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: 470
377
<< 467  468  469    471  472  473 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

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...
Satellites and observatories, if I'm reading this NOAA page right.

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...


The basic reports sent monthly from the observatories (as soon as possible after the end of the month) consist of data for each flare or subflare and a day-by-day table of times when the sun was under observation by photographic, electronic or visual patrol.
I assume that an observatory or two was probably tasked to monitor solar flares in real-time and to call NASA if anything came up, or something like that.




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


Mate, thanks for the link but the fact remains that they didn't even know the dangers back then so why would they be alert to them?

Unless someone can show me proof they had an early warning system for CME's back in 1970 then I'm afraid Weed's post is mere fiction..

Lets remember, the comp I'm typing on now probably has more computing power than the entire control room for Apollo 11..



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by backinblack

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...
Satellites and observatories, if I'm reading this NOAA page right.

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...


The basic reports sent monthly from the observatories (as soon as possible after the end of the month) consist of data for each flare or subflare and a day-by-day table of times when the sun was under observation by photographic, electronic or visual patrol.
I assume that an observatory or two was probably tasked to monitor solar flares in real-time and to call NASA if anything came up, or something like that.


Even so, this has nothing to do with CME's.
And regarding being able to predict Solar Flares, that was simply to put the public at ease.
In all their internal reports they feared the unpredictability of Solar Flares.
And as we have shown in this thread: Major Solar Flares, Majore SPEs all occurred during Apollo.
And we also know, they dont like talking about it with the general public.

Now we have shown that Apollo astronauts were in the LM during their transit through the VABs.
And did NASA at any point say to the Astronauts. "Oh oh, VABs approaching, we better get the boys into the safety of the CM!"

Now I want to clarify that I have no idea how intense the VAB region was that they travelled through.
It could have been anywhere from 10MeV to 400MeV.
But I bet neither does NASA.
But I can tell you the LM wasn't shielded for it. Probably not even for KeV

I mean, what was the LM shielded for actually?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:10 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.


We have established many pages ago that "interplanetary" can also mean traveling to the moon.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 


Mate, thanks for the link but the fact remains that they didn't even know the dangers back then so why would they be alert to them?

Unless someone can show me proof they had an early warning system for CME's back in 1970 then I'm afraid Weed's post is mere fiction..

Lets remember, the comp I'm typing on now probably has more computing power than the entire control room for Apollo 11..
I just told you, they had observatories and satellites up. The link even has archives of their data through several decades, including the year of 1969.

Also, they specifically chose their path through the VAB to reduce radiation exposure.

Th at's a paper by James Van Allen himself, discussing the radiation in detail. They knew what they were up against.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Even so, this has nothing to do with CME's.
And regarding being able to predict Solar Flares, that was simply to put the public at ease.
In all their internal reports they feared the unpredictability of Solar Flares.
Which is why they would've had satellites and observatories watching the sun, so they could react if a solar event did occur. I said nothing about "prediction", merely "observation".


And as we have shown in this thread: Major Solar Flares, Majore SPEs all occurred during Apollo.
And we also know, they dont like talking about it with the general public.
I think I missed that post, could you give me a link, please?


Now we have shown that Apollo astronauts were in the LM during their transit through the VABs.
Only Apollo 13.

And did NASA at any point say to the Astronauts. "Oh oh, VABs approaching, we better get the boys into the safety of the CM!"
I can't find anything about any solar flares during Apollo 13.


Now I want to clarify that I have no idea how intense the VAB region was that they travelled through.
It could have been anywhere from 10MeV to 400MeV.
But I bet neither does NASA.
Can you support that?

But I can tell you the LM wasn't shielded for it. Probably not even for KeV
You don't know what the radiation was, you don't know if NASA knew what the radiation was, yet you assert they had inadequate shielding? That doesn't seem logical to me.


I mean, what was the LM shielded for actually?
Radiation and heat, I assume. On the moon.
edit on 2011/5/27 by 000063 because: +



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

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.


We have established many pages ago that "interplanetary" can also mean traveling to the moon.
And then I linked to the paper where the reference for the BIB quoted Wikipedia bit states that radiation isn't a problem for lunar travel over short periods, specifically referring to the moon landing.

