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: 298
377
<< 295  296  297    299  300  301 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I'm more than happy to teach you about radiation foos, but it would help if I know what your level of understanding is first. Do you understand the weak interaction for instance?




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Are you worried about something?
Something causing your neck hairs to stand at attention?


In psychology, this is known as "projection," attributing one's own mental state or emotions upon others. What have you contributed to the "debate?" Jarrah has been proven to be a liar using his own source. Now all you can do is rave and attempt to change the subject.


Fact is, NASA defenders in this thread ignored the EE Kovalev source material until just very recently. Now this info comes to the defenders as some surprise to them. Now to actually read it and find information that is NEW to them. Well, the FACT IS Jarrah White has taken these NASA monkeyboys to space radiation school via EE Kovalev...

Sayonarajupiter


1 year ago in the comments section:
hiorka:
"and the numbers you showed were listed as *WITHOUT SHIELDING*"

FoosM, quoting from YouTube

Once again the Jarrah Defenders shoot themselves in the foot. Jarrah was called instantly on his lie. So what did he do? Tell another lie. He claimed that Apollo was unshielded. People on this very thread who actually understand the figures and charts that Jarrah throws out to "color" his hoax have already explained why Apollo was well shielded. They have done so using Jarrah's own source. The Jarrah Defenders are trying to misdirect the reader. Jarrah has continually been challenged on his radiation claims but has always ignored the facts or evaded them by claiming that his detractor's data was wrong. Didn't Jarrah claim that Kovalev's data contradicted NASA's? But now that we have full access to it, we know for a fact that it confirms it. That's all that matters. Now we know that Jarrah lied, knew he was lying and knowingly continues to lie. His videos are a hoax. Allow me to remind you:


15l.) [HOAX]: In the event you Post more than three items that are later determined to be of an obviously hoax, fraudulent, or faked nature, your account may be terminated without warning.

T&C

Is this why you're spouting rubbish about the Moon being made out of cheese?


edit on 5-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
So are you claiming that paper can shield against beta and gamma radiation?
How thick would it have to be?

Yes, paper can shield radiation. Heck, even air can shield against radiation. *ANYTHING* with mass provides a shield. Now since the effectiveness of the shield is related to the density of the material, paper and air wouldn't make very good shields, but they would be shields none-the-less.

The paper referenced by you with your "millions of rads" quote says that 1 g/cm^2 is enough shielding to drop the dosage rates at the highest point in the VABs to just 50 rads/hr.

The density of typical printer paper is about 0.8 g/cm^3. So to get us to 1 g of paper with a surface area of 1 cm, we'd need a thickness of 1.25 cm.

Air at sea level is about 0.0012754 g/cm^3 in density, so you'd need about 784 cm of air to provide the same shielding.

Aluminum is 2.7 g/cm^3, so you only need a thickness of 0.37 cm.


Ah so you are not claiming that:
1 g/cm^2 of paper = 1 g/cm^2 of aluminum = 1 g/cm^2 lead = 1 g/cm^2 of air.

Can 1 g/cm^2 of paper shield against X-rays? Gamma rays? Neutrons?
Would you call it shielding if the radiation passes through and damages tissue?
Just like If someone wanted use a magazine as a bullet proof vest would you call it shielding?

So what material of 1 g/cm^2 shielding was he talking about? Do you think he was talking about paper?

The article that I referenced stated
10 grams per centimeter to protect from the outer belt
and more is required for the inner belt.

How much was Apollo?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by FoosM
 


I'm more than happy to teach you about radiation foos, but it would help if I know what your level of understanding is first. Do you understand the weak interaction for instance?


Nope, never seen it referenced concerning shielding for Apollo.
As a matter of fact, Im still trying to find out how NASA came up with
their choice of shielding for primary and secondary radiation.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I suppose to be fair he could be complaining that the module, which was the shield, was not in turn shielded. The shield was itself unshielded so to speak. Doesn't make any sense of course and the fact is the only concern is the exposure to the astronauts, who were shielded. Perhaps he watched Farscape and thought the Apollo command module was a living ship like Moya and might be harmed, so was concerned? Your guess is as good as mine.

Not sure where Jarrah gets the idea that the module would not attenuate the particle radiation? How odd

Obviously any issues he has with x-rays and gamma rays have to be inferred upon current manned missions in orbit, unless he believe the magnetosphere protects from electromagnetic radiation too? It's a mystery what goes on in his head, it's no physics I've ever heard of nor any physicists I know.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by FoosM
 


I'm more than happy to teach you about radiation foos, but it would help if I know what your level of understanding is first. Do you understand the weak interaction for instance?


Nope, never seen it referenced concerning shielding for Apollo.


