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: 466
377
<< 463  464  465    467  468  469 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

How thick was the shield on Apollo 11?
edit on 2011/5/25 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/5/25 by 000063 because: +


Still waiting dutch boy Rob, err 000063, which spacecraft do you want me to use?
the CM or the LM?


To save weight, there were no seats in the LM. Engineers also minimized the thickness of the metal sheets covering the structure—paper-thin in some places.


edit on 25-5-2011 by FoosM because: www.museumofflight.org...
I was kinda hoping for actual numbers with units attached. Like 1mm, 2cm, 120m, that sort of thing.




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
I'm still trying to figure out if FoosM honestly doesn't understand where the delays are in interplanetary communications. Are you just trying to avoid linking to the post where I was allegedly proven to be incorrect? Not even you could intentionally appear that dim in order to duck having to apologize. Here, let me explain it for you you. I am talking to an astronaut one light second away. You are sitting next to me. I say: "Do you read me?" It takes one second to reach the astronaut. The moment he hears me, he instantly says: "Yes, I copy. Do you read me?" It took one second for my message to reach the astronaut, and another second for his reply to reach me. Total elapsed time, two seconds, right? Okay, now the moment I receive his reply, I say: "Roger, I copy." Let's do the math. Elapsed time between my first "Do you read me?" and the response: two seconds. My response to the reply? Instantaneous. Another second for that reply to travel out to the astronaut, another instantaneous reply, another second to return, elapsed time two seconds, but my response, witnessed by you, is instantaneous. Got it? Now, where did someone prove me to be incorrect when I pointed out that Kovalev's data actually agreed with NASA's?
I'm pretty sure it's out and out cognitive bias at this point; he literally can't comprehend information that might prove him wrong, and rationalizes it away.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM
 


you now posting exposure does that are relativly benign - have you accepted that JW is wrong ?


I am dropping hints, giving you clues ignorant_ape.
I think you know the answer, but you dont want to lose face by admitting you are wrong.
And by admitting you are wrong, you as well as many others, including NASA, will have to find a way to explain those radiation exposures. Because they are lies.
Good thing said lies weren't publicly documented and pored over for four decades by a good portion of the world's scientists or anything like that.

Oh, wait.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Mate, they stripped down to basic underclothes to sleep..
NO radiation protection or pressurized suits..
From YOUR link..

constant wear garment.... underclothes



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Mate, they stripped down to basic underclothes to sleep..
NO radiation protection or pressurized suits..
From YOUR link..

constant wear garment.... underclothes

apollomaniacs.web.infoseek.co.jp...
You mean the link which mentions nothing about what they slept in?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


hmm , appologies - upon further resaerch - it appears that the crew of appollo 15 were permitted to sleep unsuited

however apollo12 - which was the fist link i studdied - were required to sleep suited :


Neither one could get much sleep though. Just as they would fall asleep, the pitch of Intrepid's cooling pumps would change and wake them up. Then there were the space suits, even with the helmets and gloves off they were uncomfortable to sleep in. They would have preferred to take them off but with all the dust there was a risk of clogging a zipper or wrist ring


source

it would seem that faith in the reliability of equipment increased as the program matured



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Yeah, can you imagine the poor guys in Apollo 11/12 stuck in them suits the whole time??
Must of been tough to cope with..



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


Do you actually have anything to add to the discussion??



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, so if it was shown live. Would the public hear the delays one would have communicating between Earth and the space craft?
No, obviously not. They'd hear the same delay a person sitting in Mission Control would: none.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 


Do you actually have anything to add to the discussion??
Aside from the fact that you had to rely on your opponent to prove your point for you, nope, nothing. Just waiting on FoosM to post the skin thickness of the Command Module.
edit on 2011/5/26 by 000063 because: +



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 


Do you actually have anything to add to the discussion??
Aside from the fact that you had to rely on your opponent to prove your point for you, nope, nothing. Just waiting on FoosM to post the skin thickness of the Command Module.
edit on 2011/5/26 by 000063 because: +


Mate, absolute BS...
I already knew the astronauts slept in their underclothes on later missions..
Go back and read the thread, it's been mentioned before..

Now run along and try to actually add something..



