It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 541
377
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 01:06 AM

Looks like most of his arguments are still debatable.

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:47 AM
I guess all the questions have yet to be answered then...

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:35 AM

Originally posted by FoosM
Correct me if I am wrong, but those charts are in Sieverts (Sv), right?

1 Sv = 100 rads or 100 rem.

So... if we look at 30 deg inclination

930 Sv = 93,000 rem or rads (thats like 3,875 rem an hour... and 65 rem a minute)

and

160 Sv = 16,000 rem or rads (thats like 666 rem an hour... and 11 rem a minute)

So how much shielding would be required to cut that down to safe levels?
Just less than 10 minutes at the first height would be fatal.

edit on 11-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

Let's start with this to get an idea of what's needed ...
www.wwheaton.com...

Unfortunately calculating the average radiation dose received by an astronaut in the belts is quite intricate in practice, though not too hard in principle. One must add up the effects of all kinds of particles, of all energies. For each kind of particle (electrons and protons in this situation) you have to take account of the shielding due to the Apollo spacecraft and the astronaut space suits. Here are some approximate values for the ranges of protons and electrons in aluminum:

Range in Aluminum [cm] Energy
[MeV]electrons protons
1 0.15 ~ nil
3 0.56 ~ nil
10 1.85 0.06
30 no flux 0.37
100 no flux 3.7

For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.

These numbers seem generally consistent with the ~2 rem doses I recall. If every gram of a person's body absorbed 600,000 protons with energy 100 MeV, completely stopping them, the dose would be about 50 mSv. Assuming a typical thickness of 10 cm for a human and no shielding by the spacecraft gives a dose of something like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.

For comparison, the US recommended limit of exposure for radiation workers is 50 mSv per year, based on the danger of causing cancer. The corresponding recommended limits in Britain and Cern are 15 mSv. For acute doses, the whole-body exposure lethal within 30 days to 50% of untreated cases is about 2.5-3.0 Gy (Gray) or 250-300 rad; in such circumstances, 1 rad is equivalent to 1 rem.

So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.

Much of this material can be found in the 1999 "Review of Particle Properties", (see below) in the sections on "Atomic and nuclear properties of materials", on "Radioactivity and radiation protection", and on "Passage of particles through matter".

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:03 AM

Originally posted by backinblack
If the only fake part was actually the maned aspect then how would Russia know??

I don't believe that's a sustainable argument as most have not challenged the fact that the US did get craft to the moon..

It depends on which hoax theory you subscribe to. If the astronauts were left in LEO while some unmanned spacecraft went to the Moon, the USSR would have certainly seen through that simple a deception. They had radar and could plot orbits as well as anyone else.

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by FoosM

We have been through this a thousand times. If you cant figure out by now why it was worthless for the Russians to expose the scam if they knew about it, then thats your problem.

The opponent is probably attempting to drive you in a circle to monopolize your time.

The irony in the above pegged my meter ! Well done.

Originally posted by Exuberant1Anyhow,

At the time I wouldn't believe some sore loser commie if he said we didn't go to the moon.

The Soviets wouldn't even be able to produce pictures of empty landing sites. And even if they did I would have said they took them before the Apollo missions got there.

Obviously the soviet union cannot be trusted.

The USSR was cetainly capable of exposing various aspects of the hoax as presented by HB'ers. The question is not whether you'd have believed them or not, it's whether the rest of the world, spurred on by the USSR, would have looked into it themselves and believed. The French, for one, seem to love "tweaking people's noses". There's a limit on what could have been hoaxed as a result.

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:12 AM

It's 2011 and they lost contact of an experimental craft just last week..
Seems tracking isn't what it's cracked up to be even now..

Edit: But then there's always the scenario that the astronauts were never in the craft...
edit on 15-8-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:24 AM

Originally posted by backinblack

It's 2011 and they lost contact of an experimental craft just last week..
Seems tracking isn't what it's cracked up to be even now..

Edit: But then there's always the scenario that the astronauts were never in the craft...
edit on 15-8-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

And despite decades of flying, we lost 2 Shuttles. "Stuff" happens.
EDIT :To add I'm assuming you're refering to the HTV test flight. I note when people say "lost contact" they mean they lost radio link(s) from the HTV. I don't jump to the conclusion that they don't know where it went after that time.

So the hoax that could have been perpetrated is limited. With no astronauts in a spacecraft in LEO you then have to invent various means to have their communications, which were eavesdropped on, get from to and from somewhere in space in realtime. This implies various implausible schemes ... perhaps even impossible ones, I've never bothered to looked with any rigor at the HB "theories" re: this part.
edit on 15/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: godawful typing

edit on 15/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Komodo

Yea FoosM, I totally agree about the sunshield/visor, especially when one of the astronauts had to be TOLD to put their sun visor down..
as he looked directly at the sun and then said..

