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.
Let's see, that translates to a 0.1% chance per hour. How many hours were the astronauts on EVA? 22 hours for Apollo 17. An overall 2.2% chance of a dangerous X ray dose.
Originally posted by Phage
As you kindly point out, the astronauts were indoors during all of the flares.
Are you going to now go back to insisting that solar x-rays posed deadly danger to astronauts inside their spacecraft? If you're going to do that you're going to have address all the LEO spacecraft before and after Apollo as well
It had been thought that the X-rays were not copious enough to be a major hazard, but a new study suggests X-rays really do pose a threat to astronauts working outside of protective spacecraft or bases.
However, certain problems concerning spacecraft radioluminescent sources were peculiar to the Apollo Program. The chief problems were leakage of radioactive material from radioluminescent switch tips, and emission of excess soft X-ray radiation from radioluminescent panels. Both of these problems were solved.
Originally posted by nataylor
The "BBQ roll" was used to evenly distribute the heat load from the sun across the exterior of the craft. It really didn't have anything to do with the heat level inside the craft.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
Did you read the article that you quoted?
It had been thought that the X-rays were not copious enough to be a major hazard, but a new study suggests X-rays really do pose a threat to astronauts working outside of protective spacecraft or bases.
www.newscientist.com...
X-rays were not a concern at the time. Maybe if they had been outside at the time there would have been a problem, maybe not.
I said nothing about comparative shielding. I said that x-rays are not a concern when inside a spacecraft.
Originally posted by FoosM
I didnt say you said anything about shielding, Im asking you if you think the LM was as shielded as the CM.
Because X-rays from solar flares are hazardous to persons flying in airplanes. This is after it has already been dissipated through our atmospheres.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Phage
Let's see, that translates to a 0.1% chance per hour. How many hours were the astronauts on EVA? 22 hours for Apollo 17. An overall 2.2% chance of a dangerous X ray dose.
Just a side question, why did they spend so much time in the cramped LM ??
Apollo 17 was on the moon for 75 hours so that means they spent 54 hours in the LM..
Seems odd to travel all that way to sit in a tiny can, well actually I don't think they could sit cause they had no seats..
Originally posted by Phage
Originally posted by FoosM
I didnt say you said anything about shielding, Im asking you if you think the LM was as shielded as the CM.
Because X-rays from solar flares are hazardous to persons flying in airplanes. This is after it has already been dissipated through our atmospheres.
Is that right?
They are in a lot more danger from TSA's machines than they are from the Sun.
I said I missed the post where you pointed it out. You linked to it, I followed the link, didn't understand what I was being shown, and openly admitted it. I'm not taking a position either way, since I don't understand the evidence.
Originally posted by FoosM
Why are you being so defensive? Im asking a legitimate question.
You stated you didnt see any mentioned solar flares occur during Apollo 13.
I provided a link showing you a flare that occurred during Apollo 13.
Your bigotry and stereotyping isn't germane to the debate, FoosM.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by Phage
Originally posted by FoosM
I didnt say you said anything about shielding, Im asking you if you think the LM was as shielded as the CM.
Because X-rays from solar flares are hazardous to persons flying in airplanes. This is after it has already been dissipated through our atmospheres.
Is that right?
They are in a lot more danger from TSA's machines than they are from the Sun.
Your tax dollars at work.
Talk about your big hoaxes.
See how gullible the American people are?
They think their whole country is peppered with terrorists.
Originally posted by 000063
I said I missed the post where you pointed it out. You linked to it, I followed the link, didn't understand what I was being shown, and openly admitted it. I'm not taking a position either way, since I don't understand the evidence.
Originally posted by FoosM
Why are you being so defensive? Im asking a legitimate question.
You stated you didnt see any mentioned solar flares occur during Apollo 13.
I provided a link showing you a flare that occurred during Apollo 13.
I can't find anything about any solar flares during Apollo 13.
Originally posted by 000063
Your bigotry and stereotyping isn't germane to the debate, FoosM.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by Phage
Originally posted by FoosM
I didnt say you said anything about shielding, Im asking you if you think the LM was as shielded as the CM.
Because X-rays from solar flares are hazardous to persons flying in airplanes. This is after it has already been dissipated through our atmospheres.
Is that right?
They are in a lot more danger from TSA's machines than they are from the Sun.
Your tax dollars at work.
Talk about your big hoaxes.
See how gullible the American people are?
They think their whole country is peppered with terrorists.
Originally posted by FoosM
Now wait a minute, you just said:
There is no perfect insulator. Over time, the capsule would radiate its heat away.
Now why would heat radiate away, why couldn't heat radiate from outside to inside?
The other issue is, wasnt Apollo 13 also in a bbq mode. It was slowly turning in space to heat all parts of the space ship? That means half the ship was constantly being heated. And when it comes to the LM, you had tanks, pipes, etc.
Originally posted by FoosM
But it seems like you are suggesting that outside has nothing to do with inside.
So why did they have to BBQ roll the LM in space on its way to the moon, but not on the moon?
This is what many people who dont believe in the moon landings hang their hat on.
See if you can debunk it.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
This is what many people who dont believe in the moon landings hang their hat on.
See if you can debunk it.
If I debunk it, will you go on record saying that the Moon landings were real?
Originally posted by nataylor
Originally posted by FoosM
Now wait a minute, you just said:
There is no perfect insulator. Over time, the capsule would radiate its heat away.
Now why would heat radiate away, why couldn't heat radiate from outside to inside?
The other issue is, wasnt Apollo 13 also in a bbq mode. It was slowly turning in space to heat all parts of the space ship? That means half the ship was constantly being heated. And when it comes to the LM, you had tanks, pipes, etc.
Because at this distance from the Sun, space provides a larger heat sink than the heat source provided by the sun. If you have a space craft with equal areas exposed to the sun and in the shade, the net direction of heat transfer would be out of the craft. Yes, the parts in the sun get very hot, but the parts in the shade get very cold.
The roll just made sure the parts on the outside of the craft stayed at a roughly even temperature, which is preferable to having some parts get really hot and some parts get really cold.
Originally posted by FoosM
But it seems like you are suggesting that outside has nothing to do with inside.
So why did they have to BBQ roll the LM in space on its way to the moon, but not on the moon?
The BBQ roll was for the CM (specifically the heat shield material, which could crack and flake if heated and then deeply cooled). But it also kept even heating on the RCS quads, radiators, and propellant tanks.edit on 28-5-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)
...RCS quads, radiators, and propellant tanks...
Originally posted by FoosM
They actually didnt have "space" to do anything.
Now here is a question.
Did the LM have toilets or did the astronauts have to poo and pee in their suits?
Briefly, the fecal collection system was used in the following way. The finger cot was employed to position the fecal bag over the anus. The finger cot was also used after defecation to separate fecal matter from the anal area and push it to the bottom of the bag. The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes. These were disposed of into the fecal bag. The user then secured the germicidal liquid pouch and, after cutting the corner off the outer pouch, deposited it along with the inner pouch into the bag. The bag was them sealed. The germicidal liquid was a mixture of sodium orthophenylphenol and sodium chlorophenylphenol of amaplast blue LXT (NASA, c. 1967). The bag was kneaded to rupture the inner pouch and mix the germicide with the wastes. The inner bag was placed into the outer bag which was rolled into the smallest possible volume and then placed in the waste stowage compartment.
Come on DJ, thats throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
If you debunk it, you will have put a dent into the motive, but not the crime.