty years have elapsed and no standard method is yet established. In this paper, several principles for measuring dose equivalent in space are explained and the disadvantages of each measurement are described. Then, the discrepancies among the results recently obtained using those methods are shown. These discrepancies are mainly caused by the differences in LET(Linear Energy Transfer) distributions obtained in space. From these findings, it is concluded that the most important problem in space dosimetry is how to obtain correct LET distribution for space radiation. Finally, to obtain the correct LET distribution some ideas are presented
Seems like you're the one who won't stick your neck out. I've presented numerous sources of data, yet you can't show a single bit that is wrong or that presents any kind of problem for the feasibility of the Apollo program.
Originally posted by FoosMOf course you wont, you dont want to stick your neck out to get it chopped.
Is there any question that JW is a crook and a liar?
I've presented numerous sources of data, yet you can't show a single bit that is wrong or that presents any kind of problem for the feasibility of the Apollo program.
www.abovetopsecret.com... The guy in the CM who goes around the darkside of the moon but doesn't see stars? *cough* Collins *cough* ahem...
ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics [i.e., the lunar module's navigation telescope]. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
[Collins] (in response to Armstrong's reference to photographing the solar corona) : I don't remember seeing any(stars).
Originally posted by nataylor
Seems like you're the one who won't stick your neck out. I've presented numerous sources of data, yet you can't show a single bit that is wrong or that presents any kind of problem for the feasibility of the Apollo program.
Originally posted by FoosMOf course you wont, you dont want to stick your neck out to get it chopped.
Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Smack
Is there any question that JW is a crook and a liar?
A crook a liar and banned from almost every forum on the internet because he is beyond adolescent.
I wonder why ATS continues to allow his drivel here?
Originally posted by theability
reply to post by nataylor
I've presented numerous sources of data, yet you can't show a single bit that is wrong or that presents any kind of problem for the feasibility of the Apollo program.
From the research I have been doing lately, Foosm or his screen-names does this on numerous forums, continually beating this dead horse over and over without regard to answering questions.
Funny that every forum around has the same entries over and over, by different names. Posting the same useless videos and nonsense everywhere.
Do the math, how likely is it different people?
Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by FoosM
www.abovetopsecret.com... The guy in the CM who goes around the darkside of the moon but doesn't see stars? *cough* Collins *cough* ahem...
Here you suggest that Collins is unable to see stars on the dark side,
but you concede that Apollo 11 did indeed go to the moon, or else how would Collins have not seen stars on the dark side?
Here is the part of the transcript you misapprehend:
ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics [i.e., the lunar module's navigation telescope]. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
[Collins] (in response to Armstrong's reference to photographing the solar corona) : I don't remember seeing any(stars).
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
Why are you bringing the whole stars issue up again? It all depends on whether your eyes are dark adapted or whether the camera is set on a lower or higher exposure. We covered all that 150 pages ago.
S11-42-6179 (19 July 1969) --- This photograph of the solar corona was taken from the Apollo 11 spacecraft during trans-lunar coast and prior to lunar orbit insertion. The moon is the dark disc between the spacecraft and the sun.
You said you wanted data on space radiation prior to Apollo 8. I linked to a ton of it. All you have to do is find something wrong with it. Yet you can't.
Originally posted by FoosM
Thats right, you presented the sources, but you did nothing to explain why those sources are relevant.
So dont ask other people to do the work for you.
Originally posted by nataylor
You said you wanted data on space radiation prior to Apollo 8. I linked to a ton of it. All you have to do is find something wrong with it. Yet you can't.
Originally posted by FoosM
Thats right, you presented the sources, but you did nothing to explain why those sources are relevant.
So dont ask other people to do the work for you.
Originally posted by Smack
More irrefuteable proof. See the stars from the space shuttle? wow! Ooo! Ahhh..
Refute that, if you can.
Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by Pinke
Excellent post!
Of course this is what myself and others had pointed out earlier, hoping that Sayonara would spend 5 minutes to verify with a few keystrokes and button clicks.
