Moon hoax believers: Apollo 13?

reply to post by kiwasabi


Ugh, that argument is getting so old. Van Allen himself said it's passable, and experiments done have shown it's passable. It's not a uniform belt around the earth, so it's fairly easy to transit quickly through a thinner spot. If it was uniform and unpassable it would fry a lot of satellites in orbit, since a lot of them are in the Belt.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Watch starting at about 36:45. At just before 38 minutes they mention how there was one of the most intense magnetic solar storms ever recorded during the Apollo 16 mission. Up to 1000X the normal radiation.

Also, in the previous video I posted, there was a report from CNN about a NASA space flight in 1998 where the astronauts started witnessing the effects of radiation only 350 miles above the earth's surface. But yeah I guess you're right, our government would never lie about anything.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by kiwasabi


Solar radiation is actually not hard to stop with minimal shielding of the space craft. In fact if you had thick shielding you are going to kill the astronauts.

You can't compare the shuttle with Apollo. Apollo took a matter of hours to get through the Belts, the shuttle was orbiting in the lowest bands of them for days. They are nothing alike.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by kiwasabi

 

Solar radiation is actually not hard to stop with minimal shielding of the space craft. In fact if you had thick shielding you are going to kill the astronauts.

Really? Because the space shuttle astronauts from 1998 would disagree with you. And they were BELOW the radiation belt. But feel free to provide evidence of your lofty claim.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You can't compare the shuttle with Apollo. Apollo took a matter of hours to get through the Belts, the shuttle was orbiting in the lowest bands of them for days. They are nothing alike.

Sure I can. The space shuttle is actually BELOW the radiation belt, so it isn't even directly affected by it. "Skeptics" said the same thing about comparing the B-52 that crashed into the Empire State Building and and the events of 9/11. Because one event had the effect that matched the physics they wanted us to believe, and the other matched reality.

Apollo would've had direct exposure to huge amounts of radiation, way more than the space shuttle would've had. Time is certainly a factor, but they would've faced many times more radiation per second than the space shuttle would have.

reply to post by niftynswifty


Except that just about anyone that has studied or worked with radiation, and understands it, understands how shielding and "spalling" works with radiation. The more energetic the radiation, the thinner and lighter shielding you want. Solar radiation, which is seen in the Belts, is very energetic. If you have thick shielding, like lead, you get a lot of particles thrown off into the space craft, and it gets ugly. If you have thin shielding, like aluminum, you get almost nothing thrown off, and you are nicely protected, and can quickly pass through the radiation, as they did.

reply to post by kiwasabi

At just before 38 minutes they mention how there was one of the most intense solar storms ever recorded during the Apollo 16 mission.

They are lying. There was no major solar storm during Apollo 16. There was one flare recorded during the mission; an M class flare on April 18th. Hardly "the most intense", quite moderate actually and there was no radiation storm associated with it.
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

Why do hoax believers have to lie?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by niftynswifty

 

Except that just about anyone that has studied or worked with radiation, and understands it, understands how shielding and "spalling" works with radiation. The more energetic the radiation, the thinner and lighter shielding you want. Solar radiation, which is seen in the Belts, is very energetic. If you have thick shielding, like lead, you get a lot of particles thrown off into the space craft, and it gets ugly. If you have thin shielding, like aluminum, you get almost nothing thrown off, and you are nicely protected, and can quickly pass through the radiation, as they did.

Do you study and work with radiation? Again, would love some evidence to back these claims up. You are indeed a good thread killer!

Originally posted by kiwasabi

Really? Because the space shuttle astronauts from 1998 would disagree with you. And they were BELOW the radiation belt. But feel free to provide evidence of your lofty claim.

First off, the 1998 mission was much higher than their normal mission altitudes. They were in the lowest bands of the belts at times, because the belts aren't uniform. Secondly, the shuttle wasn't shielded like Apollo was, because it was designed to operate below the belts, and not go through them. It's shielded, but not like in the Apollo missions.

I've found this to be an accurate and great primer on radiation, whether you like this page or not.
www.clavius.org...

With any kind of shielding, you get bremsstrahlung, which is when the incoming particle hits another particle, and "spalls" and emits radiation from both the source, and the impacted particle. Which then hits another particle, and another all emitting radiation. The denser the material and the higher energy of the incoming particles, the more impacts you get, so the more radiation you see emitted from the shielding.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You can't compare the shuttle with Apollo. Apollo took a matter of hours to get through the Belts, the shuttle was orbiting in the lowest bands of them for days. They are nothing alike.

Sure I can. The space shuttle is actually BELOW the radiation belt, so it isn't even directly affected by it. "Skeptics" said the same thing about comparing the B-52 that crashed into the Empire State Building and and the events of 9/11. Because one event had the effect that matched the physics they wanted us to believe, and the other matched reality.

Apollo would've had direct exposure to huge amounts of radiation, way more than the space shuttle would've had. Time is certainly a factor, but they would've faced many times more radiation per second than the space shuttle would have.

The shuttle is usually under the Belts, but the 1998 mission put them in the lower bands of them. So they were exposed to more than usual.

It was a B-25, and that was comparing apples to apples. Comparing Apollo to the shuttle is apples to oranges. Apollo was designed to go through the belts, the shuttle was designed to stay under them.

reply to post by kiwasabi


I don't anymore, but yes, I did work with it for years. I learned a lot about it, and about the shielding and other aspects of it.

Simply producing thicker and denser metal radiation shielding to protect astronauts isn’t necessarily the answer because high-ionizing high-energy particles – or HZEs – can produce showers of even more harmful secondary particles when striking metal shields.

“We have also confirmed a new type of hydrogen storage material holds particular promise,” said Alessandra Menicucci, who is overseeing the project and notes that, “in general, the lighter a material’s atomic nuclei the better the protection.”

www.gizmag.com...

Material shielding can be effective against galactic cosmic rays, but thin shielding may situationally actually make the problem worse for some of the higher energy rays, because more shielding causes an increased amount of secondary radiation, although very (arguably impractical) thick shielding could counter such too.[32] The aluminum walls of the ISS, for example, are believed to have a net beneficial effect. In interplanetary space, however, it is believed that thin aluminum shielding would have a negative net effect.[33]

en.wikipedia.org...

Thin shielding for high energy rays works best for short trips. For a trip to Mars, or deep space, you need something better.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by kiwasabi

 

I don't anymore, but yes, I did work with it for years. I learned a lot about it, and about the shielding and other aspects of it.

So you have credentials that allow you to speak on it as an expert?

reply to post by kiwasabi


I'm sorry, I didn't think that only experts were allowed to talk about it. I guess everyone else had best provide their credentials too, to make sure they can talk about it.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by kiwasabi

 

I'm sorry, I didn't think that only experts were allowed to talk about it. I guess everyone else had best provide their credentials too, to make sure they can talk about it.

Just making sure you aren't presenting yourself as an expert on radiation when you aren't one.

reply to post by kiwasabi


Where did I say I was an expert? I said I understood it and worked with it, but never said I was an expert.