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: 522
377
<< 519  520  521    523  524  525 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Correct, the CM was sandwiched between the LM and the SM. This means that the LM was shielding the CM from any particles approaching from the front and the SM was protecting the astronauts from behind. This means that only particles approaching from the sides would need to be shielded by the CM alone.


But wasn't the LM actually BEHIND the CM at launch and was only docked to the front later?
A task that would take quite some time while both were still within the VAB I presume??




posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001
 



Correct, the CM was sandwiched between the LM and the SM. This means that the LM was shielding the CM from any particles approaching from the front and the SM was protecting the astronauts from behind. This means that only particles approaching from the sides would need to be shielded by the CM alone.


But wasn't the LM actually BEHIND the CM at launch and was only docked to the front later?
A task that would take quite some time while both were still within the VAB I presume??


Saying that the LM and SM shielded the CM, is like trying to use an umbrella underwater.
Sure one side had more protection, that wasn't the issue raised. We are talking about the fact that the CM was not surrounded by the same amount of material as NASA pretends it was. Many parts were alot less thick than others. Still though, the radiation was not an issue. So either the radiation was not a problem, or the CM, no matter how thin the craft was, was still more than sufficient to block it. Either way, it should mean that longer missions to the moon should be very easy to do.


Have you noticed that nobody really has come up with an answer backed by facts?
I simply posed the question, how much longer could Apollo actually stay on the moon?
I would think that an Apollo supporter would jump at the chance to prove hoaxers wrong with this information.



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001
 



Correct, the CM was sandwiched between the LM and the SM. This means that the LM was shielding the CM from any particles approaching from the front and the SM was protecting the astronauts from behind. This means that only particles approaching from the sides would need to be shielded by the CM alone.


But wasn't the LM actually BEHIND the CM at launch and was only docked to the front later?
A task that would take quite some time while both were still within the VAB I presume??


Saying that the LM and SM shielded the CM, is like trying to use an umbrella underwater.
Sure one side had more protection, that wasn't the issue raised. We are talking about the fact that the CM was not surrounded by the same amount of material as NASA pretends it was. Many parts were alot less thick than others. Still though, the radiation was not an issue. So either the radiation was not a problem, or the CM, no matter how thin the craft was, was still more than sufficient to block it. Either way, it should mean that longer missions to the moon should be very easy to do.


Have you noticed that nobody really has come up with an answer backed by facts?
I simply posed the question, how much longer could Apollo actually stay on the moon?
I would think that an Apollo supporter would jump at the chance to prove hoaxers wrong with this information.


Well it is based on the size of the craft foosm a craft that small could only carry so much, even if they could stay up on the moon for years it would still depend on how much supply's they could bring. I'm sure it could have been fixed with a LEO supply craft shot at the moon but hey don't think to far in to what could have happened or what may have happened.

It would have been nice to have an outpost on the moon like many other countries are planing right now. We could have done it in the 1960's but washington being what it was there was no use for it so they canned it. They had plans for all kinds of stuff and what apollo could have done.

Just like the shuttle they had plans for it that would have rocked the world but none of it ever came to any thing. I remember reading some were that the shuttle could have gone to the moon and landed it just would have taken a few mods to do. but a lack of leadership and a lack of support from washington killed any thing beyond what the shuttle did..

Both programs turned into a waste at the end if you ask me. So much more could have been done, just no one cared..



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reaper2137

Originally posted by FoosM

Have you noticed that nobody really has come up with an answer backed by facts?
I simply posed the question, how much longer could Apollo actually stay on the moon?
I would think that an Apollo supporter would jump at the chance to prove hoaxers wrong with this information.


Well it is based on the size of the craft foosm a craft that small could only carry so much,
Both programs turned into a waste at the end if you ask me. So much more could have been done, just no one cared..


Well like I said in a previous post, the question I am asking is only dealing with radiation.
Assuming they had all the supplies they needed, how long could they stay based solely on radiation exposure.



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Sorry I don't know, I'm not an expert on radiation. I would think they could stay up there until they came home or died of radiation. So I guess a layman's answer to your question would be until they died of radiation poison. Don't know if that helps or not.