You don't know what the weak interaction is? And you're trying to discuss radiation? I'm sorry if I seem rude but it's like concerning yourself with the best driving route from Paris to Madrid when you don't even know how to drive a car. Don't you think you should learn about radiation first, you know, like start with the basics?? I was kind of hoping you would know at least something, I honestly don't have time to teach you from scratch, if I'd known I wouldn't have offered.
If you don't know what the weak interaction is even, you wouldn't have a chance of understanding how the Van Allen Belts are formed.
edit on 5-1-2011 by AgentSmith because: Realised Foos hadn't specifically asked how the VAB were formed, so removed a reference to me stating he did.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Ah so you are not claiming that:
1 g/cm^2 of paper = 1 g/cm^2 of aluminum = 1 g/cm^2 lead = 1 g/cm^2 of air.


That's pretty much what I'm claiming. While higher atomic weight elements offer slightly better protection than lower atomic weight elements, the thickness of the material is much more deterministic. So 1 gram per square centimeter of lead would shield only marginally better than 1 gram per square centimeter of aluminum.


Originally posted by FoosM
Can 1 g/cm^2 of paper shield against X-rays? Gamma rays? Neutrons?

Yes, Yes, and Yes. Again, *ANYTHING* with mass will shield against radiation.


Originally posted by FoosM
Would you call it shielding if the radiation passes through and damages tissue?

I'd call a material shielding if the dosage received after the radiation has passed through the material is less than the dosage would be if the radiation never passed through the material.


Originally posted by FoosM
So what material of 1 g/cm^2 shielding was he talking about? Do you think he was talking about paper?

I think he was talking about any arbitrary material. In an abstract sense, it doesn't matter. There are practicalities involved with size, durability, etc. that come into play when actually building a spacecraft. But in an abstract sense, all that matters is the mass per unit surface area of the material.


Originally posted by FoosM
The article that I referenced stated
10 grams per centimeter to protect from the outer belt
and more is required for the inner belt.


Wrong again:



Just as I said, 1 g/cm^2 is enough to lower the dose to 50 rads/hr.

The only information in that paper that states 10 g/cm^2 is referencing shielding needed for an extended stay, not just a traverse as Apollo did.



Originally posted by FoosM
How much was Apollo?


From the Apollo Spacecraft Nuclear Radiation Protection Status Report, in the Second Symposium on Protection Against Radiations in Space:




The figure vividly portrays the fact, that regions on the spacecraft representing 5 grams/cm^2 or less cover only 9% of the surface area on the spacecraft.


So less than 9% of the surface area was under 5 g/cm^2. None of the craft was under 1.8 g/cm^2. More than 50% of the craft was over 15 g/cm^2.
edit on 5-1-2011 by nataylor because: formatting



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Wrong again:



Just as I said, 1 g/cm^2 is enough to lower the dose to 50 rads/hr.


How am I wrong?
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Mar 1961


I will agree, when it comes to the VABs we got a lot of people contradicting each other and themselves.
LOL.

Furthermore:

These conclusions (10) may be summarized as follows:

1) Flight below the Van Allen belts seems reasonably safe without radiation shielding.

2) It is probably impractical to shield a rocket sufficiently to permit a man to remain in the inner Van Allen belt for more than about an hour, but it should be possible for him to go through it without serious harm.

3) Shielding for the outer Van Allen belt is possible but would have to be quite heavy if a stay of more than a few hours were contemplated.

4) The primary cosmic radiation is not intense enough to deliver a serious radiation dose, even for exposures of a few weeks, and the heavy cosmic ray primaries do not seem to present an unusual hazard.


What was the shielding for Mercury and Gemini?
I ask, because what did they base the "shielding... quite heavy" on?
Aluminum, Lead?


What I found for Gemini:

Capsule hull is titanium coated in fiberglass insulation, covered with shingles of nickel-steel alloy. The rounded heat shield on the base is made of fiberglass and a strong plastic called phenolic resin.

www.californiasciencecenter.org...

Wow... nickel steel alloy shingles and titanium? Why wasnt titanium used for Apollo? So was Gemini shielded
to go through the VABs? Would you call it shielding?


NASA's Juno spacecraft, nearing an August 2011 lift off on a mission to Jupiter, has been fitted with a titanium radiation shield to protect the probe's command and data handling system, or electronic brain, from the Solar System's most intense radiation field beyond the sun.



The titanium vault was designed by Lockheed Martin Space Systems. Engineers determined lead shielding was too soft to withstand the launch loads and that other shielding materials would be more difficult to fabricate into a protective enclosure about the size of a Sports Utility Vehicle trunk. The vault will house more than 20 associated electronics components.


