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: 543
377
<< 540  541  542    544  545  546 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Pioneer 1 and 3? Are you sure?


Why do you ask? Do you have evidence to the contrary? Oh, wait, Exuberant1 warned me about this:


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



Edit to add: By reposting my entire post, including the visuals, you have eaten up enough space to kick this onto another page, burying the your discomfiture. Slick.
edit on 18-8-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


Those belts are TOO SMALL!
Its not to scale, so its misleading.
Stop using misleading material.

Really? Who are we supposed to believe? You? Or Professor Van Allen?
image.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Looks about right to me. Might I suggest you follow your own advice?


Do they match this?
Secondly, why dont you post Van Allen's drawing of the correct scale of the VABs?
Cause I doubt those examples you gave are his.

edit on 18-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)


I brought the vid cap DJW posted into a simple image editor. Using the radius of the Earth as depicted I looked at the "heart" of the red zones which represent the inner proton + electron belt and the outer electron belt. I compared their distances as depicted to the AP/E-8 plots. Guess what ... they match pretty well. The max flux of the highest energy particles of inner belts reside lie some 1.3 - 1.8 Earth radii from the center of the Earth. The "high rad" zones in the vidcap cover that. If anything the outer belt as depicted (red/orange zones) may extend closer than the AE-8 plot shows, making it harder for Apollo to avoid. At first glance I don't see anything wrong with the zones as depicted. I can't claim the rad/sec are correct ... at this time.

The max extent of the outer VABs you cited is a difference w/o distinction. The flux and particle energy levels way out there contribute very little to the dose already accumulated by passage through the inner regions. Also recall the the belts "narrow" down (in the angular sense) the further from Earth you go. Look at the AE-8 plot and see where the 2x10^6 contour ends. On the geomagnetic equator it's just past 5 Earth radii. At a 30 deg inclination it's less, just over 4 Earth radii. Using the max equitorial extent and trying to apply that to the 30 deg inclined plane that Apollo travelled in is wrong. Dare I say misleading ?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Of course, now they want us to believe that solar radiation is slow, stupid and harmless. That moon mornings are just like cool autumn mornings on Earth. LOL. They wont say how long it takes for any surface to reach temperatures of +200 °F degrees or -200 °F though.
Sneaky sneaky.
But they are implying that such temperatures should be damaging.

edit on 18-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

I don't get the impression that it's the solar radiation which is "slow, stupid and harmless". How would radiation be "stupid" ? How is light slow (by anyone's definition) ?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
Five minutes based on what?

Well you'd have to ask Mr Wheaton but I'd say it's based upon the speed of the spacecraft, it's flightpath and the width of the proton belt from the AP-8 data. What's your estimate for the time in question ?

If you dont know what he means, and if you cant verify if what he says is correct, then why are you posting his info? I gave numbers based on the transcripts, whats backing his numbers?

OK, two points.
First : Go look at Braeunigs plot of the A11 trajectory. It looks to me to take perhaps 11-12 minutes to go from 1.3 to 1.8 Earth radii. The equitorial extent of the inner proton belt is about 1.3 to 1.8 Earth radii, their extent on a 30 deg inclined plane is smaller. How much I have not calculated but look for yourself on Braeunigs page. Estimating the time to get through that slice as being 5 mins appears reasonable. Now what Wheaton did, I don't know. Again ... what's your estimate ? If you don't have one then it would appear you're just reflexively trying to toss mud out to see what sticks.

Second : Don't think that everyone has missed this diversionary tactic of yours. You asked what kind of shielding would be required. I responded with Wheaton's page where he gave penetration depths vs energy levels to (ifI may paraphrase myself) "get you started". Enquiring about how Wheaton got a 5 min estimate for traversal of the proton belt is a tangent to the point under discussion. Are you going to investigate the shielding required or are you just going to wave your hands frantically whilst screaming "radiation radiation ..." ?

Originally posted by FoosM
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.


Originally posted by MacTheKnife
Let's start with this to get an idea of what's needed ...

edit on 18/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: too many quotes embedded



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Let me address these in order :

Originally posted by FoosM
Komodo was simply trying to convey what high temperatures can do to plastic and photo-paper.
Considering that the paper and plastic was sitting on the surface of the moon, the heated surface should have already started to melt the plastic.

