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: 469
377
<< 466  467  468    470  471  472 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 

HUH????
Oh, boy.....well.....
HAVE you bothered, yet, to download a prgram called "Stellarium"???
I will wait.....until you have.
Then, you will have the ability to understand (hopefully).
BIG HINT:......Sun angle, above the horizon, at time of Apollo landings....ALL of them.
Do the research, learn teh program, and try to learn, for yourselves.....(I will not hold my breath...)


Hold your breath all you want Weed..

The moon has almost no atmosphere, correct??
All Apollo missions landed and departed in sunlight, correct??

The angle of the sun as opposed to the moon is irrelevant..
Only with a decent atmosphere is the suns rays diffused...correct??




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


THIS has been discussed, already.

NASA was able to observe, and get warnings, of Solar activity...LIGHT travels faster than much of the worst aspects of the "flares" that followed....hence, the time of warning.

The ridiculousness of FoosM's posts, have been addressed, dozens of times. It is ALL in this thread....I felt that YOU were there......I sense the presence of a blackness.....on the back......I really do........



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I had nothing to say about atmosphere, and Sunlight .... YOU make this up, huh?

You keep moving the goalposts???

I discussed a few later missions, of Apollo landings, and the doffing of the suits, in between EVAs.....and YOU post back about APOLLO 13....and I respond, and YOU then flip it back to some other OFF-TOPIC aspect of Apollo....

Games.

You are revealed. Game player. There is another noun to describe that, though....



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by 000063
 


no he DID answer you .. but you either missed it or iggied it..





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?


012 inches



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 

THIS has been discussed, already.
NASA was able to observe, and get warnings, of Solar activity...LIGHT travels faster than much of the worst aspects of the "flares" that followed....hence, the time of warning.
The ridiculousness of FoosM's posts, have been addressed, dozens of times. It is ALL in this thread....I felt that YOU were there......I sense the presence of a blackness.....on the back......I really do........


Then you are sensing the wrong thing Weed..

I have NOT seen this issue addressed..
I do recall reading that YEARS later they said the missions had been lucky with solar activity..

I'm still waiting for YOU to tell me what equipment NASA had in 1970 that gave advance warnings of CME's etc..

I wont hold my breath for an answer..



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



You are revealed. Game player. There is another noun to describe that, though....


Do tell Weed....

BTW, you are the one that jumps in..
I merely reply to other posts..

Sorry if I can discuss two issues at once and you can't...

BYW, it would be good if you actually answered questions as much as you ask them..
I notice this about you in this and other threads..
You seem to go AWOL on certain issues.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


NOT "my" job, or task.

It is IN this thread....YOU go look for it:



I'm still waiting for YOU to tell me what equipment NASA had in 1970 that gave advance warnings of CME's etc..



Your tactics are clear.....not ONLY in this thread.


How sad...so very, very sad. A potential rival, destroys himself....and for what?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 

HUH????
Oh, boy.....well.....
HAVE you bothered, yet, to download a prgram called "Stellarium"???
I will wait.....until you have.
Then, you will have the ability to understand (hopefully).
BIG HINT:......Sun angle, above the horizon, at time of Apollo landings....ALL of them.
Do the research, learn teh program, and try to learn, for yourselves.....(I will not hold my breath...)


Hold your breath all you want Weed..

The moon has almost no atmosphere, correct??
All Apollo missions landed and departed in sunlight, correct??

The angle of the sun as opposed to the moon is irrelevant..
Only with a decent atmosphere is the suns rays diffused...correct??


Lets us muse between you and me a moment and put these debunkers out of our minds since it's really not getting us anywhere.. *grin*..

but.. interesting to find is ... this tidbit.. and yea.. under the search of shielding against solar radiation but OMG it's Wiki.. ;P


Mitigation
Shielding

Material shielding can be effective against galactic cosmic rays, but thin shielding may situationally actually make the problem worse for some of the higher energy rays, because more shielding causes an increased amount of secondary radiation, although very (arguably impractically) thick shielding could counter such too.[13] The aluminum walls of the ISS, for example, are believed to have a net beneficial effect. In interplanetary space, however, it is believed that thin aluminum shielding would have a negative net effect.[14]

