Moon hoax believers: Apollo 13?

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by sanitaryindiscretion
 



What the heck is spalling? Didn't Al Bean himself admit they were too dumb to make it so they faked their way through van Allen?


No, he most certainly did not, Patrick.




posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

“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...


Sounds to be a new development rather than something actually used by the Apollo 11 astronauts. You need evidence of how what they used back in 1969 actually protected them when the astronauts in 1998 weren't even protected. And no more "apples to oranges" garbage please. The fact that in 1998 they still couldn't protect astronauts from radiation is a hole in your argument. So of course you have to give me some line about how, "it's not relevant", just like "skeptics" said about me comparing the B-52 that crashed into the Empire State Building to 9/11. It's only not relevant because it doesn't support your bogus claims.

In the Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon documentary, a Russian astronaut from the same time period said they were stumped on how to keep the radiation out of the craft. So please shed light on the American innovation that allowed us to surpass Russia, who actually beat us into space on all other fronts.
edit on 16-2-2013 by kiwasabi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
And why was hugediscovery banned? He only ever posted in this thread and he only ever made thoughtful and respectful responses. I don't get it. None of his posts have even been marked, "Off Topic" or anything like that. It seems a mistake was made.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


That material is new, that's for a mission to Mars. However, read the last sentence. "In general, the lighter the material's atomic nuclei, the better the protection." That's completely relevant to the discussion.

Again, the shuttle wasn't designed to go through the Van Allen Belt, so it didn't have quite the same protection as the Apollo capsules did. The shuttle would stay up longer, but they were still in the magnetic field of the earth, so they were still somewhat protected by that, as well as their shielding. In 1998 they went into the Belt, so they were exposed to more than normal. Thus the difference.

And if you're going to keep talking about the Empire State Building crash, at least get it right. It was a B-25, not a B-52.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by kiwasabi
 

That material is new, that's for a mission to Mars. However, read the last sentence. "In general, the lighter the material's atomic nuclei, the better the protection." That's completely relevant to the discussion.

Again, the shuttle wasn't designed to go through the Van Allen Belt, so it didn't have quite the same protection as the Apollo capsules did. The shuttle would stay up longer, but they were still in the magnetic field of the earth, so they were still somewhat protected by that, as well as their shielding. In 1998 they went into the Belt, so they were exposed to more than normal. Thus the difference.

And if you're going to keep talking about the Empire State Building crash, at least get it right. It was a B-25, not a B-52.


Why would they go into the Van Allen Belt when they knew the Space Shuttle wasn't designed for it? Also, again, please give me some evidence about how we solved the mystery in the 1960's that the Russians could not. And what about when they were on the moon itself? The moon has no atmosphere so it has no built-in protection from radiation. The astronauts' space suits were only made of mylar if I recall correctly.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


The shuttle went into the lower bands of the Belts occasionally depending on the mission. The shuttle servicing missions for the Hubble would pass through the Belts during their orbit, because of the altitude of the Hubble. It depends on the experiments, and what altitude they had to be at. Some experiments required higher altitudes than others, to get clear of certain phenomenon around the Earth.

Apollo relied a lot on the duration of the mission. They were looking at short term durations, and again, solar radiation can be stopped by relatively thin shielding. There was water circulating through their suits, which would help with some protection. The various layers of suits would also provide some shielding. Alpha particles are stopped by normal clothing. Beta particles aren't much stronger.
edit on 2/16/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


The shuttle went into the lower bands of the Belts occasionally depending on the mission. The shuttle servicing missions for the Hubble would pass through the Belts during their orbit, because of the altitude of the Hubble. It depends on the experiments, and what altitude they had to be at. Some experiments required higher altitudes than others, to get clear of certain phenomenon around the Earth.


Seems to me they should've outfitted the Space Shuttle with some of the 30 year old tech used in Apollo then for these types of missions. I guess NASA just doesn't like to go in prepared? They prefer the thrill of danger I guess.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by kiwasabi
 

Apollo relied a lot on the duration of the mission. They were looking at short term durations, and again, solar radiation can be stopped by relatively thin shielding. There was water circulating through their suits, which would help with some protection. The various layers of suits would also provide some shielding. Alpha particles are stopped by normal clothing. Beta particles aren't much stronger.


"The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies".

science.nasa.gov...

"When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!".

Sounds to me the little plastic suits might've had a hard time keeping in one piece.

"With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe".



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


The shuttle wasn't originally designed to go that high. It was a space truck, to build the space station, and get satellites into orbit cheaply. When the costs never came down, as expected, they expanded the mission. It was thought that the Hubble launching would be as high as they would go, with one or two servicing missions during its life. Then they had the mirror fiasco, and the other problems they had to go fix. So initially, the shuttle wasn't supposed to go into the Belts, but later it did. It would have been too costly and hurt the payload too much to add more shielding to it, so they counted on length of stay, and that they would only pass through portions of the Belt, without being in it constantly.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


Except that we're talking about Alpha and Beta particles, with some Gamma. Alpha and Beta particles are fairly weak, and low powered particles that are fairly easily stopped. Alpha particles on earth are stopped by a piece of paper, Beta particles are generally stopped by a few layers of skin. Gamma particles are the real worry. Gamma will go through a suit, and some shielding. The suits were capable of blocking the Alpha and Beta particles. It doesn't matter how many particles we're talking about, because they were there for a short time. You can have more particles, but that doesn't change the strength of the particles. An Alpha particle is an Alpha particle.
edit on 2/16/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It doesn't matter how many particles we're talking about, because they were there for a short time. You can have more particles, but that doesn't change the strength of the particles.


