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: 526
377
<< 523  524  525    527  528  529 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


What's the point when it's obvious you will never critically Analise anyone that agrees with your stance




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by MacTheKnife
 


Thanks for at least partially agreeing that it was misleading.


IMO he did show a "best case scenario" which does hint at his agenda.

As for whether the astronauts should have died, well I honestly think we'll never know because the radiation levels are ever changing and we didn't have enough data at the time of Apollo to give an accurate assessment..

NASA etc seem to be saying we are now in a time of heavier radiation and it is hindering space flight..
Is that true or spin? I really don't know.


I don't agree he showed a "best case" scenario. Were that the case he'd have omitted the plots I've linked to. Kinda silly to offer up evidence to disprove your premise when your intent is to decieve.

But all the nonsense about who did what and why aside ... Do HB'ers have a leg to stand on when it comes to the whole VAB raidiation argument ? Obviously the NASA "side" cites data disproving the hypothesis. What do the HB'ers bring to the table ? Do they have an assertive argument to show their point is valid ? No, the best I've seen is sophomoric attempts to discredit the VAB data or analysis. I don't see a well supported argument of what the radiation dose should have been per HB "theory", at least one that passed the giggle test.

To whit ... while you ask if the VABs where as shown in the calculations, and that's a reasonable question, you don't ask how much the VABs could reasonably have been expected to have deviated from what was shown. Before taking the opinion that the analysis was deliberately deceiving you should have asked (or found for yourself) what the excursions of the VAB might have been. And then asked what those deviations would imply re: radiation dose. Should the answer be the crew would have had a 100X bigger dose then you'd have a leg to stand on. If the VABs could have varied, say +/- 20%, and not had any effect on crew health ... then why bother to debate the point ?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Considering we don't have accurate data from the 60's and early 70's, how could I accurately ascertain what Apollo crew would have gone through?

It's not like any astronaut has since gone anywhere near that region to get an actual reading..



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by MacTheKnife
 
As for whether the astronauts should have died, well I honestly think we'll never know because the radiation levels are ever changing and we didn't have enough data at the time of Apollo to give an accurate assessment..

NASA etc seem to be saying we are now in a time of heavier radiation and it is hindering space flight..
Is that true or spin? I really don't know.


Let me try to address your 2 points.

1) I don't know for a fact but I suspect that data for the VAbs intensity vs time has bee n collected over some many years. If your will was sufficient then you could find that data and determine how much the VABs changed over time. It might not be a exact answer but my guess is that it would rule out (or in) the idea that the VABs were ever an impossible threat to crew survivabilty.

2) Re: heavier radiation ... are you asking about Solar Max vs Min or something else ? Don't be distracted by comparisons of short (Apollo) duration missions vs long (years to/from Mars) missions. Aside from the apples (Apollo) to oranges (Mars) comparisons, there's a fair disagreement about the effects of long duration, low rate, radiation (GCR) on the human body amongst the experts. It's not like we've had experience with such conditions or been able to "find" volunteers to be irradiated. Odd that last bit ehh ..



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Considering we don't have accurate data from the 60's and early 70's, how could I accurately ascertain what Apollo crew would have gone through?

It's not like any astronaut has since gone anywhere near that region to get an actual reading..


I really hate typing on this GFS netbook I have here at camp. Christ, it takes me 10X as long to offer up a reponse and I'm already slow as a slug to start with.

You don't need data from the 70's. I suspect that the Sun has not changed all that much (over many years averaged) in the intervening years. So the excursions we've seen and measured since then (70's) can be reasonably expected to be those experienced during Apollo. You can form a hypothesis, setting aside obvious contributions (known geo-storms) and get a rough idea of whether the crew would have lived or not.

The only question is whether all this research is worth your time and trouble to do.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   

The only question is whether all this research is worth your time and trouble to do.



I think most would accept that if Apollo's trajectory went directly through the worst of the VAB then they would have been in deep trouble..

So deciding if they should have been harmed more or even killed is pretty difficult to do..

Personally I'd say if the skirted the very edges then they would have been OK..

But what we are told seems to be all over the place..
Some say they received very little radiation but then we read many astronauts suffered from eye damage.
So which is it, very little or enough to cause permanent damage?


jra

posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
But what we are told seems to be all over the place..
Some say they received very little radiation but then we read many astronauts suffered from eye damage.
So which is it, very little or enough to cause permanent damage?