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 


Do you actually have anything to add to the discussion??
Aside from the fact that you had to rely on your opponent to prove your point for you, nope, nothing. Just waiting on FoosM to post the skin thickness of the Command Module.
edit on 2011/5/26 by 000063 because: +


Mate, absolute BS...
I already knew the astronauts slept in their underclothes on later missions..
Go back and read the thread, it's been mentioned before..

Now run along and try to actually add something..
You said his link proved it. It didn't.

Also, FoosM seems to have trouble coming up with the thickness of the CM hull.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM
 


are you really naturally that dense - or do you have training ????


I have done some weightlifting in my time.
I've been told I have nice triceps.





no member of the crew was in the LM during the passage throught the van allen belts - or the transit to lunar orbit

further more - they wore thier space suits the entire time [ they were in the LM ]



You know its about focus.
The other day I was with a lady friend, a young attractive eastern european, and we were joking around while shopping. We walked by some small spring clamps, you know like clothespins, but for heavier objects, and I took one and motioned to my friend as if I wanted to clamp her nose shut. And I asked her, "if I would clamp your nose, would you be able to breath?"
She quickly replied, "of course not!"
And I said, "Of course you would be able to, you have a mouth don't you?"
She had to laugh. Of course, her focus since her focus is usually on her main breathing tool the nose, it was easy to forget about the option of using her mouth.

We walk with blinders on. Only focusing on the immediate world around us.
And so we tend to miss the details. Thats how people can get conned, thats how magic tricks work. All a person has to do is shift another person's focus away from what they want to hide, to what they want you to see.

Thats what we have with Apollo. For example, the trip to the moon is arguably more talked about, more discussed, more recorded, photographed, etc, than the trip back to Earth.
Or that we have more information about the life in the CM than in the LM.




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

How thick was the shield on Apollo 11?
edit on 2011/5/25 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/5/25 by 000063 because: +


Still waiting dutch boy Rob, err 000063, which spacecraft do you want me to use?
the CM or the LM?


To save weight, there were no seats in the LM. Engineers also minimized the thickness of the metal sheets covering the structure—paper-thin in some places.


edit on 25-5-2011 by FoosM because: www.museumofflight.org...
I was kinda hoping for actual numbers with units attached. Like 1mm, 2cm, 120m, that sort of thing.


You keep skipping over my posts:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

.012 inches.

Now, would you say this would be proper shielding for going through the VABs?
Would you trust getting a medical x-ray with shielding as thick as three layers of aluminum foil?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

How thick was the shield on Apollo 11?
edit on 2011/5/25 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/5/25 by 000063 because: +


Still waiting dutch boy Rob, err 000063, which spacecraft do you want me to use?
the CM or the LM?


To save weight, there were no seats in the LM. Engineers also minimized the thickness of the metal sheets covering the structure—paper-thin in some places.


edit on 25-5-2011 by FoosM because: www.museumofflight.org...
I was kinda hoping for actual numbers with units attached. Like 1mm, 2cm, 120m, that sort of thing.


You keep skipping over my posts:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

.012 inches.

Now, would you say this would be proper shielding for going through the VABs?
I doubt it. Good thing they were in the Command Module at the time, according to the official story. You want this page, same website. I don't think it says anything in the form of concrete numbers about the hull thickness, though I did find;


The body of the spacecraft was constructed in a double layer separated by a thermal insulation layer. An inner pressure shell was formed from a lightweight, double skinned, alloy matrix and an outer skin, made from a honeycomb steel alloy doubled up as a heat shield and micro-meteorite protective layer.
That don't sound like no Reynolds Wrap.

I specified which module right here.
edit on 2011/5/26 by 000063 because: +



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Now, would you say this would be proper shielding for going through the VABs?
I doubt it.


You doubt it? You dont think the LM would be safe to use travel through the VABs?
You dont trust paper thin shielding? How much radiation would the astronauts be exposed to if they went through the VABs with the LM? Do you think they would be able to live through it?

Take a look at this animation.



You see how the CSM turns around and docks with the LM prior to going to the moon?
Do you suppose that at any time Astronauts went inside the LM and they happened to be in the VABs?