With no atmosphere and a surface made up almost entirely of rocky materials with low thermal conductivity and relatively low heat capacity, during the lunar day the surface temperature quickly reaches equilibrium with incoming solar radiation.

We don't know what the plastic wrapper was made of. But let me say it does melt at 150F. So what ? For all I can tell the plastic on the back side of the photo was melted in those places where it was in direct contact with the lunar surface. Any place not in contact would only get it's heat via thermal radiation from the surface (its low emissivity IIRC) and via conduction from the photo where it was (now) in contact with the surface. I wouldn't expect the plastic on the front side, which is what we can view, to be melted as a result.


Originally posted by FoosM
Considering the photo and plastic was in direct sunlight, it should have started to at least warp and curl.

Why do you think this ? Consider that the Earth and the Moon get the same sunlight. In LEO the solar constant is about 1366 W/m^2. It's lower on the surface of the earth, ~1000 W/m^2 and then only at noon (to the bane of PV panels everywhere). On the Moon I'd expect the same 1366 W/m^2 for any surface perpindicular to the incident radiation (that is directly facing the Sun). The phase angle of the Sun relative to the Moon at the end of A16's EVA3 was ~48.6 degrees. A 1 square meter piece of paper lying on some nominal surface of the Moon would be receiving ~ 1366*sin(48.6) = 1024 W or about the same as one on Earth's surface, at noon, would. Why would you expect the photo to warp and curl due to the sunlight ... at least in the timeframe it took for C. Duke to snap the pic we've seen (I doubt he placed the photo and then came back much later to snap said pic) ? Do similar pics on the Earth do so in a similar timeframe ? It's not quite the same "experiment" but I'm wondering how you formed the conclusion you did.


Originally posted by FoosM

The sun was now quite high at 41° and its heat was beginning to be felt within the suits, outside the soil temperature rising to 70°C (158 °F).
(Apollo 15)
Though I believe the photo was placed during the A16's EVA3.

I don't have the temp data from A16 but I'd say the above is close enough. The phase angle of the Sun was about the same at the end of the lunar stays for A15-A17. I think I tossed out any old Polaroids I had from the 80s a long time ago but if I can find one I'll do an experiment ... one that's worse than placing the photo on the Moons surface ... and see if it warps and curls. You can do it too.

I note that 158F is not 212F.

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 ..


jra

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Of course, now they want us to believe that solar radiation is slow, stupid and harmless.


You mean heat transfer by radiation?


That moon mornings are just like cool autumn mornings on Earth. LOL.


Well no, it's not like that at all. The Lunar surface will be at a lower temperature since it would have recently been in darkness.


They wont say how long it takes for any surface to reach temperatures of +200 °F degrees or -200 °F though.
Sneaky sneaky.


From what I understand. The Lunar surface reaches its peak temperature at noon, when the Sun is at its highest point in the Lunar sky. The angle of incidence plays a key roll in the temperature of the Lunar surface. When the Sun is at a low angle in the morning or evening, the surface temperature will be lower than what it is when the Sun is directly overhead. Also, since the Moon is a sphere, areas closer to the poles will also not get as hot as areas around the equator, since the Sun won't rise directly above the surface.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by dpd11
I think the bigger mystery is... Why some people loath their own government so much, that they will actually try and prove something as significant as going to the moon, didn't happen. Especially when it did, and saying it didn't is beyond ridiculous.


No that is no mystery at all. Its not unusual, nor uncommon. To even come here and ask that question, which has been asked several times before on this same thread, makes it sound like some people posting here work for the government and maybe are paid to defend the government.



Gee... I couldn't have seen this one coming. lol Oh boy, I guess you found me out... Yes, I'm one of the 'dis-info' men in black. I guess I'll have to disappear back into the shadows now.

When all else fails, just say it's part of the conspiracy.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dpd11
Gee... I couldn't have seen this one coming. lol Oh boy, I guess you found me out... Yes, I'm one of the 'dis-info' men in black. I guess I'll have to disappear back into the shadows now.

When all else fails, just say it's part of the conspiracy.


So how much do you get paid ? I might as well get paid for doing this, I could use the extra cash (who couldn't).


ps - I hear the dis-info union will be getting the same health care plan as Congress. Nice !



