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 nataylor
No, that's when it was heard and recorded at Mission Control. It was actually said 1.28 seconds earlier.
Originally posted by FoosM
Ok lets get this straight.
an example of the apollo 8 transcript:
070:13:38 Anders: Go ahead.
070:13:40 Carr: Roger. Step number 2, attach the filter holder to the lens with tape on the top and bottom. Do this with the slide forward. Over
Now, when we see 070:13:38- is that when "Go ahead" began to be spoken?
Originally posted by nataylor
Originally posted by FoosM
NASA didn't use "moon dust" when they faked the landing.
But they did have a special simulant available for them to use at the time.
So what did they base that on I wonder?
LOL.
From information obtained from Surveyor 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7.
Once again, there is no delay from when the astronauts talk and when Houston can respond.
Originally posted by FoosM
Is this unedited, or edited?
end of 01:09 Astronaut finishes talking
beginning of 01:11 Houston responds
So only a second in between the communication.
Though they claim that they are halfway between earth and the moon,
that should still take a little over a second, right?
Originally posted by FoosM
Is this unedited, or edited?
end of 01:09 Astronaut finishes talking
beginning of 01:11 Houston responds
So only a second in between the communication.
Though they claim that they are halfway between earth and the moon,
that should still take a little over a second, right?
They had a good idea of the texture of regolith and percent composition of major elements. There was no way for them to test isotope ratios or do a detailed chemical analysis, which would be required to establish the lunar origin of a sample.
Originally posted by FoosM
So then they knew the properties of the moon to match any meteorites found in Antarctica.
Originally posted by nataylor
They had a good idea of the texture of regolith and percent composition of major elements. There was no way for them to test isotope ratios or do a detailed chemical analysis, which would be required to establish the lunar origin of a sample.
Originally posted by FoosM
So then they knew the properties of the moon to match any meteorites found in Antarctica.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by FoosM
Is this unedited, or edited?
end of 01:09 Astronaut finishes talking
beginning of 01:11 Houston responds
So only a second in between the communication.
Heck I only did math to 2nd year at uni, but I make that 2 seconds - 1.11 - 1.09? 2 seconds, right??
Though they claim that they are halfway between earth and the moon,
that should still take a little over a second, right?
They'd be recording it at Houston I expect, so there'd be no measureable delay from Houston at all, and whatever is considered "normal" to wherever the astronauts are.
You're seeing an image that was transmitted from Apollo 8 to Earth and recorded on Earth. It works the same way as audio as far as the delay goes. Houston can respond immediately.
Originally posted by FoosM
Yeah, but is what we are hearing coming from the image (people in a space ship) or not from the image (people on earth)? See, what you are saying makes sense if we were watching somebody at mission control responding to the astronaut talking. But we are seeing the astronaut talking and getting a response from somebody supposedly thousands of miles away.
I mean analyzing the chemical and elemental makeup more than just a scattering alpha spectrometer can tell you.
Originally posted by FoosM
What do you mean by detailed chemical analysis?
In any case, they still knew what to look for.
Originally posted by nataylor
I mean analyzing the chemical and elemental makeup more than just a scattering alpha spectrometer can tell you.
Originally posted by FoosM
What do you mean by detailed chemical analysis?
In any case, they still knew what to look for.
I'm not sure who or what the "who" and "what" you're referring to are.
We can often tell that they came from space, however, because many lunar meteorites have fusion crusts (the olive-green crust on the photo above) from the melting of the
Chemical compositions, isotope ratios, mineralalogy, and textures of the lunar meteorites are all similar to those of samples collected on the Moon during the Apollo missions. Taken together, these various characteristics are different from those of any type of terrestrial rock or other type of meteorite. For example, all of those meteorites in the List that are classified as feldspathic breccias are rich in the mineral anorthite, which is a plagioclase feldspar, mineralogically, and a calcium aluminum silicate, chemically. Consequently, these meteorites all have high concentrations of aluminum and calcium.
Originally posted by nataylor
You're seeing an image that was transmitted from Apollo 8 to Earth and recorded on Earth. It works the same way as audio as far as the delay goes. Houston can respond immediately.
Originally posted by FoosM
Yeah, but is what we are hearing coming from the image (people in a space ship) or not from the image (people on earth)? See, what you are saying makes sense if we were watching somebody at mission control responding to the astronaut talking. But we are seeing the astronaut talking and getting a response from somebody supposedly thousands of miles away.
Originally posted by FoosM
Im still waiting 000063.
Looks like your the one who is having a hard time answering questions.
But, of course, you will forge ahead with rebutting something you don't understand, instead of asking for clarification. Because that's what you do.
Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, well lets get this over with because your post is so convoluted I cant make out what your point is.
DJ is calling JW a liar because he believes that no one can honestly get the amount of stuff wrong which he believes Jarrah has. I, by contrast, believe that there is no end to the fount of human fallability, which is why I use the word "wrong".
From what I can understand, you say that JW made a video where he posted the dose one would get going through the VABs at a certain inclination in an unshielded craft (whatever that means). Ok so what exactly the problem, and why are people calling JW a liar about it?
No. You're moving the goalposts. You're trying to make me prove JW is wrong all over again, instead of acknowledging the proven fact he said something incorrect, or my point about the shielding earlier. Whether it was deliberate or accidental I do not claim to know, but it happened.
So lets take this in small chunks to find out.
What inclination do you want to use, and what is the dose per hour?