"but I can't see anything with it up" .......still think that hilarious~!!

What was said ...exactly ? Are you refering to this ?
next.nasa.gov...

165:01:54 Parker: Hey, Jack. And we see your gold visor is up. You may want to put it down out here in the Sun.
[Jack climbs out of the crater and moves cross slope, angling uphill and to the east.]
165:02:02 Schmitt: Well, I think I might...I can't see with it down; it's scratched! Bob, I'll use it. I think I can cmonitor that one (meaning his visor). (Pause)

Originally posted by Komodo
... and the heat from the sun doesn't melt pictures left on the surface of the moon either.. it's so comfy and cozy up there ya know...

So how long do you think it would take to melt pictures on the Moon ? Would it take longer or shorter than leaving those same pictures out on the surface of the Earth in the morning sunlight ? I've yet to have film melt in my camera when out all day. What makes it hot or cold on the Moon ? Would it be sunlight ... from the same Sun that makes it hot and cold (during the day and night) here on Earth ?
edit on 15/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: fixed quote tags

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:13 AM

Originally posted by backinblack
What CME's ??

No, go back and Weedwhacker etc were stating they altered the attitude to protect from the belts...

Now I see that is BS yet no one, even you, mentioned that...

Can you point out any posts that talk about change the attitude of the craft to protect against radiation in the VABs? I'm pretty sure whenever I've talked about that, it has been in relation to solar radiation.

Maybe my Google-fu is weak, but here are some posts I could find talking about that: From me, From Weedwhacker, From theability

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:34 AM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by backinblack
What CME's ??

No, go back and Weedwhacker etc were stating they altered the attitude to protect from the belts...

Now I see that is BS yet no one, even you, mentioned that...

Can you point out any posts that talk about change the attitude of the craft to protect against radiation in the VABs? I'm pretty sure whenever I've talked about that, it has been in relation to solar radiation.

Maybe my Google-fu is weak, but here are some posts I could find talking about that: From me, From Weedwhacker, From theability

I think the big problem is trying to get radiation dosage, forget about shielding for the moment, from the particle fluxes given in the AP/AE-8 data. Or more to the point trying to get Kovalev's data insync with the CRRES data that Braeunig used (that colorful pictorial). Kovalev gives an estimate of some 930 Sv/day which translates to ~1 rad/sec for the max for a 30 deg inclination orbit. The CRRES data presented showed a number, at the equitorial peak, that was some 20X less. And of course the flight paths used during Apollo didn't go through that region. So before people go picking nits over shielding and such, the flight path taken and the radiation environment along that path is what needs to be nailed down. What I don't have is Kovalev's paper to read to see how he derived the numbers presented in the charts we've all seen. I believe the model for the radiation environment from the CRRES data is available online.

Now my belief is that given a circular orbit (which is what's presented in Kovalev's tables), a spacecraft will pass through some part of the max equitorial zone 2X per orbit so that over the course of the day, some many passes through this zone will happen. As a result the radiation dosage for a day is much higher than that which would be seen by a spacecraft on an Apollo type trajectory (where the orbit was certainly not circular). IOW the spacecraft is passing through the "heart" of the donut even though it enters and exits the donut ... and doing 2X each orbit.

edit on 15/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: (no reason given)

edit on 15/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: added donut visualization

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:04 PM
BTW just in case anyone missed the animations of the trajectory Apollo took through the VABs, here they are again for your viewing pleasure.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:43 PM

So how long do you think it would take to melt pictures on the Moon ? Would it take longer or shorter than leaving those same pictures out on the surface of the Earth in the morning sunlight ? I've yet to have film melt in my camera when out all day. What makes it hot or cold on the Moon ? Would it be sunlight ... from the same Sun that makes it hot and cold (during the day and night) here on Earth ?

just something about it being 212*F on the surface on the light side.. right.. or you failed to take that into account .. and go ahead.. put your film in a oven and turn it up to 212*F .. I'm SURE it will come out as good as it was put in ..

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Komodo

So how long do you think it would take to melt pictures on the Moon ? Would it take longer or shorter than leaving those same pictures out on the surface of the Earth in the morning sunlight ? I've yet to have film melt in my camera when out all day. What makes it hot or cold on the Moon ? Would it be sunlight ... from the same Sun that makes it hot and cold (during the day and night) here on Earth ?
just something about it being 212*F on the surface on the light side.. right.. or you failed to take that into account .. and go ahead.. put your film in a oven and turn it up to 212*F .. I'm SURE it will come out as good as it was put in ..