I guess when it comes to electronics NASA doesnt take risks, but with people...

Anyway, when did NASA decide to go with the aluminum?
And how thick was the hull of Gemini and Mercury?
And what did they base the thickness on?

Maybe its because aluminum is used as a household item that when we hear Apollo was
shielded with it it seems unrealistic in the face of all the references for needing shielding like lead.
Didnt the engineers and scientists already know they had aluminum as an option?

Why does the literature state that to survive the belts you need to travel fast through it and
you need heavy shielding like lead? Prior to Apollo I dont recall hearing aluminum as an option.
And lets not forget, those windows...


www.aviationweek.com... 5&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3A48f9a990-c9f7-4de1-8b1d-5fade44c10d2&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Bulletin of Atomic Scientist, 1961? As usual, you are trotting out the results of the latest research.


I will agree, when it comes to the VABs we got a lot of people contradicting each other and themselves.


No, actually. You and Jarrah are the only people being contradicted. By everyone else.


The article that I referenced stated
10 grams per centimeter to protect from the outer belt
and more is required for the inner belt.

(An earlier post.)

I'm sorry, this time I must confess that I must be the one who has not been paying attention. Which post of yours referenced a paper that stated that "10 grams per centimeter to protect from the outer belt and more is required for the inner belt?" I've gone back ten pages and can't seem to find it. Please provide a link to this post where you make this reference so I can check it out for myself. (You know how I am about these things.)
edit on 5-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct sophomoric behavior.

edit on 5-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Wrong again:



Just as I said, 1 g/cm^2 is enough to lower the dose to 50 rads/hr.


How am I wrong?
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Mar 1961


I will agree, when it comes to the VABs we got a lot of people contradicting each other and themselves.

What contradiction? You DO realize that the paper I quoted above is the one referenced in the summary you found on google books, right?

From your google books link:


From the paper I quoted:




Originally posted by FoosM
I ask, because what did they base the "shielding... quite heavy" on?
Aluminum, Lead?

Again, it doesn't matter what the material is. All that matters is the mass per unit surface area.


Originally posted by FoosM
Would you call it shielding?

I'd call any mass between the source of the radiation and whatever you're trying to protect shielding.


Originally posted by FoosM

NASA's Juno spacecraft, nearing an August 2011 lift off on a mission to Jupiter, has been fitted with a titanium radiation shield to protect the probe's command and data handling system, or electronic brain, from the Solar System's most intense radiation field beyond the sun.



I guess when it comes to electronics NASA doesnt take risks, but with people...

You still don't seem to get that the material doesn't matter. It's the mass. Titanium, being denser than lead (4.5 g/cm^3 versus 2.7 g/cm^3) means you need less physical volume of it, leaving more volume for the science instruments on the probe.

And the Apollo command modules did have a lot of titanium in them:

Primary Materials: Aluminum alloy, Stainless steel, Titanium



Originally posted by FoosM
Why does the literature state that to survive the belts you need to travel fast through it and
you need heavy shielding like lead? Prior to Apollo I dont recall hearing aluminum as an option.
And lets not forget, those windows...
The literature you referenced doesn't make any mention of material, just of mass per unit surface area. Again, that's because it's the mass per unit surface area that matters. And yes, the majority of that less than 9% of the CSM that had shielding of less than 5 g/cm^2 were the windows. But even the windows didn't have less than 1.8 g/cm^2 of shielding.
edit on 5-1-2011 by nataylor because: spelling



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I think Jarrah is an intelligent and sincere individual and I really enjoy his videos.
He has almost convinced me we didn't go to the moon.
Prior to his videos I was 100% convinced NASA had faked photographs on the lunar surface for PR purposes.

But having watched ALL his videos, including his recent video rebuttals to many of the points criticising him, lots of similar ones in this very thread, I must say he has a very good argument to suggest that man has not been to the moon.

I suggest you watch his videos and open your mind.

As a conspiracy theory lover I will continue to entertain that notion until proved otherwise.
(Much like my thoughts on UFO's and Heaven.)
For if we believe everything we are told then they have won.
It is good to doubt and question.
Jarrah's mission is healthy.
The people at ATS that hurl curses at him should be ashamed. The man has a valid opinion.
And he is going to a lot more effort than any of you to share his belief.

It's easy to criticise. How about coming up with an idea?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 





It's easy to criticise. How about coming up with an idea?


I appreciate your open mindedness, but have you noticed that this thread is nearly 300 pages long?
Perhaps you should look over the preceding 50 or so pages and see what the actual score is... just an idea.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Sorry, but you have had the wool pulled over your eyes....


