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: 471
377
<< 468  469  470    472  473  474 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

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.



They were first observed in the early 1970s, when photographs taken from satellites revealed coronal activity that could not be seen in images taken from Earth.



www.thefreedictionary.com...




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM




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...
That seems to have promptly turned into a debate too complicated for me to follow, so I'll let it lie.





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.
1. You missed the part of my post where I pointed out that you were basing your claim on something you admitted you didn't know.
2. Asking your opponent to support your point before you withdraw it? Certainly a...novel debating technique.




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. I said "I assume", to make it clear that I was, basically, making a guess. I didn't find much when I Googled, but then I'm sleep deprived. It seems to me that heat and radiation would be the most pressing concerns.

Note how I'm distinguishing between my opinion and actual facts.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


PROOF, positive.....


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


...that someone needs a better foundation in science education, before spouting off about things he/she doesn't fully comprehend......



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


PROOF, positive.....


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


...that someone needs a better foundation in science education, before spouting off about things he/she doesn't fully comprehend......


Explain, why would we not see visible evidence of sublimation?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM




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...
That seems to have promptly turned into a debate too complicated for me to follow, so I'll let it lie.


Wait a second.
Do you admit that there were major solar flares recorded during Apollo missions?
And for the sake of our discussion, Apollo 13, while the astronauts were sitting in the LM?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

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.
No, that's not proof. That's the statement. They are saying that their conclusion is that Apollo would have no problems.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Explain, why would we not see visible evidence of sublimation?


Vacuum....VACUUM....



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Exactly~!!! Once I saw the vids you posted yesterday(?) I had an epiphany


"So they went from a secure environment of the CM to a less and more harmful one?~!"

This reasoning is totally NOT a reasoning of a engineer/scientist ~!!!!! and I've worked with quite a few actually and to me NASA is doing nothing more than disgracing and embarrassing them down to atom~!!!



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM




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...
That seems to have promptly turned into a debate too complicated for me to follow, so I'll let it lie.


Wait a second.
Do you admit that there were major solar flares recorded during Apollo missions?
And for the sake of our discussion, Apollo 13, while the astronauts were sitting in the LM?
I admit I don't understand what that thread turned into, and I don't see the point in retreading points which have been hashed out already. Radiation discussion, evidence, people accusing other people of "scattergunning", all these things have happened before and will happen again.

I've already proven that Jarrah was wrong about something in pretty much the most unambiguous terms possible. As several have already pointed out several times, the sheer volume of evidence produced in favor Apollo 11 would be impossible to fake, along with ensuring Russia's complicity, creating fakes that would hold up to examination from scientific tools that didn't exist yet, and suppressing or bamboozling everyone on the project. In addition, they would've had to maintain this vast, complex conspiracy for not one year, not ten, not twenty, but forty years. In fact, that would be more work than actually going to the moon. Most of the Presidents who were in office at the time of the program are dead, so who's maintaining the conspiracy?
edit on 2011/5/27 by 000063 because: +



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by FoosM
 


Exactly~!!! Once I saw the vids you posted yesterday(?) I had an epiphany


"So they went from a secure environment of the CM to a less and more harmful one?~!"

This reasoning is totally NOT a reasoning of a engineer/scientist ~!!!!! and I've worked with quite a few actually and to me NASA is doing nothing more than disgracing and embarrassing them down to atom~!!!
At that point, the CM was the more harmful environment.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
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...


Again, we've been through this.

Looking at the two flares that occurred during Apollo 13:



Here is what the columns mean:



Note the location of the flares, N10 W50 for the first flare. The second flare was at N15 W85.

Let's look at where those are on the sun:

N10 W50:


N15 W85:


Both happened near the edge of the sun. Since the particle flow is directed perpendicular to the surface of the sun, the particles from these events posed no threat to Earth, and hence, the astronauts.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:26 PM
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.


that's great answer.. and if you can answer the question posed by this you tuber at the end of the vid that would be awesome ..





posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


They were first observed in the early 1970s, when photographs taken from satellites revealed coronal activity that could not be seen in images taken from Earth.



www.thefreedictionary.com...