And how long in the Sun rays must something be to get to 212F ? You do understand that when people talk about the temperature on the Moon, they're talking about the temperture of the surface, the regolith. That surface that spends about 2 weeks in darkness during the Moon's night and then 2 weeks in sunlight during the Moon's day. That same surface that reflects 8-14 % of the Sun's energy and absorbs the rest as to keep as heat. Do you even understand that temperature is the byproduct of heat ? Do you understand how heat is transferred from one object to another ?

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:58 PM

Originally posted by FoosM
Correct me if I am wrong, but those charts are in Sieverts (Sv), right?
1 Sv = 100 rads or 100 rem.
So... if we look at 30 deg inclination
930 Sv = 93,000 rem or rads (thats like 3,875 rem an hour... and 65 rem a minute)
and
160 Sv = 16,000 rem or rads (thats like 666 rem an hour... and 11 rem a minute)
So how much shielding would be required to cut that down to safe levels?
Just less than 10 minutes at the first height would be fatal.

edit on 11-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

I hope my somewhat poor explantion in a post above gives you some idea as to why your calculations above are incorrect. The problem with trying to apply Kovalev's data as you have (and I do commend you for trying to work it out) is that the dose experienced during a repeated orbit w/a 30 deg inclination is that it goes through sections of the VABs that Apollo did not. To better understand this let me add to my prior explanation.
Imagine a true polar orbit, one with a 90 deg inclination. Now have it be circular and of the proper radius/altitude so it passes through the "heart" of the inner proton belt. What, in your minds eye, do you see ? Hopefully you envison a spacecraft over the N pole and not in the VABs and then as it continues in it's orbit it will intersect the "top" of the VABs, traverse "downward" through them, passing through region of high flux and thus radiation and then exiting the VABs through the "bottom" on it's way to the S pole. And then basically repeating the process, from "bottom" to "top" during the other half of the orbit. So Kovalev would say this orbit has some dose/day but trying to find an average dose and apply that to the orbit as a function of altitude is fraught with error. Depending on where in the orbit the spacecraft was in, the average is waaay to high (as when the spacecraft is over either pole) or waaay to low (as when in the proton belt itself). The same is true with inclinations less that 90 deg. Consider that while Apollo did not use a 90 deg inclination, it's trajectory took an ever increasing radius on it's path through the VABs. It need not have ever encountered high flux and radiation for the same time periods (or even at all) as a circular orbit of the same 30 deg inclination. To find out the radiation dose you need to find out the radiation environment along it's flight path. Your technique, though better than JWs, is still too simplistic. Were the VABs a set of shells, covering the Earth equally in all directions, instead of a set of belts, then it might apply. Of course then orbital inclination would make no difference in dose.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:07 AM
This animation (orignially posted by JRA) of the Apollo 11 trajectory is the one I think best shows the path in relation to the VABs and how the orbital inclination and the eliptical post-TLI burn orbit worked. I believe it to be an depiction of Braeunig's work.

edit on 16/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:10 PM

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by Komodo

bah~! why doesn't the USA just call it what it was/is and chalk it up to a time where the country formerly known as the USSR as our enemy and we just could loose..........no matter what the ......cost..

Ah, yes, so NASA faked going to the moon, because of the Russians, and then Russia didn't expose them because--

Hm. That's odd. There's not a single credible theory. Even the usual "wheat deal" HBs like to throw out before changing the subject as quickly as possible doesn't explain why the USSR didn't just expose the US anyway and use the wheat as proof, or blackmail them for, oh, the entire duration of the Cold War.

We have been through this a thousand times. If you cant figure out by now why it was worthless for the Russians to expose the scam if they knew about it, then thats your problem.
Affirming the consequent.

I already presented such a theory where the USSR wouldn't have exposed the US, FoosM; blackmail. You even quoted it. The USSR could've blackmailed America, assuming that the masterminds were dumb enough to hinge their plot on their bitter rivals choosing not to expose them. Along with the thousands of other ways it could've gone wrong. As I recall, you chose to ignore my theory. Several times. The problem with the blackmail theory is that it requires blackmail. More accurately, it requires the effects of blackmail. It requires the US to cede the Cold War.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
The opponent is probably attempting to drive you in a circle to monopolize your time.
I assure you, I believe FoosM has plenty of time with which to respond to my and everyone else's comments. I use "respond" loosely, of course.

Anyhow,

At the time I wouldn't believe some sore loser commie if he said we didn't go to the moon.
They would have tons of records and evidence, more than enough to create serious doubt in the eyes of the world, to tarnish the US' reputation. Heck, even enough credible-seeming false "evidence" of the hoax would be bad.

The Soviets wouldn't even be able to produce pictures of empty landing sites. And even if they did I would have said they took them before the Apollo missions got there.
In other words, you'd use the exact same goalpost-moving that you do with the official story. You're discounting evidence that's never been produced.