Apollo 11 was on the moon for nearly a full day, that is enough time for the radiation to seep through the suits and cause serious damage. After Chernobyl, six of the first responding firefighters died. They were exposed for less time than the Apollo 11 astronauts were on the moon. I also remember watching a film in high school that showed a bunch of strong man military types being brought in to cover the leaking reactor with lead. I remember that many of them died, but I can't find a reference to that.
edit on 16-2-2013 by kiwasabi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


And Chernobyl was a massive Gamma release. The moon is all three, with Alpha and Beta making up a big part of it. Gamma will go through space suits, but it takes a big dose to make you sick. Alpha and Beta won't even get through the suit. They are only dangerous if you ingest them.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


According to this link, the moon has more gamma radiation than the sun.

www.davidicke.com...



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 



"We are in a period when the radiation risks are elevated, but still tolerable," Spence said, adding that the levels were about what an X-ray technician or uranium miner might normally experience in a year.

news.discovery.com...

The sun is actually a very inefficient emitter when it comes to Gamma rays. I'll look up emissions from the sun tomorrow when I have time, but I remember reading that it's surprisingly low, so it's entirely possible for the moon to emit more than the sun, and still be well in the safe levels.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I also found this.

"Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky.

Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous — shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

"The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

While the moon blocks galactic cosmic rays to some extent, the hazards posed by the secondary radiation showers counter the shielding effects, Spence said at a press conference at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco this week.

Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said."

news.discovery.com...



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by kiwasabi
 



"We are in a period when the radiation risks are elevated, but still tolerable," Spence said, adding that the levels were about what an X-ray technician or uranium miner might normally experience in a year.

news.discovery.com...

The sun is actually a very inefficient emitter when it comes to Gamma rays. I'll look up emissions from the sun tomorrow when I have time, but I remember reading that it's surprisingly low, so it's entirely possible for the moon to emit more than the sun, and still be well in the safe levels.


Yeah I saw that quote as well but I'm not sure what it means. It's about the same as an x-ray tech or uranium miner might normally encounter in a year... but that much radiation in the period of 1 day? That would be 360X more than what those professionals would encounter in a day.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


And here is why.


Actually, the Sun does not only produce IR, visible light, and UV. Fusion in the core actually gives off high energy gamma rays. However, as the gamma ray photons make their arduous journey to the surface of the Sun, they are continuously absorbed by the solar plasma and re-emitted to lower frequencies. By the time they get to the surface, their frequencies are mostly only within the IR/visible light/UV spectrum.

www.universetoday.com...

Most Gamma radiation emitted by the sun only comes out as high energy particles during flares. There is some Gamma emission from the sun, but nowhere near what you would expect it to be, and what is emitted is lower energy particles.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 




Apollo 11 was on the moon for nearly a full day, that is enough time for the radiation to seep through the suits and cause serious damage.

Radiation does not "seep through" something.
Look, you don't know anything about radiation. It's pointless for you to speculate and claim that it was impossible for the astronauts to live on the Moon. ##SNIPPED##
edit on Sun Feb 17 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Fair enough. So based on what that Discover article said, astronauts who go to the moon are at risk of exposure to the same amount of radiation as uranium miners experience in a year. Which means that they're exposed to that much radiation in the course of their 1 day or so stay.

"The applicable radiation dose standard for workers is 20 mSv/a (averaged over 5 years), and the fatal cancer risk is 0.04 per Sv, according to [ICRP60]".

www.wise-uranium.org...

So this would actually be 7300 msV/a (365 X 20 mSv/a). How does that much radiation per day compare to that tolerated by the human body? And yes I realize this measurement is actually for a year, I'm not sure how to convert it into days or hours worth of radiation exposure.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


20 mSv/a is actually a fairly low dose. 24 mSv/a is background at an airline cruising altitude. A 20 mSv dose at one shot is the equivalent of a full body CT scan. You aren't getting to really dangerous levels until you get into Sieverts, which are fatal in the 4.5-6 range.

There are places here on earth where people receive more, or similar doses to that, and still live there.


Naturally occurring background radiation is the main source of exposure for most people, and provides some perspective on radiation exposure from nuclear energy. The average dose received by all of us from background radiation is around 2.4 mSv/yr, which can vary depending on the geology and altitude where people live – ranging between 1 and 10 mSv/yr, but can be more than 50 mSv/yr. The highest known level of background radiation affecting a substantial population is in Kerala and Madras states in India where some 140,000 people receive doses which average over 15 millisievert per year from gamma radiation, in addition to a similar dose from radon. Comparable levels occur in Brazil and Sudan, with average exposures up to about 40 mSv/yr to many people.

Several places are known in Iran, India and Europe where natural background radiation gives an annual dose of more than 100 mSv and up to 260 mSv (at Ramsar in Iran, where some 200,000 people are exposed to more than 10 mSv/yr). Lifetime doses from natural radiation range up to several thousand millisievert. However, there is no evidence of increased cancers or other health problems arising from these high natural levels. The millions of nuclear workers that have been monitored closely for 50 years have no higher cancer mortality than the general population but have had up to ten times the average dose. People living in Colorado and Wyoming have twice the annual dose as those in Los Angeles, but have lower cancer rates.

www.world-nuclear.org...
edit on 2/17/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join