But if I had to guess man, I would say that if they only got enough radiation from lets say like 2-4 X-Rays a day than I would think that they could safely stay up there for a year or two before they would have to be treated..

Hope that helps, I Think that we did land on the moon just not when they said they did it. I would think they either did it sooner than they say or later. I Think can't prove tho that they did a-lot more than they say.

Hell half of the shuttle missions are classified and now the Air force has its own space shuttle pretty much so I would think they are capable of doing pretty much what they want behind the average Americans back ya know?



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Does this document cover all the required points about long tern radiation exposure?

-


However, for outpost missions to the moon lasting about 180 days or Mars missions expected to last from 600-1000 days, effective doses from GCR will be much higher (Table-5) than past space missions because of the absence of the magnetic protection provided by the Earth from lower energy GCR components and longer duration of the missions. In addition, a significant probability would exist for one or more large solar particle events.


I posted it before, but I haven't seen any comments on it directly.....



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


Does this document cover all the required points about long tern radiation exposure?


Are you asking because you are not sure what the document is saying, or do you think that the document does answer the questions that were asked? If so, can you quote the relevant parts we should read? Because I dont see where it answers my question of how long Apollo could of technically stayed on the moon if radiation was the only consideration.




However, for outpost missions to the moon lasting about 180 days or Mars missions expected to last from 600-1000 days, effective doses from GCR will be much higher (Table-5) than past space missions because of the absence of the magnetic protection provided by the Earth from lower energy GCR components and longer duration of the missions. In addition, a significant probability would exist for one or more large solar particle events.


I posted it before, but I haven't seen any comments on it directly.....




past space missions because of the absence of the magnetic protection provided by the Earth


Why would they say this, and not use Apollo as an example? Or as a benchmark?



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reaper2137


But if I had to guess man, I would say that if they only got enough radiation from lets say like 2-4 X-Rays a day than I would think that they could safely stay up there for a year or two before they would have to be treated..



I think on the numbers, I would agree, they should have been able to stay for a long time. So now the question is, why are scientists from NASA saying that long time habitation on the moon is too dangerous due to radiation?



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


Does this document cover all the required points about long tern radiation exposure?


Are you asking because you are not sure what the document is saying, or do you think that the document does answer the questions that were asked? If so, can you quote the relevant parts we should read? Because I dont see where it answers my question of how long Apollo could of technically stayed on the moon if radiation was the only consideration.


It is a very technical document which I do not undestand all of - however it seems to give a likelihood of serious genetic damage to individuals for various lengths of deep space missions which range in the order of 5-10%.

I am not quite sure what the seriousness of the damage is, but it seems that discussion of such damage is extremely relevant to how long apollo astronaughts could have stayed on the moon.





However, for outpost missions to the moon lasting about 180 days or Mars missions expected to last from 600-1000 days, effective doses from GCR will be much higher (Table-5) than past space missions because of the absence of the magnetic protection provided by the Earth from lower energy GCR components and longer duration of the missions. In addition, a significant probability would exist for one or more large solar particle events.


I posted it before, but I haven't seen any comments on it directly.....




past space missions because of the absence of the magnetic protection provided by the Earth


Why would they say this, and not use Apollo as an example? Or as a benchmark?


Apollo exposure IS given in there - along with other missions - Mercury, Gemini, Skylab & others.
edit on 24-7-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by FoosM

Why would they say this, and not use Apollo as an example? Or as a benchmark?


Apollo exposure IS given in there - along with other missions - Mercury, Gemini, Skylab & others.


Yeah ok, but so what? What does it mean? How does it answer the question?
We have seen these numbers many times, how can they be used in a practical sense?
Does it mean that Apollo's shielding is so good that they could have stayed on the moon for two years with that space craft? Is that what you are suggesting Aloysius the Gaul?

Apollo defenders are very quiet about this issue....



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I am not particularly suggesting anything other than the conclusions in the document seem quite important to your point.

It says there is a pretty large risk of damage from radiation in any long term deep space mission (as I understand it) - it gives some figures which I admit I do not fully understand - if you or anyone else can provide a simplified explaination of them I'd be grateful.