Several strategies are being studied for ameliorating the effects of this radiation hazard for planned human interplanetary spaceflight:

source Wiki

Things that stood out to me in the above were..
~but thin shielding may situationally actually make the problem worse for some of the higher energy rays, because more shielding causes an increased amount of secondary radiation, although very (arguably impractically) thick shielding could counter such too

~Unfortunately, "Some 'galactic cosmic rays are so energetic that no reasonable amount of shielding can stop them,' cautions Frank Cucinotta, NASA's Chief Radiation Health Officer. 'All materials have this problem, including polyethylene.'"[16]

~Special provisions would also be necessary to protect against an SPE, which could increase fluxes to levels that would kill a crew in hours or days rather than months or years

So basically, when they all went into the LM.. THEY SHOULD HAVE FRIED like an egg~!! They were in there for 3-4 hours ?? with NO suits on ~! ??

edit on Sun May 29 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by 000063
 


no he DID answer you .. but you either missed it or iggied it..





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?


012 inches



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by Komodo
Things that stood out to me in the above were..
~but thin shielding may situationally actually make the problem worse for some of the higher energy rays, because more shielding causes an increased amount of secondary radiation, although very (arguably impractically) thick shielding could counter such too

~Unfortunately, "Some 'galactic cosmic rays are so energetic that no reasonable amount of shielding can stop them,' cautions Frank Cucinotta, NASA's Chief Radiation Health Officer. 'All materials have this problem, including polyethylene.'"[16]

~Special provisions would also be necessary to protect against an SPE, which could increase fluxes to levels that would kill a crew in hours or days rather than months or years

So basically, when they all went into the LM.. THEY SHOULD HAVE FRIED like an egg~!! They were in there for 3-4 hours ?? with NO suits on ~! ??
Notice how all the red words are qualifiers. Notice how the yellow word is definitive. Do you need a grammar lesson to understand the difference between "may" and "should"?
edit on 2011/5/27 by 000063 because: +


right.. so since your the expert .. and doubt Wiki's sources.. and w/o using theirs .. plz show me some other sources other than Wiki QUOTING NASA~!!

oh and those comments aren't mine LOL... yea.. they're copied and pasted from the article ITSELF>. Please stop the slandering or you'll be reported.. thx ~!

Next subject ??
edit on 27-5-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 

Weed says if there was a CME then NASA would simple tell the astronauts to get into the CM..
Yeah right..





It's legendary (at NASA) because it happened during the Apollo program when astronauts were going back and forth to the Moon regularly. At the time, the crew of Apollo 16 had just returned to Earth in April while the crew of Apollo 17 was preparing for a moon-landing in December. Luckily, everyone was safely on Earth when the sun went haywire.

science.nasa.gov...

Great article to read..
They really knew so little back then..
If man did land on the moon it was surely "on a wing and a prayer"....



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by 000063
 


no he DID answer you .. but you either missed it or iggied it..





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?


012 inches



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
Here's your info you requested and it's still shady how they got thru the VABS with such thin 'shielding' ..

The Command Module is the central part of the Apollo spacecraft. ... The thickness of this outer wall varies from 0.5-inch (1.27cm) to 2.5-inch (6.35cm).
source

Next subject !
Hang on, we're not finished yet.

The following post serves to prove my claim that Jarrah White, the subject of this thread, was wrong. It will be relevant to this thread, polite, and on-topic.

Anyway, the chart JW quoted, as DJ demonstrated, said that even 1 gram of material per cubic centimeter would reduce the amount of radiation. You can download the IRPA9 document here, with the relevant charts on the page with 19 in the lower-left corner.

I would like to digress a bit and point out that it is not necessary to prove that the radiation dosage was fatal, for the sake of my claim that JW was wrong. JW claimed that the dosage the astronauts would've received was X. X was found to be identical to the unshielded dosage. Even a shield 1mm thick would reduce said dosage. As you have presented, the hull was 1.27cm, or 127mm.

I don't need to continue, but I will.

As your link demonstrated, that was merely the outer hull of the CM. Not the inner structure, which would've provided further shielding.