You know you can't quote mine people you're actually talking to, right? Because they can correct your omissions.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Anyway, Nat wants us to believe that during the transit back home, they floated into the safety of their CM seats prior to entering the VABs.

Sorry NAT, I dont buy that for a second.

We all know the VABs extend from 400 to about 40 thousand miles. The LM was jettisoned some 12.000 miles from Earth. So anything they were doing prior to this puts them within the VABs range.


We've been through this before. Their trajectory took them well above the center of the belts.

If you look at the technical air-to-ground transcript, you'll see at 05 21 02 32 (141:02), Lovell says he's bailing out of the LM. In the PAO transcript, around 141:03, they give the range as 14,468 nautical miles (26,795 km). By 141:15, they verify the hatch is secured and the tunnel is venting, so everyone must be in the CM. Let's look at their position relative to the VABs at that time:

Click to view whole image.


So they were just beginning to skirt the uppermost parts of the belts when they were all inside the CM.


Originally posted by FoosM
The astronauts experienced a dose slightly more than Apollo 9 which never left LEO.
Now explain how they could survive that type of radiation in the VABs?
Explain how they could sit 4 days in the LM out in space, and only show slightly more
exposure to radiation that Apollo 9?
Again, we've been over this. Apollo 9 was in space for 10 days, 1 hour. Apollo 13 was in space for 5 days, 23 hours.

Average dosage rate for Apollo 9: 0.00083 rads/hour
Average dosage rate for Apollo 13: 0.0017 rads/hour

So their dose rate was twice as high as Apollo 9.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I asked you what equipment NASA had in 1970 to predict CME's etc..
I honestly don't recall them having any reasonable advance warning system that would enable them to get the astronauts to safety..

Please enlighten me..
Again, we have been over this before.

The Solar Particle Alert Network (SPAN) used optical and radio telescopes to monitor the sun constantly during the Apollo missions.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM
Even so, this has nothing to do with CME's.
And regarding being able to predict Solar Flares, that was simply to put the public at ease.
In all their internal reports they feared the unpredictability of Solar Flares.
Which is why they would've had satellites and observatories watching the sun, so they could react if a solar event did occur. I said nothing about "prediction", merely "observation".


Sorry, I thought you were agreeing with Weed.





And as we have shown in this thread: Major Solar Flares, Majore SPEs all occurred during Apollo.
And we also know, they dont like talking about it with the general public.
I think I missed that post, could you give me a link, please?



www.abovetopsecret.com...





Now we have shown that Apollo astronauts were in the LM during their transit through the VABs.
Only Apollo 13.

And did NASA at any point say to the Astronauts. "Oh oh, VABs approaching, we better get the boys into the safety of the CM!"
I can't find anything about any solar flares during Apollo 13.


"VABs" not flares.
Though I haven't looked into the flare situation yet.





Now I want to clarify that I have no idea how intense the VAB region was that they travelled through.
It could have been anywhere from 10MeV to 400MeV.
But I bet neither does NASA.
Can you support that?


Ill gladly retract if you can find info on VAB intensity during Apollo missions.






But I can tell you the LM wasn't shielded for it. Probably not even for KeV
You don't know what the radiation was, you don't know if NASA knew what the radiation was, yet you assert they had inadequate shielding? That doesn't seem logical to me.


I mean, what was the LM shielded for actually?
Radiation and heat, I assume. On the moon.



Well ok, provide info for that please.
The LM was shielded against radiation on the moon,
Solar Flares, etc.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Komodo
 


I'd actually like to know what kept Apollo 17 cool for, I think it was 75 hours of direct sunlight...

That must of taken one hell of a good AC unit..


Not to mention how many times they vented the cool air to open the hatches..


The cooling system worked the same way as the cooling system on the PLSS: sublimation of water. It's a very efficient way of carrying away heat.

As for the cool air, that all came from liquid oxygen, so cooling it was not a problem.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by backinblack
I asked you what equipment NASA had in 1970 to predict CME's etc..
I honestly don't recall them having any reasonable advance warning system that would enable them to get the astronauts to safety..

Please enlighten me..
Again, we have been over this before.