In the mean time the document suggests real danger - you say there is not - I would assume you have some better understanding of the document than me in order to come to your position, and you can show why it is wrong?



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063
Tell you what, I'll do my best look up the information you're asking for right after you produce the "killer" solar flare/SPE numbers to support your claim. I can't guarantee I'll find it, but I'll do my best.

I mean, I looked up what evidence there was of solar flares presented in this thread, and I found you making a similar claim that "major" flares/SPEs occurred. When asked what was "major", you said you were using NASA's definition. When asked what that definition was, you asked the debunkers what NASA's definition was, and changed the subject in the usual fashion.
edit on 2011/7/22 by 000063 because: /


Well whats the point? If Apollo could withstand major solar flares, then it really doesnt matter which flares I mention.
The point is that you claimed that NASA has not addressed the "killer flares". You have provided no evidence of this. You have not even admitted you were wrong.


So its quite clear that Apollo's aluminum hull, would have sufficiently protected the astronauts from even a massive "killer" flare. And obviously they dont have to go to the moon during Solar Max, they can go during Solar Min. What is the excuse for NASA not returning to the moon for longer missions or Mars? Why are they saying the issue is radiation?
Because you are exposed to more radiation the longer you are in space.

Go outside on a sunny day. Sunlight has UV radiation. If you go outside for short periods, you become pale (assuming you're white). Go outside a moderate amount, and you get a healthy skin tone. Too much, and you get sunburns and skin cancer.

Similarly, months in space would mean more exposure to radiation than a few days in space. I cannot explain it in any simpler terms.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
It will be on long term missions.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Go outside on a sunny day. Sunlight has UV radiation. If you go outside for short periods, you become pale (assuming you're white). Go outside a moderate amount, and you get a healthy skin tone. Too much, and you get sunburns and skin cancer.

Similarly, months in space would mean more exposure to radiation than a few days in space. I cannot explain it in any simpler terms.


Ahh, I see.
You have gone from wanting to provide actual facts and evidence, to providing analogies.
Sorry, doesn't help.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Humans can withstand a single exposure of 25 rads of (Hard Xrays or Gamma Rays)

20 rads may cause Nausea.
100 will induce vomiting.
200 your temporarily sterile.
500 your sterile and you will die in a few months.
1000 and above, your dead.

Cosmic Rays - 10 mrads a day
Inner Belt - 100 rads an hour
Outer Belt - 10,000 rads an hour

The inner belts is composed of two types of energetic protons and electrons.

Now what about the protons in the belt? They consist of several hundred MeV. Which is equivalent to low energy solar flares. You need about 1.5 inches of aluminum to bring them down to 4 rads an hour. You need 3 inches of aluminum to reduce it to 2.2 rads an hour.

The Apollo CM.
The craft NASA states have carried astros to the moon and back.
The thickness of the outer wall, made from stainless steel brazed honeycomb between steel alloy face sheets, varied from 0.5-inch (1.27cm) to 2.5-inch (6.35cm). Now mind you, this is for thermal radiation. Not shielding for ionized radiation. Though anything between you and radiation is a good thing.

0.75 + 0.5 = 1.25 cm worth of various material. Which is not the same as 1.5 inches of pure aluminum, because a lot of it is HONEYCOMBED. It had air inside! Thats the so called shielding of the CM. Now either thats sounds like they planned to cross the atlantic with a small fisherman's boat. Or the ocean was actually a small lake.

So this ship would be getting for sure its dose of at least 4 rads an hour of energetic protons via the thinnest section of the hull. Conservative estimates the trip to be 90 minutes to and 90 fro. Thats three hours (3 x 4 = 12 rads). Other estimates vary from 3 hours to and 3 hours fro (3 x 9 = 27 rads). I've even seen estimates of the trip taking seven hours (3 x 14 = 42 rads).

The highest dose received from the missions was like 1 rad and change. Does this make sense?



Continued...