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001




This is Van Allen's sketch of the inner and outer zones of the radiation belt made after Pioneer 1 and 3 data returns, as the sketch was presented in a paper by J. A. Van Allen and L. A. Frank, in the science journal Nature in 1959. The two lines that go from the upper left to the lower right are the paths of the satellite

image.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Pioneer 1 and 3? Are you sure?




DJW001:Why do you ask? Do you have evidence to the contrary?



I asked to make sure there was no confusion between Explorer satellites.
Stop being so paranoid.
At any rate, am I to assume, or read the diagram that, Pioneer 1 (a moon mission) launched at an inclination between 35-36 degrees very similar to Apollo. We can see that it went straight through the hearts of both belts. The other, Pioneer 3 (moon mission), injected at a higher inclination of around 70, and bypassed the hotspot of the first belt.

If thats correct, then you just gave us more evidence that the Apollo missions would have gone straight through both hearts (the hottest spots) of the belts.


Thanks DJ



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001




This is Van Allen's sketch of the inner and outer zones of the radiation belt made after Pioneer 1 and 3 data returns, as the sketch was presented in a paper by J. A. Van Allen and L. A. Frank, in the science journal Nature in 1959. The two lines that go from the upper left to the lower right are the paths of the satellite

image.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Pioneer 1 and 3? Are you sure?




DJW001:Why do you ask? Do you have evidence to the contrary?



I asked to make sure there was no confusion between Explorer satellites.
Stop being so paranoid.
At any rate, am I to assume, or read the diagram that, Pioneer 1 (a moon mission) launched at an inclination between 35-36 degrees very similar to Apollo. We can see that it went straight through the hearts of both belts. The other, Pioneer 3 (moon mission), injected at a higher inclination of around 70, and bypassed the hotspot of the first belt.

If thats correct, then you just gave us more evidence that the Apollo missions would have gone straight through both hearts (the hottest spots) of the belts.


Thanks DJ


Thousands of scientists, geologists and astrophysicists from all over the world have been fooled by NASA except for you and Jarrah White.....

There are no words for such ignorance.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



At any rate, am I to assume, or read the diagram that, Pioneer 1 (a moon mission) launched at an inclination between 35-36 degrees very similar to Apollo. We can see that it went straight through the hearts of both belts. The other, Pioneer 3 (moon mission), injected at a higher inclination of around 70, and bypassed the hotspot of the first belt.


If you were to assume that, you would be grotesquely wrong. Pioneer 1 was considered a success because it actually made it into extremely low Earth orbit. Pioneer 3 was intended specifically to explore the ERBs. Neither was a lunar mission:


Explorer 1 - . Payload: Explorer A. Mass: 5.00 kg (11.00 lb). Nation: USA. Related Persons: von Braun. Agency: USA. Program: Explorer. Class: Earth. Type: Magnetosphere satellite. Spacecraft: Explorer A. Decay Date: 1970-03-31 . USAF Sat Cat: 4 . COSPAR: 1958-Alpha-1. Apogee: 1,859 km (1,155 mi). Perigee: 347 km (215 mi). Inclination: 33.2000 deg. Period: 107.20 min. Explorer I, the first U.S. earth satellite, was launched by a modified Army Ballistic Missile Agency Jupiter-C. Explorer I, developed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, carried the U.S.-IGY (International Geophysical Year) experiment of James A. Van Allen and resulted in the discovery of the radiation belt around the earth....

Explorer 3 - . Payload: Explorer A. Mass: 5.00 kg (11.00 lb). Nation: USA. Related Persons: von Braun. Agency: USA. Program: Explorer. Class: Earth. Type: Magnetosphere satellite. Spacecraft: Explorer A. Decay Date: 1958-06-28 . USAF Sat Cat: 6 . COSPAR: 1958-Gamma-1. Apogee: 2,799 km (1,739 mi). Perigee: 186 km (115 mi). Inclination: 33.4000 deg. Period: 115.70 min. Summary: Radiation, micrometeoroid data. .


www.astronautix.com...