But having watched ALL his videos, including his recent video rebuttals to many of the points criticising him, lots of similar ones in this very thread, I must say he has a very good argument to suggest that man has not been to the moon.


Earlier, and only a few pages back, I mentioned a good series of rebuttal videos that CLEARLY rip "Jarrah" apart. On YouTube. Posted by "Phil Webb 59".

They expose MORE of his lies and distortions, besids the radiation debacle.

You may be interested in how much he misrepresented the actual Luanr samples, by (disingenuously) claiming they came from Earth, "collected" in Antarctica, and other such nonsense.....



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I hope it's not off topic but I was looking at some pics Tom' was good enough to link me to..
I have a question..

Why is the Gold foil on the LM ???

I thought it was to stop radiation but then see it on the extended landing gear and pads..



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


We talked about that not too long ago. That's Kapton film and it protects from thermal radiation. It's on the landing gear to protect it from the thermal radiation from the sun, as well as the thermal radiation from the descent engine.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by backinblack
 


We talked about that not too long ago. That's Kapton film and it protects from thermal radiation. It's on the landing gear to protect it from the thermal radiation from the sun, as well as the thermal radiation from the descent engine.


Ahh, a heat shield..
Thanks for that..



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I'm trying my best to keep up with you guys


First, with regard to this very important discussion about space radiation, the EE Kovalev source material and the effectiveness of shielding, we must make a conscious effort to note the following fact: The CSM was shielded differently than the LM.

Second, with regard to the EE Kovalev source material, where was his data taken from? Was the data acquired from a spacecraft, a space mission, equipped with measuring devices? Or was the Kovalev data extrapolated using Monte Carlo simulations from the comfort of an earthbound laboratory? I am asking this question because I am ignorant... I am ignorant because I do not have a copy of the report.

Thirdly, when JW cited the EE Kovalev source material in his first radiation series

2 YEARS AGO

he was , in my opinion, establishing a serious line of skeptical reasoning: A naked astronaut could receive a lethal dose of radiation in space, specifically in the ERB- Earth Radiation Belts (European terminology for the Van Allen Belts). Once we find agreement on the Kovalev data and JW's interpretation of that data we can then apply this NEW KNOWLEDGE to the shielding of the CSM, exclusively. We may also apply that NEW KNOWLEDGE to the shielding of the LM, exclusively.

Fourthly, Jarrah White's line of reasoning was explained. Why did JW use the EE Kovalev data?

MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 6
WhiteJarrah | November 02, 2008



JW says at 4:09 in the video “Kovalev’s data proves NASA’s numbers to be inaccurate. And so it seems even today NASA is giving us wrong information on just how dangerous the Van Allen radiation is.



This is the actual claim that Jarrah White made. Perhaps the NASA cheerleading squad can understand now the claims that Jarrah White made versus the claims they created as a strawman argument.


Lastly, we can begin to ask better questions about why Apollo 8 was put into the "barbeque" roll during the trans-lunar journey. Was the Apollo 8 put into the "barbeque" roll because of insufficient shielding? I am talking about that specific manouvre of Apollo 8 which created the rotation of the spacecraft (CSM+LM) during the trans-lunar journey.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by backinblack
 


We talked about that not too long ago. That's Kapton film and it protects from thermal radiation. It's on the landing gear to protect it from the thermal radiation from the sun, as well as the thermal radiation from the descent engine.


Ahh, a heat shield..
Thanks for that..
NASA was afraid that the descent engines would melt the LM landing gear. That is why there is gold-colored Kapton on the footpads and very little of it on the space buggies and none at all on space suits worn by the astronauts on the surface of the moon



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



NASA was afraid that the descent engines would melt the LM landing gear. That is why there is gold-colored Kapton on the footpads and very little of it on the space buggies and none at all on space suits worn by the astronauts on the surface of the moon


Why would they have it on the space suits?
I doubt the astronauts would stand under the descent engine and then fire it up.!!

But then I'm an Aussie, we'd throw on some prawns and grab a cold beer..



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



JW says at 4:09 in the video “Kovalev’s data proves NASA’s numbers to be inaccurate. And so it seems even today NASA is giving us wrong information on just how dangerous the Van Allen radiation is.


Exactly. That statement has been proven to be a lie. Kovalev's data is completely in line with NASA's. That's the whole point. Jarrah used Kovalev's data, virtually identical to NASA's, then did a bogus calculation with it! Forget about Kovalev; he's a red herring. Jarrah introduced a Russian source to make it appear that it was independent of NASA and therefore "untainted." He could have done exactly the same thing with NASA data, but it would have been more obvious how he was cheating. Stop falling for his cheesy magic tricks and think for yourself!
edit on 6-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 295  296  297    299  300  301 >>

log in

join