Now what about the electrons?
You can stop electrons with a few millimeters of aluminum, however, once you do, bremsstrahlung occurs.
-And this is why you need to use LEAD. Because aluminum, will start to create several rads of soft-xrays an hour !

How to survive the Outer Belt: The bigger belt. The Electron Belt.

Just to reduce the dose rate to one fiftieth of their number.
You need a lead box for the Astronauts.
Lead, probably 450+ pounds worth.. Not aluminum, lead, because aluminum creates more problems.
But even that will still expose the Astronauts to 200 rads one way.
We need to cut that to under 20!

So was the CM a lead box? No. Due to the weight issue, they went with aluminum.
The CM also had windows (not made with lead).

The highest dose received from the missions was like 1 rad and change. Does this make sense?



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Now what about the electrons?
You can stop electrons with a few millimeters of aluminum, however, once you do, bremsstrahlung occurs.
-And this is why you need to use LEAD. Because aluminum, will start to create several rads of soft-xrays an hour !


Wrong. The denser the material, the greater the bremsstrahlung. It has to do with the nuclear weight of the atom.


In some cases, e.g. 32P, the bremsstrahlung produced by shielding the beta radiation with the normally used dense materials (e.g. lead) is itself dangerous; in such cases, shielding must be accomplished with low density materials, e.g. Plexiglass (lucite), plastic, wood, or water;[10] because the rate of deceleration of the electron is slower, the radiation given off has a longer wavelength and is therefore less penetrating.

en.wikipedia.org...

Incidentally, the "honeycomb" was filled with resin; you know, the sort of low density material that can shield against radiation without causing bremsstrahlung.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Now what about the electrons?
You can stop electrons with a few millimeters of aluminum, however, once you do, bremsstrahlung occurs.
-And this is why you need to use LEAD. Because aluminum, will start to create several rads of soft-xrays an hour !


Wrong. The denser the material, the greater the bremsstrahlung. It has to do with the nuclear weight of the atom.


In some cases, e.g. 32P, the bremsstrahlung produced by shielding the beta radiation with the normally used dense materials (e.g. lead) is itself dangerous; in such cases, shielding must be accomplished with low density materials, e.g. Plexiglass (lucite), plastic, wood, or water;[10] because the rate of deceleration of the electron is slower, the radiation given off has a longer wavelength and is therefore less penetrating.

en.wikipedia.org...


Thanks for playing.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Thanks for playing.


At least you were gracious in defeat this time.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by FoosM
 

I think they are worried about the galactic cosmic ray exposure, not exposure to solar flare.


Well which one is it, because Im seeing reports for either or.
I dont understand why after 40 years, including the success of Apollo, this is not clearly
agreed upon in the scientific community. There must be a scam going on.
Corporations using scientists to milk unnecessary research money from the Government.


What's not agreed on is human reaction to various types of radiation and dose rates. You may find is amazing that there aren't people willing to be irradiated at different rates and with different energies and particles until they develop cancer (or something) but I don't. As a result of atomic bombings and nuclear accidents we have a fair idea of what happens to people at high dose rates and we a fair idea of what happens at small dose rates but inbetween ... there's a lot of uncertainty. Go back to the document referenced previously and look at Table 5. The added risk of dying due to some radiation induced illness is probably ~4% for a 1000 day Mars mission. But it's the uncertainty in that prediction that has some worried. If you're Zubrin you key on the low end of 1.3%. If you're Cuccinotta you pay attention to the 13.6% number. IIRC 3% is the number curretnly in vogue as a lifetime limit so depending on how optimistic or pessimistic you are, you can call such a mission "safe" or not.

But what are you trying to get from all this ?
edit on 25/7/11 by MacTheKnife because: fixed quote tags



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
[long post deleted by moi ... see it above]
The highest dose received from the missions was like 1 rad and change. Does this make sense?


Yes. Part of the problem is that you're using peak numbers as being the flux for the whole transit of the VABs, just as JW (wrongly) does. I've seen the trajectory taken by Apollo enroute to the Moon posted in this thread and a map of the VABs as well. Going just from memory I believe the worst dose rate only happened for



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 519  520  521    523  524  525 >>

log in

join