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Why do you ask? Do you have evidence to the contrary? Oh, wait, Exuberant1 warned me about this:


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




Now that you're taking my advice, are you willing to begin examining the Apollo mission from a more objective and skeptical standpoint?

This won't affect your arguments but your next step should be to acknowledge that the United States could have convinced a large segment of the world's population that it landed men on the moon. And that this would be easier than actually landing men on the moon, which we did do.

You don't have to admit that things weren't tracked to the moon and back during the missions, just that they could have been anything. And admit that the soviets lacked the capability to either photograph the apollo landers or their empty landing sites and that only american probes can see those landers.

Give in to your desire for objectivity and intellectual honesty. You know you want to. Do it for science.

It will allow you to regain and hold the intellectual upper high-ground and appear less dogmatic. Your conclusions will still be the same, but they will be more pure - less contaminated by patriotism and whatever else stops us from seeing things objectively.

*If Foosm does it in reverse (acknowledges we didn't go but could have), then he will have taken the high ground and you will look like you are playing catch-up.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



This won't affect your arguments but your next step should be to acknowledge that the United States could have convinced a large segment of the world's population that it landed men on the moon. And that this would be easier than actually landing men on the moon, which we did do.


The problem is that such a hoax would be far more complicated, involve far more people, and consequently have far more opportunities for failure, with no net benefit to the risks. In theory, yes, the United States could have sent empty spacecraft to the Moon. There just isn't any evidence that they did!
edit on 19-8-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct error.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
At any rate, am I to assume, or read the diagram that, Pioneer 1 (a moon mission) launched at an inclination between 35-36 degrees very similar to Apollo. We can see that it went straight through the hearts of both belts. The other, Pioneer 3 (moon mission), injected at a higher inclination of around 70, and bypassed the hotspot of the first belt.

If thats correct, then you just gave us more evidence that the Apollo missions would have gone straight through both hearts (the hottest spots) of the belts.

Thanks DJ


You seem incapable of learning anything new. I posted the animation specifically because it shows what words may have a hard time conveying. Again you keep using inclination alone as some be-all metric of how a flight path will intersect the VABs. As I tried to explain and as the animation showed, timing and alignment is everything. Once again the VABs are aligned about a plane containing the geomagnetic equator. The orbital inclination element is relative to the geocentric plane. There's an ~11 degree difference between the two. Depending on when you launch and the timing of the orbit you can get flight paths on the same inclination to go "above" or "below" the VABs. To either miss most of them or to dive into the "heart(s)". Look at the diagram below and note how the longitude of the ascending node plays a part in how differing 30 deg orbital planes would align with the "tilted" VABs. Recall that the Earth spins under the spacecraft and the VABs rotate along with the Earth (thus changing the longitude as time passes). Envision how a spacecraft's timing in it's orbit, and that timing relative to the VABs rotation will affect where it passes through them.

Lastly note how the depicted trajectories of the Pioneers (in DJWs post) are angled to go below the plane of the geomagnetic equator. Where did Apollo go ? Yes, above that plane. That alone should have given you pause to think.

If what you've demonstrated above is the quality of thought that goes into what you call "evidence" ... well I guess that speaks for itself.

edit on 19/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



This won't affect your arguments but your next step should be to acknowledge that the United States could have convinced a large segment of the world's population that it landed men on the moon. And that this would be easier than actually landing men on the moon, which we did do.


The problem is that such a hoax would be far more complicated, involve far more people, and consequently have far more opportunities for failure, with no net benefit to the risks. In theory, yes, the United States could have sent empty spacecraft to the Moon. There just any evidence that they did!


I take it you mean 'there just isn't any".

Anyhow, I see you are unwilling to be more objective as per my recommendations.

You are making bold claims which you cannot prove. Count the bold unprovable claims you just now made.

They are not the sort of things a person striving towards intellectual honesty and pursuing the truth would say.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I asked to make sure there was no confusion between Explorer satellites.
Stop being so paranoid.


There is no confusion between Explorer satellites, unfortunately the drawing was mis-labelled "Pioneer." None of the Pioneer lunar missions were successful. The data was collected by the Explorer series. I lose a point to you for not reading the source I posted carefully enough. You lose a point for spotting the error and trying to capitalize on it, even though you knew that the Pioneers were failures. You knew that, didn't you?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Ok, prove to me that the United States is NOT run by shape shifting reptilians.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



You are making bold claims which you cannot prove. Count the bold unprovable claims you just now made.