The gram per cm squared unit is a measure of of surface density. Kovalev's report, which Jarrah and IRPA 9 quoted, says that 1g/cm^2 would reduce the dosage. Remember, for JW to be wrong, the radiation dosage has to be reduced by any amount whatsoever. For the sake of argument, let's just simplify it to anything with a surface density greater than 1g/cm2. Lesser amounts would still reduce radiation, but I want to make it as easy as possible to follow, to increase clarity.

Basically, it means that if the radiation has to travel through a material with a surface density of greater than 1g over 1cm^2, it would be reduced. Jarrah's numbers for the exposure were the same as the unshielded numbers in the report he and IRPA quote. Any shielding at all, remember, but I made it so it had to be at least 1g/cm^2. That is more than is required to reduce exposure,

Since each face on a cubic centimetre is a square centimetre, then we only need to know the density of aluminium in a cubic centimetre. Note that at its thinnest point, the CM hull was 1.27cm thick. Density is measured in grams per cubic cm. Kovalev's report says that if the radiation has to pass through just 1g of material, it will be reduced. If the density of aluminium in 1cm^3 is greater than 1g, then it would provide shielding, meaning the man whom this thread is the subject of, Jarrah White, was wrong in stating the exposure the astronauts would've had is the same as the unshielded exposure.

uk.answers.yahoo.com...
wiki.answers.com...
edhelper.com... (question 7)
www.alcoat.net...
www.chemicool.com...
education.jlab.org...

All six of those sources have the same density of alumium, as does Wikipedia. I just want to make it absolutely clear that I am not making this up.

The density of aluminium is 2.7grams per cm cubed.

Any radiation traveling through that would be reduced.

The hull of the Command Module would provide shielding.

The astronauts would receive less than the unshielded dose of radiation.

Jarrah White, the subject of this thread, was wrong on the amount of radiation they would've been exposed to.
edit on 2011/5/27 by 000063 because: +


EDIT: And now, an illustration.

Basically, the shortest path through a cubic centimeter is 1cm.


edit on 2011/5/27 by 000063 because: +



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 



All six of those sources have the same density of alumium, as does Wikipedia. I just want to make it absolutely clear that I am not making this up.


Did I read somewhere that aluminum actually increases radiation of some types?
I may be wrong..Might have been some other metal..



Material shielding can be effective against galactic cosmic rays, but thin shielding may situationally actually make the problem worse for some of the higher energy rays, because more shielding causes an increased amount of secondary radiation, although very (arguably impractically) thick shielding could counter such too.[13] The aluminum walls of the ISS, for example, are believed to have a net beneficial effect. In interplanetary space, however, it is believed that thin aluminum shielding would have a negative net effect.[14]

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 27-5-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Lunar travel, I believe, isn't considered "interplanetary". Also, it specifically mentions "thin" shielding. I'm not sure what qualifies as such, but it the bit you quoted links to this paper as a reference. I've bolded an important bit.

www.islandone.org...


On the Apollo missions, the approach to crew protection was simple: on notification of a large solar flare, the mission would be aborted to Earth. Since the missions were short, the cumulative fluence of galactic cosmic rays was not significant. This approach, however, is not possible for a Mars mission, where return to Earth times will be many months, not significantly shorter than the total mission duration; and would be unlikely for a space colony or manufacturing facility in Earth orbit, with the goal of continuous occupation.


Satisfied?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
Lunar travel, I believe, isn't considered "interplanetary". Also, it specifically mentions "thin" shielding. I'm not sure what qualifies as such, but it the bit you quoted links to this paper as a reference. I've bolded an important bit.

www.islandone.org...


On the Apollo missions, the approach to crew protection was simple: on notification of a large solar flare, the mission would be aborted to Earth. Since the missions were short, the cumulative fluence of galactic cosmic rays was not significant. This approach, however, is not possible for a Mars mission, where return to Earth times will be many months, not significantly shorter than the total mission duration; and would be unlikely for a space colony or manufacturing facility in Earth orbit, with the goal of continuous occupation.


Satisfied?


IMO anything outside of LEO could be classed as interplanetary..
Also I have yet to hear from anyone what pre warning equipment they had for solar activity in 1970..
Please tell me if you know of any...



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 466  467  468    470  471  472 >>

log in

join