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: 474
377
<< 471  472  473    475  476  477 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
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..




posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

Thank you but it's not necessary. Remember, I am the one who showed you the source.

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
edit on 5/28/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

As you kindly point out, the astronauts were indoors during all of the flares.


They weren't indoors due to the flares, they were just following their script.
That means they either had no warning that flares were occurring, or NASA didnt care about
flares because they never went to the moon.




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


Are you saying the LM was comparably shielded as the CM or Space Shuttle?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
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. Well, except maybe for those produced within the vessel.

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.

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...
They were more concerned about glowing switches than solar x-rays.
edit on 5/28/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   

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.


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.

Apollo as a cooked chicken:
er.jsc.nasa.gov...

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?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   

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.


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.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   

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.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   

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..


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?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   

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.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   

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 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.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   

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.
Your bigotry and stereotyping isn't germane to the debate, FoosM.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

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 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.




I can't find anything about any solar flares during Apollo 13.


I was referring to that statement you made.

At any rate, the following videos from JW will explain, in a straightforward manner,
how many flares were recorded during the Apollo flights.
He then calculates how much rem the astronauts would have been exposed to:





This is what many people who dont believe in the moon landings hang their hat on.
See if you can debunk it.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

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.
Your bigotry and stereotyping isn't germane to the debate, FoosM.


How am I a bigot? And dont you stereotype people who dont believe in the moonlandings?
I seen a lot of insults thrown around this thread, I dont see you lambasting anyone else about it.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   

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)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
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?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   

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?




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.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

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...


You mean of the CM or the LM?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

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?


More than you could ever want to know about waste management:

Biomedical Results of Apollo: Waste Management System

When suited, they urinated in a bag. This was later drained into the urine collection system on the craft. When unsuited, depending on the mission, they had various devices they could urinate into.

Defecation, when unsuited, was done into a bag that had an adhesive seal placed over the buttocks:




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.


When suited, they wore an absorbant garment under the liquid cooling garment that would contain any defecation.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Pretty primitive really but then I'm sure their diet was sorted to help the situation..

So Nat, do you know why on Apollo 17 they spent so much time in the LM and what did they do in all that time?

75 hours on the moon and only 22 hours outside the LM..



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



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.


In other words, no. The last time I debunked one of Jarrah's videos, it proved him conclusively wrong. You still refuse even to acknowledge that. Thank you for at least acknowledging that Jarrah is a criminal.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 471  472  473    475  476  477 >>

log in

join