Oh I see now, it supports Apollo and isn't capable of being manipulated to deceive readers/viewers. That's probably why. Note that it shows the probabilities of specified dose equivalents being exceeded during Solar Maximum with a shield inferior to Apollo's and that the risk is shown to be clearly more than acceptable.
Originally posted by FoosM
Its a live transmission, how does it work the same way?
The voices that we are hearing is it coming within the space craft or not?
If its within then there should have been a delay from Houston to respond.
Astronaut makes a statement, delay to earth.
Houston responds, delay to space craft, then astronaut hears it.
Originally posted by FoosM
Who and what von Braun and NASA.
And I dont see why you need deep chemical analysis to identify lunar rocks.
Originally posted by FoosM
Chemical compositions, isotope ratios, mineralalogy, and textures of the lunar meteorites are all similar to those of samples collected on the Moon during the Apollo missions. Taken together, these various characteristics are different from those of any type of terrestrial rock or other type of meteorite. For example, all of those meteorites in the List that are classified as feldspathic breccias are rich in the mineral anorthite, which is a plagioclase feldspar, mineralogically, and a calcium aluminum silicate, chemically. Consequently, these meteorites all have high concentrations of aluminum and calcium.
Originally posted by nataylor
Originally posted by FoosM
Who and what von Braun and NASA.
And I dont see why you need deep chemical analysis to identify lunar rocks.
The very source you quote contradicts that:
Originally posted by FoosM
Chemical compositions, isotope ratios, mineralalogy, and textures of the lunar meteorites are all similar to those of samples collected on the Moon during the Apollo missions. Taken together, these various characteristics are different from those of any type of terrestrial rock or other type of meteorite. For example, all of those meteorites in the List that are classified as feldspathic breccias are rich in the mineral anorthite, which is a plagioclase feldspar, mineralogically, and a calcium aluminum silicate, chemically. Consequently, these meteorites all have high concentrations of aluminum and calcium.
Of the four things it lists as subjects of comparison (chemical compositions, isotope ratios, mineralogy, and textures), the only one the Surveyors could establish with any certainty is the texture. They were incapable of measuring isotope ratios at all. They could only determine bulk elemental makeup of major elements, not including more exotic trace elements, and not the exact chemical compounds present. Mineralogy could only be inferred, based on elemental percentages.
Originally posted by nataylor
Originally posted by FoosM
Its a live transmission, how does it work the same way?
The voices that we are hearing is it coming within the space craft or not?
If its within then there should have been a delay from Houston to respond.
Astronaut makes a statement, delay to earth.
Houston responds, delay to space craft, then astronaut hears it.
The audio was a live transmission, too. Let's use my previous example of two people saying hello to each other, except we'll say they're recording video and when they say hello, they also wave to each other:
Originally posted by 000063
No. You're moving the goalposts. You're trying to make me prove JW is wrong all over again, instead of acknowledging the proven fact he said something incorrect, or my point about the shielding earlier. Whether it was deliberate or accidental I do not claim to know, but it happened.
So lets take this in small chunks to find out.
What inclination do you want to use, and what is the dose per hour?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Jarrah flashed a source on screen. DJ looked it up, and found that the numbers Jarrah was quoting were the unshielded dose of radiation.
Even a mm of shielding would reduce the dosage significantly, and they had much more than that(1.25 cm, roughly.), putting it well within the survivable range. These are the maximum doses. If they could take the maximum dose, then inclination, time, etc. are useless in determining whether they would survive anything lesser. The answer is yes.
The astronauts would survive the radiation in the official story. Period.
Note the "taken together" phrase. Just one of those things isn't enough to identify a meteorite as lunar in origin. You need to look at all those things.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by nataylor
Originally posted by FoosM
Who and what von Braun and NASA.
And I dont see why you need deep chemical analysis to identify lunar rocks.
The very source you quote contradicts that:
Originally posted by FoosM
Chemical compositions, isotope ratios, mineralalogy, and textures of the lunar meteorites are all similar to those of samples collected on the Moon during the Apollo missions. Taken together, these various characteristics are different from those of any type of terrestrial rock or other type of meteorite. For example, all of those meteorites in the List that are classified as feldspathic breccias are rich in the mineral anorthite, which is a plagioclase feldspar, mineralogically, and a calcium aluminum silicate, chemically. Consequently, these meteorites all have high concentrations of aluminum and calcium.
I dont see where it does.
You have a listing of several ways to determine a supposed lunar rock.
Actually, it couldn't definitively list the concentrations of certain elements, calcium being one. The spectra produced were for a range of elements, with atomic weights between 30 and 47, as pointed out by Chemical Analysis of the Moon at the Surveyor VII
Originally posted by FoosM
Are you saying that Surveyors could not determine the concentrations of aluminum and calcium?
Originally posted by FoosM
Of the four things it lists as subjects of comparison (chemical compositions, isotope ratios, mineralogy, and textures), the only one the Surveyors could establish with any certainty is the texture. They were incapable of measuring isotope ratios at all. They could only determine bulk elemental makeup of major elements, not including more exotic trace elements, and not the exact chemical compounds present. Mineralogy could only be inferred, based on elemental percentages.
So whats your source for that?
Well, by undersea cable, Houston to Australia (14,000 km) would take about 0.05 seconds. Houston to Spain (8,000 km) would take about 0.03 seconds. Anywhere via geosynchronous satellite (74,000 km) would take about 0.25 seconds.
Originally posted by FoosM
We have it over the delay between earth and the moon.
The transmissions didnt always go directly to the USA (mission control), correct?
What was the delay between continents?
Spain to the US, and Australia to the US.
How much of a delay was added?