Very nice work indeed, Pinke. How long did it take you to find the data?
So, now what, Sayonara. What say you? Will you dismiss this or concede?
Facts: get some.
Explorer 18 (IMP 1, Interplanetary Monitoring Platform) was a solar-cell and chemical-battery powered spacecraft instrumented for interplanetary and distant magnetospheric studies of energetic particles, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, and plasmas. Initial spacecraft parameters included a local time of apogee of 1020 h, a spin rate of 22 rpm, and a spin direction of 115 deg right ascension and -25 deg declination. Each normal telemetry sequence of 81.9 s duration consisted of 795 data bits. After every third normal sequence there was an 81.9-s interval of rubidium vapor magnetometer analog data transmission. The spacecraft performed normally until May 30, 1964, then intermittently until May 10, 1965, when it was abandoned. Source : space.skyrocket.de...
Explorer 18 - . Payload: IMP A. Mass: 62 kg (136 lb). Nation: USA. Agency: NASA Greenbelt. Program: Explorer. Class: Earth. Type: Magnetosphere satellite. Spacecraft: IMP. Decay Date: 1965-11-30. USAF Sat Cat: 693 . COSPAR: 1963-046A. Apogee: 197,616 km (122,792 mi). Perigee: 192 km (119 mi). Inclination: 33.3000 deg. Period: 5,666.20 min. Summary: Radiation data; Interplanetary Monitoring Program. Spacecraft engaged in research and exploration of the upper atmosphere or outer space (US Cat B). Source : www.astronautix.com...
This experimenter-supplied scintillator and Geiger-Mueller (GM) cosmic-ray ion and electron count rate data set is contained on one reel of 16-mm microfilm that also contains data sets 63-046A-04B and -04D. The data consist of tabular listings of time, spacecraft altitude, and all count rates (5-min resolution) for all the counting modes of the scintillator telescope and the GM tubes. There are no significant data gaps between November 27, 1963, and February 29, 1964. There are no data for March 1 to 15, 1964, but there are data for March 16 to 18, 1964.
A Reevaluation of Solar Flares, 1964-1966, McMath-Hulbert Observatory, 1968, The University of Michigan, which wrote : In efforts to underand the cosmic environment of the earth, geophysicists often turn to tabulations of solar flares prepared by solar astronomers and Solar World Data Centers. The tabulations vary in time of issue and in degrees of completeness and reliability. All too often the user of flare data is confronted with conflicting reports or with disconcerting words of caution from solar astronomers who are especially aware of the many difficulties in the primary measurements and evaluations of the solar events. Source : ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov...
Dynamics of the Earth's Radiation Belts and Inner Magnetosphere
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
17–22 July 2011
Conference Objectives and General Description
Despite some 50 years of space research, fundamental questions remain concerning the physics of Earth's radiation belts and inner magnetosphere. Our ability to protect spacecraft systems from the hazardous space environment depends on our knowledge of geospace. In the last decade there has been a resurgence in radiation belt research in parallel with the development of the new discipline of space weather science.
The conference will address the following questions:
What is our current state of knowledge of Earth's radiation belts from particle, wave and magnetic field observations? What further data are essential? Source : www.agu.org...
" Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER): Investigates the effect of galactic cosmic rays on tissue-equivalent plastics as a constraint on models of biological response to background space radiation. PI, Harlan Spence, Boston University, Massachusetts." Source : www.space.com...
Leading scientist Harlan Spence noted "Says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University;
"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,"
"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!"
The value or successfulness of a satellite should not be measured in terms of days of operation
or minutes or kilobits of telemetry recorded. Instead, one should ask the question "What has
been learned?" Answers to this question can be found by referring to Appendix D - a bibliography
of papers published by experimenters based on IMP-I data. Source : ntrs.nasa.gov...
Originally posted by FoosM
Man thats silly.
Why dont you show me what is right about it.
Why did you choose those documents?
Only because they were published prior to Apollo 8?
LOL.
Yeah, your a stalker.
Try using your time to research why Apollo was faked.