For example? (By the way, nice attempt to drag the thread off topic again.)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



I asked to make sure there was no confusion between Explorer satellites.
Stop being so paranoid.


There is no confusion between Explorer satellites, unfortunately the drawing was mis-labelled "Pioneer." None of the Pioneer lunar missions were successful. The data was collected by the Explorer series. I lose a point to you for not reading the source I posted carefully enough. You lose a point for spotting the error and trying to capitalize on it, even though you knew that the Pioneers were failures. You knew that, didn't you?


I think you're wrong here. The drawing is correctly labeled with Pioneer 1 and 3. Explorer 1 only reached a maximum altitude of 2,550 km, and Explorer 3 only reached a maximum altitude of 2,799 km. Neither would have traveled past 10 Earth radii as the sketch indicates. Pioneer 1 reached an altitude of 113,800 km (17.8 Earth radii) and Pioneer 3 reached an altitude of 102,360 km (16 Earth radii).

Of course Foosm, is incorrect thinking that because Pinoneer 1 launched with a similar inclination as the Apollo missions and traveled through the central parts of the VABs that it means Apollo would have gone through the central part of the VABs. Both those Pioneer spacecraft failed to achieve the velocity needed for a translunar injection, and they simply followed a ballistic trajectory and fell back to Earth. Also, they followed a direct flight path, from the launch site, unlike Apollo which entered an Earth parking orbit first. Since the Apollo TLI happened over the Pacific Ocean, and these Pioneer craft had final cutoff over the Atlantic, their inclination with respect to the geomagnetic equator would be much different. Thus, their position with respect to the VABs would have been much different than Apollo's.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



At any rate, am I to assume, or read the diagram that, Pioneer 1 (a moon mission) launched at an inclination between 35-36 degrees very similar to Apollo. We can see that it went straight through the hearts of both belts. The other, Pioneer 3 (moon mission), injected at a higher inclination of around 70, and bypassed the hotspot of the first belt.


If you were to assume that, you would be grotesquely wrong. Pioneer 1 was considered a success because it actually made it into extremely low Earth orbit. Pioneer 3 was intended specifically to explore the ERBs. Neither was a lunar mission:


Explorer 1 - . Payload: Explorer A. Mass: 5.00 kg (11.00 lb). Nation: USA. Related Persons: von Braun. Agency: USA. Program: Explorer. Class: Earth. Type: Magnetosphere satellite.

Explorer 3 - . Payload: Explorer A. Mass: 5.00 kg (11.00 lb). Nation: USA. Related Persons: von Braun. Agency: USA. Program: Explorer. Class: Earth. Type: Magnetosphere satellite. .


www.astronautix.com...


Ummm..... what!?!?!?



Dude, make up your mind. Is it Pioneer or Explorer?





The Pioneer program is a series of United States unmanned space missions that was designed for planetary exploration.

The earliest missions were attempts to achieve Earth's escape velocity, simply to show it was feasible and study the Moon. This included the first launch by NASA which was formed from the old NACA. These missions were carried out by the US Air Force and Army.

While Pioneer 3 did not meet its primary mission objective of a lunar flyby, the data obtained was of particular value to James Van Allen. The Pioneer 3 probe data in addition to the data from the previous Explorer 1 and Explorer 3 satellites led to the discovery of a distinct second radiation belt around the Earth

Pioneer 0 (Thor-Able 1, Pioneer) – Lunar orbiter, destroyed (Thor failure 77 seconds after launch) August 17, 1958
Pioneer 1 (Thor-Able 2, Pioneer I) – Lunar orbiter, missed Moon (third stage partial failure) October 11, 1958
Pioneer 2 (Thor-Able 3, Pioneer II) – Lunar orbiter, reentry (third stage failure) November 8, 1958
Pioneer P-1 (Atlas-Able 4A, Pioneer W), probe lost September 24, 1959
Pioneer P-3 (Atlas-Able 4, Atlas-Able 4B, Pioneer X) – Lunar probe, lost in launcher failure November 26, 1959






en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 540  541  542    544  545  546 >>

log in

join