I got a feeling there are some apollo supporters here having cold sweats.
They see the hammer about to fall.
7up 6down




edit on 26-5-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


sigh
yet another move of the goal posts

i find it amazing thet you unearthed that clip - yet ignored the myriad of pages that would have answered your questions :


How much radiation would the astronauts be exposed to if they went through the VABs with the LM? Do you think they would be able to live through it?


another irrelevant repetionion - you have been told that the LEM was unmanned when transiting the VAB



you see how the CSM turns around and docks with the LM prior to going to the moon?
Do you suppose that at any time Astronauts went inside the LM and they happened to be in the VABs?


if you have done any research whatsoever - you SHOULD know that the seperation / turn-around / re-coupling manouver was conducted AFTER the TLI [ trans-lunar injection ] phase of the mission

thus the VAB had been passed

further - you SHOULD know that the LEM commander did indeed enter the LEM to conduct system checks and diagnostivs - but this was again AFTER the VAB was safley behind them



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
You see how the CSM turns around and docks with the LM prior to going to the moon?
Do you suppose that at any time Astronauts went inside the LM and they happened to be in the VABs?

No.

As we've been over before, they would have been completely through the VABs an hour after their trans-lunar injection burn. The first ingress into the LM for inspection was always well after that, by days in some cases.

Apollo 11: TLI at MET 2:50 (2 hours, 50 minutes mission elapsed time), LM checkout at MET 55:30 (55 hours, 30 minutes mission elapsed time)
Apollo 12: TLI at MET 2:53, LM checkout at MET 7:20
Apollo 13: TLI at MET 2:42, LM checkout at MET 55:20
Apollo 14: TLI at MET 2:35, LM checkout at MET 60:30
Apollo 15: TLI at MET 2:56, LM checkout at MET 33:56
Apollo 16: TLI at MET 2:39, LM checkout at MET 8:17
Apollo 17: TLI at MET 3:19, LM checkout at MET 40:10



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Now, would you say this would be proper shielding for going through the VABs?
I doubt it.


You doubt it? You dont think the LM would be safe to use travel through the VABs?

You see how the CSM turns around and docks with the LM prior to going to the moon?
Do you suppose that at any time Astronauts went inside the LM and they happened to be in the VABs?
Good question! Why don't you present evidence here that the Official Story claims they entered the LM while in the VAB and stayed inside it long enough to receive what would've a fatal dosage, with the "paper-thin" hull factored in, instead of relying on unsupported insinuations?


You dont trust paper thin shielding? How much radiation would the astronauts be exposed to if they went through the VABs with the LM? Do you think they would be able to live through it?
Are you actually asserting that they wouldn't? Is that the claim you're making? Does the acronym JAQ mean anything to you?


I got a feeling there are some apollo supporters here having cold sweats.
They see the hammer about to fall.
7up 6down
Says the guy who can't tell me how thick the OS says the Command Module was.

C'mon, you came up with the LM numbers so easily. Why is the CM evading you?

Weird how the rest of my post vanished.
edit on 2011/5/26 by 000063 because: -



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM
 


sigh
yet another move of the goal posts

i find it amazing thet you unearthed that clip - yet ignored the myriad of pages that would have answered your questions :


How much radiation would the astronauts be exposed to if they went through the VABs with the LM? Do you think they would be able to live through it?


another irrelevant repetionion - you have been told that the LEM was unmanned when transiting the VAB



you see how the CSM turns around and docks with the LM prior to going to the moon?
Do you suppose that at any time Astronauts went inside the LM and they happened to be in the VABs?


if you have done any research whatsoever - you SHOULD know that the seperation / turn-around / re-coupling manouver was conducted AFTER the TLI [ trans-lunar injection ] phase of the mission

thus the VAB had been passed

further - you SHOULD know that the LEM commander did indeed enter the LEM to conduct system checks and diagnostivs - but this was again AFTER the VAB was safley behind them


So what is the problem? Would it have been an issue if the Commander was in the LEM during their transit through the VABs? I mean, you agree that a paper thin hull would be a death sentence for anyone in the LM, right? Or do you think it wouldn't be a problem?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 463  464  465    467  468  469 >>

log in

join