It depends on what kind of radiation you're talking about. For the VARB, they received little radiation from it, due to going through the weaker areas and being able to shield themselves from it more easily. The radiation that caused eye damage was from GCR's which is harder to shield against. It has nothing to do with the VARB.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


I was talking about the entire mission..
Many say they received very little radiation..



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM
 


Here's a document that specifically addresses Apollo 11 flying "around" the VAB's - www.braeunig.us...




Tell me, what does Braeunig have to do with NASA?
Does he work for NASA?
Does he represent them?

Because I asked for official NASA documents.
Preferably from during the time of Apollo.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Because I asked for official NASA documents.
Preferably from during the time of Apollo.


Why? So you can proclaim them fake? Why is it you always demand independent verification of every claim and when it is presented, you reject it by finding some tenuous connection to NASA, and now that someone provides something that (presumably) isn't from NASA, you insist on wanting it to come from NASA?



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Because I asked for official NASA documents.
Preferably from during the time of Apollo.


Why? So you can proclaim them fake? Why is it you always demand independent verification of every claim and when it is presented, you reject it by finding some tenuous connection to NASA, and now that someone provides something that (presumably) isn't from NASA, you insist on wanting it to come from NASA?


I have to agree with you there..
But I'm still skeptical of that particular guys agenda...



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Because I asked for official NASA documents.
Preferably from during the time of Apollo.


Why? So you can proclaim them fake? Why is it you always demand independent verification of every claim and when it is presented, you reject it by finding some tenuous connection to NASA, and now that someone provides something that (presumably) isn't from NASA, you insist on wanting it to come from NASA?


Wow, arent you tired from doing all that reaching?
Where does Bob B. get his numbers from?


jra

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Where does Bob B. get his numbers from?


Well if you read Bob's page on Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory, you'd have seen near the top, where it says:


All data used in the calculations comes from the following:

Apollo by the Numbers - Translunar Injection



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Actually jra NO...

He gets just the basic start point,inclination and velocity from there then makes up his own trajectory figures..

BTW, he ignores gravity, how the F can you ignore gravity??????

Yep, he's a pro.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by backinblack
Could you find a more biased, misleading site??


In what way is the site biased or misleading? He doesn't work for NASA. He's a civil engineer who is also a space enthusiast.


Because it doesn't agree with the CT - therfore it MUST be BS, Govt shill, paid disinfo agent, deluded, misleading, etc - as everything is unless it agrees with the fantasy



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Well why don't YOU read his article before crapping on??

He makes his own trajectory and even IGNORES gravity.

Then he readily admits that by ignoring the moons gravity his trajectory MISSES the MOON.


But then doesn't correct for Earth's gravity which is 5 times stronger..

Yes, I'm calling BS on his article.

Now argue the facts..



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nataylor
 



How is that "altered?" The X-Y relationships of the two graphs remain the same.


That is wrong..
If you look at his original view of the VAB, it takes up more than 90% of the earth by scale.
In the later diagram shown it takes up around 50%..

To scale you say.


If you bothered to adderss the article in full you could have avoided making a total dork of yourself.

Here's another one of the SEVERAL DIAGRAMS in it covering this aspect (which I did mention originally) - this one less digital and showing more of the VAB:



I posted the CERES one because it is nice an colourful - clearly it caught those who's attention is drawn to pretty pictures!! lol

We all know you read the article, because you mentioned that he had scaled the pictures - which is, of course, what you HAVE TO DO to make them meaningful - putting the trajectory on a map of the VAB which had a different scale would have been an odd way to show the relationship!!

So why did you not acknowledge all the other diagrams such as the one above, which clearly addresses your point in the post I quoted here? Did you really think no-one would notice this shortcoming??



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


His trajectory is screwed so his pretty pics are irrelevant..

You simply "can't" ignore gravity as he did...



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


He didn't - yet again you have misread and misinterpreted:


It should be noted that all the calculations in this web page treat the orbit as a simple two-body program, i.e. Earth and the spacecraft. Apollo 11 is assumed to coast freely in space under the gravitational influence of only Earth. The gravity of the Moon, and all other perturbing forces, are ignored.




He ignored the Moon's gravity (only!) for the COASTING part of the trip - how much of that is on the diagrams I reproduced, and how much difference would adding the Moo's gravity make to the near earth part of the trajectory do you think??



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Mate, he admits there are errors in his work..

It would only take a slight variation to increase radiation exposure dramatically..

Do you know his margin of error, cause he certainly doesn't tell us ??



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 523  524  525    527  528  529 >>

log in

join