Obviously the soviet union cannot be trusted.
Obvious to who, exactly? They have everything to gain just from falsely claiming that the landings were a hoax, yet they didn't. They would have even more to gain if they had actual evidence of a hoax.

Originally posted by FoosM
Yes indeed, as well as move the thread along so that people dont have a chance to read material that is posted.
I mean, who but a guilty person, and/or a person with an agenda, or something to hide, would do such things?
1. Poisoning the well, affirming the consequent.
2. This from the hypocrite who reflexively spams the thread every time he's cornered.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wow. Six spammy posts in all of three pages. Your signal/noise ratio is extremely low.
edit on 2011/8/16 by 000063 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Komodo
just something about it being 212*F on the surface on the light side.. right.. or you failed to take that into account .. and go ahead.. put your film in a oven and turn it up to 212*F .. I'm SURE it will come out as good as it was put in ..

Omg. They put the films on the surface of the moon? That's amazing. Has to be some top secret method of filming. I'll have to try this.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:34 AM

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by Komodo
just something about it being 212*F on the surface on the light side.. right.. or you failed to take that into account .. and go ahead.. put your film in a oven and turn it up to 212*F .. I'm SURE it will come out as good as it was put in ..

Omg. They put the films on the surface of the moon? That's amazing. Has to be some top secret method of filming. I'll have to try this.

HA HA HA !! I know right.. we all should LOL . but apparently they did .. hmm.. at least according to NASA/Wiki

Duke donated some flown items, including a lunar map, to Kennesaw State University in Kennesaw, Georgia. He left two items on the Moon, both of which he photographed. The most famous is a plastic-encased photo portrait of his family (NASA Photo AS16-117-18841). The reverse of the photo is signed by Duke's family and bears this message: "This is the family of Astronaut Duke from Planet Earth. Landed on the Moon, April 1972."
Source

doh~! here's the picture he left as well.. AS16-117-18841

pretty funny huh.. leaving 'plastic-encased' family photo in case someone might pass by and realize someone has travel this way already.. ........................hmmm.. ok .. puz:

but, so.................after 30 years, in 212*F there shouldn't be any fading or complete burning up of the plastic around it.. if it's not ash by then....below are the melting points of plastic..obviously, the thicker it is the longer it will take to completely melt down..

Various melting points of different types of plastic:

The melting point of HDPE (High Density Polyethelyne) is about 130 ºC
The melting point of LDPE (Low Density Polyethelyne) is about 110 ºC
The melting point of PET (Polyethylene terphthalate) is about 250—260 ºC
The melting point of PP (Polypropylene) is about 160—170 ºC
The melting point of PS (Polystyrene) is about 70—115 ºC
The melting point of PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) is about 75—90 ºC
Source(s):
www.goedjn.com...

Now, as to which TYPE of plastic the photo was encased in, i have no idea.. but from the table above, most are ranging from 158*F-500*F (PET being the ONLY one in the group to hit the 500*F mark*)

:

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 04:49 AM

Originally posted by Komodo
pretty funny huh.. leaving 'plastic-encased' family photo in case someone might pass by and realize someone has travel this way already.. ........................hmmm.. ok .. puz:

What's funny or confusing about leaving a personal item on the Moon?

but, so.................after 30 years, in 212*F there shouldn't be any fading or complete burning up of the plastic around it.. if it's not ash by then...

By now the photo would be most likely long gone. However the photo would not have melted right away. It would take time.

Did you read the link supplied to you by MacTheKnife? Do you understand the method of heat transfer and how it would work in a vacuum? And did you also come to realize that your example of putting a photo in an oven, is in no way comparable to leaving a photo on the Lunar surface?

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:22 AM

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Komodo
pretty funny huh.. leaving 'plastic-encased' family photo in case someone might pass by and realize someone has travel this way already.. ........................hmmm.. ok .. puz:

What's funny or confusing about leaving a personal item on the Moon?

but, so.................after 30 years, in 212*F there shouldn't be any fading or complete burning up of the plastic around it.. if it's not ash by then...

By now the photo would be most likely long gone. However the photo would not have melted right away. It would take time.
Did you read the link supplied to you by MacTheKnife? Do you understand the method of heat transfer and how it would work in a vacuum? And did you also come to realize that your example of putting a photo in an oven, is in no way comparable to leaving a photo on the Lunar surface?

I'd say Duke didn't expect it to last all that long in the UV environment. But to be fair I thought Komodo was trying to make the usual HB claim that pictures couldn't have been taken on the Moon. I'm wondering how a photo left on the Moon says anything about the supposed hoax. A HB'er would say there is no photo. Am I to believe Komodo believes we went to the Moon ? I wouldn't have thought so but ... Was there a point trying to be made in the diatribe ?

new topics

top topics

377