The Solar Particle Alert Network (SPAN) used optical and radio telescopes to monitor the sun constantly during the Apollo missions.


Meaning what?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

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.


We have established many pages ago that "interplanetary" can also mean traveling to the moon.
And then I linked to the paper where the reference for the BIB quoted Wikipedia bit states that radiation isn't a problem for lunar travel over short periods, specifically referring to the moon landing.

You know you can't quote mine people you're actually talking to, right? Because they can correct your omissions.


Circular argument because they use Apollo as proof.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by backinblack
I asked you what equipment NASA had in 1970 to predict CME's etc..
I honestly don't recall them having any reasonable advance warning system that would enable them to get the astronauts to safety..

Please enlighten me..
Again, we have been over this before.

The Solar Particle Alert Network (SPAN) used optical and radio telescopes to monitor the sun constantly during the Apollo missions.


Meaning what?
Meaning they had an advanced warning system for CMEs. The particles ejected travel slower than the speed of light, so visual and radio observation of the ejection allows time to issue a warning before the arrival of the particles.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Apollo 13: More Drama


Ok, now the big question.
During their stay in their "tin can" lifeboat called Aquarius.
Were there any solar flares detected or reported?


Apollo 13 looped around the moon on 14 April 1970. While the lunar module barely provided room to turn around, the crew preferred its narrow confines to the chilly 11 degrees C of the powerless command module. Respect for Aquarius increased as its systems continued to function well past their two day mission expectancy. Splashdown came in the South Pacific on 17 April.


Ok, so we got day 14, 15, 16, 17.
4 days.

drum roll.... yes.

From: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986)
These LDE flares (double ribbon) produce 'accelerated' protons into interplanetary space and SIDs.

Right after an M-class flare, on April 14 there was an X-class flare (Major Flare) reported.
The H-alpha lasted 1.3 hours, the SXR (soft xray) lasted 3 hours.
It had a SID (Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance) of 3 (which is considered intense)

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...







www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by backinblack
I asked you what equipment NASA had in 1970 to predict CME's etc..
I honestly don't recall them having any reasonable advance warning system that would enable them to get the astronauts to safety..

Please enlighten me..
Again, we have been over this before.

The Solar Particle Alert Network (SPAN) used optical and radio telescopes to monitor the sun constantly during the Apollo missions.


Meaning what?
Meaning they had an advanced warning system for CMEs. The particles ejected travel slower than the speed of light, so visual and radio observation of the ejection allows time to issue a warning before the arrival of the particles.


No Nat, I believe you are wrong on this one.
These were ground observatories correct?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Komodo
 


I'd actually like to know what kept Apollo 17 cool for, I think it was 75 hours of direct sunlight...

That must of taken one hell of a good AC unit..


Not to mention how many times they vented the cool air to open the hatches..


The cooling system worked the same way as the cooling system on the PLSS: sublimation of water. It's a very efficient way of carrying away heat.

As for the cool air, that all came from liquid oxygen, so cooling it was not a problem.


Yet no evidence of venting, evaporation in photos or videos.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


One does not even have to check your "research", there.....to realize that in any case.....NO solar flare would be *instantly* fatal to a human.

Not that nuclear fallout radiation is the same (IT ISN'T) or the residual radiation from a fission nuclear powerplant leak, or failure, is the same (IT ISN'T).....even exposure to those levels of radiation aren't immediately fatal.


But, in any event....once the assertions made by *esteemed* 'member' FoosM are thoroughly vetted, will most likely be yet another red herring of inanity.

Of course, what's lost on the majority of "hoax believers" (HBs) is the simple fact that, in case of Apollo 13.....the CM was ALWAYS THERE, if needed, for a refuge in case of a severe CME, or any other Solar burst that might have necessitated their taking refuge, in it. Would have altered the revised mission plan to get them home, safely in that emergency.....but, THAT IS WHAT has to happen....to respond to a situation like that. It's called being resourceful, and THINKING logically...to use all the tools available to you, in the best manner possible.





edit on Fri 27 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by backinblack
I asked you what equipment NASA had in 1970 to predict CME's etc..
I honestly don't recall them having any reasonable advance warning system that would enable them to get the astronauts to safety..