Being able to photograph the corona is not the only way to detect the events, which is why they used radio telescopes.

en.wikipedia.org...


The largest recorded geomagnetic perturbation, resulting presumably from a CME, coincided with the first-observed solar flare, on 1 September 1859, and now referred to as the solar storm of 1859. The flare was independently observed by R. C. Carrington and R. Hodgson. The geomagnetic storm was observed with the recording magnetograph at Kew Gardens. The same instrument recorded a crotchet, an instantaneous perturbation of the Earth's ionosphere by ionizing soft X-rays. This could not easily be understood at the time because it predated the discovery of X-rays by Röntgen and the recognition of the ionosphere by Kennelly and Heaviside.


So they were detecting the electromagnetic effects of CMEs as far back as 1859.
edit on 27-5-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


PROOF, positive.....


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


...that someone needs a better foundation in science education, before spouting off about things he/she doesn't fully comprehend......


Explain, why would we not see visible evidence of sublimation?


What visible evidence of a diffuse colorless gas would you expect to see, exactly?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by FoosM
 


Exactly~!!! Once I saw the vids you posted yesterday(?) I had an epiphany


"So they went from a secure environment of the CM to a less and more harmful one?~!"

This reasoning is totally NOT a reasoning of a engineer/scientist ~!!!!! and I've worked with quite a few actually and to me NASA is doing nothing more than disgracing and embarrassing them down to atom~!!!
At that point, the CM was the more harmful environment.


correct and so you're agreeing that by moving to the LM was even MORE serious issue ..~!!!

and something I just realized after watching the movie Apollo 13..where did they get the electricity to keep the oxygen flowing for 3-4 hours??? According to the movie, ALL power was out..
edit on 27-5-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
that's great answer.. and if you can answer the question posed by this you tuber at the end of the vid that would be awesome ..




If the question you're asking about is the one at the very end, "Maybe I get the whole thing wrong?" Then the answer is yes, he get the whole thing wrong.

Sublimation is a very good way to carry away heat. It takes a lot of energy to turn ice into steam.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Komodo
that's great answer.. and if you can answer the question posed by this you tuber at the end of the vid that would be awesome ..




If the question you're asking about is the one at the very end, "Maybe I get the whole thing wrong?" Then the answer is yes, he get the whole thing wrong.

Sublimation is a very good way to carry away heat. It takes a lot of energy to turn ice into steam.


no the question he was asking was .. How can the temperature in space be cold and on the moon be scorching ??
edit on 27-5-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)

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



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by FoosM
 


Exactly~!!! Once I saw the vids you posted yesterday(?) I had an epiphany


"So they went from a secure environment of the CM to a less and more harmful one?~!"

This reasoning is totally NOT a reasoning of a engineer/scientist ~!!!!! and I've worked with quite a few actually and to me NASA is doing nothing more than disgracing and embarrassing them down to atom~!!!
At that point, the CM was the more harmful environment.


correct and so you're agreeing that by moving to the LM was even MORE serious issue ..~!!!
I find it amazing that you managed to infer almost the precise opposite of what I said.

Staying in the Command Module was more dangerous that moving into the Lunar Module. They also needed to relocate to make the most of their limited resources. The guys were rigging stuff together out of spit and duct tape. Literally, duct tape!

Honestly, it's kind of moving. An entire nation that just wanted to Get Its Boys Home.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 



Explain, why would we not see visible evidence of sublimation?


Vacuum....VACUUM....


Yeah dont remind me, I'll do it tomorrow.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Komodo
that's great answer.. and if you can answer the question posed by this you tuber at the end of the vid that would be awesome ..




If the question you're asking about is the one at the very end, "Maybe I get the whole thing wrong?" Then the answer is yes, he get the whole thing wrong.

Sublimation is a very good way to carry away heat. It takes a lot of energy to turn ice into steam.


no the question is was asking was .. How can the temperature in space be cold and on the moon be scoring ??
Did you mean "scorching"? Perhaps you should switch to Firefox, which has a built-in spellcheck.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 468  469  470    472  473  474 >>

log in

join