Please enlighten me..
Again, we have been over this before.

The Solar Particle Alert Network (SPAN) used optical and radio telescopes to monitor the sun constantly during the Apollo missions.


Meaning what?
Meaning they had an advanced warning system for CMEs. The particles ejected travel slower than the speed of light, so visual and radio observation of the ejection allows time to issue a warning before the arrival of the particles.


No Nat, I believe you are wrong on this one.
These were ground observatories correct?

Being on the ground doesn't impede visual or radio observations.

From Radiation and the International Space Station:


During the Apollo program a network of solar observatories was used to give a real-time warning of SPEs and to estimate their possible impact on the lunar missions. The Solar Particle Alert Network (SPAN) was implemented by the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC)-now the Johnson Space Center- in Houston. It consisted of seven observatories located around the world to ensure 24-hour observations of solar activity. Hydrogen-alpha (0.5 A bandwidth) telescopes were installed at all seven observatories to observe optical solar flares that produce solar particle events. The observatories were located at Houston; Boulder, Colorado; Honolulu, Hawaii; Carnarvon, Australia; Culgoora, Australia; Teheran, Iran; and the Grand Canary Islands, Spain. Each location had real-time communications with Mission Control Center (MCC) in Houston. In addition, there were radio-frequency telescopes operating at 2695 JvlHz at three locations: Houston, Carnarvon, and the Canary Islands. A blue-ribbon committee of space scientists, chaired by Wilmot Hess, oversaw the implementation of the network.

It was recognized early in the Apollo program that high-energy particles from solar flares could pose a radiation hazard to the astronauts. They were especially vulnerable while they were in the thinly shielded lunar excursion module (LEM) or on the lunar surface. However, the command and service module provided enougru protection to reduce exposures from solar particle events to acceptable levels. The Apollo missions were scheduled to take place during solar maximum years, when large solar particle events are more apt to occur. Research had established that virtually all particle events during solar cycle 19 were preceded by type IV solar radio bursts. However, not all type IV bursts were followed by particle events. (The same is true for solar flares observed in the hydrogen-alpha line, but there are many more flares than type IV radio bursts.) Studies carried out at MSC established a correlation between large type IV solar radio bursts and SPE size (time-integrated proton flux > 30 MeV). The radio flux was integrated over time to obtain a measure of the energy of l!he burst. The hypothesis was that the radio burst was produced by synchrotron radiation from electrons that are accelerated at the same time as the protons. Data from radio observatories at Ottawa, Canada (which operated at 2800 MHz) and Nagoya University, in Japan (which operat·ed at 3000 MHz) were used for the study. Particle event data were taken from the Solar Proton Manual and a Boeing Company report.

While some solar flares produce relativistic-energy protons that can arrive in the Earth-Moon region within 30 minutes, the arrival times for most events are 4 to 6 hours after the flare and radio burst. Peak particle intensities do not occur until another 4 to 6 hours after the arrival of particle.s. The strategy was to use this time to move the Apollo astronauts off the lunar surface and have them return to the more heavily shielded command and service module. Information on the occurrence of a solar flare (observed by the hydrogen-alpha telescopes) and data from a large radio-frequency (10 em wavelength) burst were transmitted back to MCC in Houston. Radiation specialists working on the radiation console, located in one of the MCC "back rooms," analyzed these data. If an event of a certain (estimated) size was believed to produce a substantial radiation dose to the astronauts, the flight director would be advised so that action could be taken to minimize their exposure. Particle spectrometers and dosimeters onboard the Apollo spacecraft then detected the increase in the radiation environment, to verify that the particle event had arrived in cislunar space. This reduced the impact of a false alarm when a flare and type IV burst did not produce particles that propagated to cislunar space. Flight rules precluded launching into an SPE or landing on the Moon during such an event and terminated a lunar excursion if exposures were estimated to be above an acceptable level.

edit on 27-5-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Yet no evidence of venting, evaporation in photos or videos.

Not evaporation, sublimation... the changing of ice into steam. Steam is colorless, and would rapidly dissipate in a vacuum.




top topics



 
377
<< 467  468  469    471  472  473 >>

log in

join