Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
These

ntrs.nasa.gov...

ntrs.nasa.gov...


also contain material of interest.

Must be fake: secondary radiation was only discovered recently. Turbonium says so!


Eta: 300 pages! How's that disclosure coming on?

originally posted by: fenceSitter
Can someone please give me a feasible explanation as to why they would fake the moon landings? I just don't understand why they would go through that much trouble to fake it.

Well it has something to do with a few monkeys, the Russians, a German shepherd and sputnik.

a reply to: Rob48

How's that disclosure coming on?

What da ya mean by disclosure, it was never expected that TPTB would come right out and say " oh and by the way the apollo manned moon landings were a lie " but slowly as time passes most people will realize, like JFK & 911 that something nefarious was afoot.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Not true, provide your sources or you're making it up.

Whereas aluminum was considered a useful shield material a few years ago, now it is considered as not only a poor shield material but may even be hazardous to the astronaut's health because dose equivalent may be a poor predictor of astronaut risk.

Clearly, aluminum which was taken as a reasonable shield material a few years ago is now considered a poor candidate for future spacecraft construction.

In fact studies using biological-based models of radiation response indicate that aluminum may indeed provide an additional hazard to the astronaut..This ineffectiveness and possibly added hazard of aluminum result from the secondary particle production processes in breaking up incident GCR ions within the shield.

Aluminum is now estimated to be of little value in protection from the galactic rays, and further code improvement is expected to further detract from aluminum as a useful shield material.

During the past several years of shield code development, it has been established that aluminum space structures would make poor shields for human occupants. The need to look at new ways of constructing spacecraft is now evident because current estimates indicate aluminum to be an ineffective protection material.



www.cs.odu.edu...

..aluminum has been shown to be a poor material for spacecraft construction since secondary radiations create an additional hazard and any improved protection occurs only at very large depths.

www.stfc.ac.uk...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Figure out what Bremsstrahlung is yet?

Yes, it's a term used by pseudo-intellectuals, to give an illusion of possessing superior knowledge and/or expertise in the subject. They usually end up looking like complete fools, however.

Since you didn't explain the term, while asking for my sources, I'll help you out...

Bremsstrahlung (German pronunciation: [ˈbʁɛmsˌʃtʁaːlʊŋ] ( listen), from bremsen "to brake" and Strahlung "radiation", i.e. "braking radiation" or "deceleration radiation") is electromagnetic radiation produced by the deceleration of a charged particle when deflected by another charged particle, typically an electron by an atomic nucleus. The moving particle loses kinetic energy, which is converted into a photon, thus satisfying the law of conservation of energy. The term is also used to refer to the process of producing the radiation. Bremsstrahlung has a continuous spectrum, which becomes more intense and whose peak intensity shifts toward higher frequencies as the change of the energy of the accelerated particles increases.

Strictly speaking, braking radiation is any radiation due to the acceleration of a charged particle, which includes synchrotron radiation, cyclotron radiation, and the emission of electrons and positrons during beta decay. However, the term is frequently used in the more narrow sense of radiation from electrons (from whatever source) slowing in matter.

Bremsstrahlung emitted from plasma is sometimes referred to as free-free radiation. This refers to the fact that the radiation in this case is created by charged particles that are free both before and after the deflection (acceleration) that caused the emission.

en.wikipedia.org...

Do you understand why it is NOT Bremsstrahlung now?


- Bremsstrahlung does create secondary particles, yes. And yes, we knew about it during the Apollo-era.

- In the sources I've cited, they mention recent studies on aluminum. These studies have shown that when GCR radiation contacts aluminum, it creates secondary particles.. These secondary particles are created by fragmentation processes.

"In fact studies using biological-based models of radiation response indicate that aluminum may indeed provide an additional hazard to the astronaut..This ineffectiveness and possibly added hazard of aluminum result from the secondary particle production processes in breaking up incident GCR ions within the shield."

These processes were not known to exist at the time of Apollo. They do not mention Bremsstrahlung , because it is NOT Bremsstrahlung, which is a deflection process. It is not even a fragmentation process, anyway.

Clear enough?

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
These

ntrs.nasa.gov...

ntrs.nasa.gov...


also contain material of interest.

Must be fake: secondary radiation was only discovered recently. Turbonium says so!

No, Turbonium said the processes were only discovered recently, which create secondary radiation.

Rob48 can't say anything is so. He's dining on a size 10 Nike at the moment..

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
These

ntrs.nasa.gov...

ntrs.nasa.gov...


also contain material of interest.

Must be fake: secondary radiation was only discovered recently. Turbonium says so!

No, Turbonium said the processes were only discovered recently, which create secondary radiation.

Rob48 can't say anything is so. He's dining on a size 10 Nike at the moment..

I think you'll find that if you bothered to read the documents I posted you'll find more than ample evidence that the process (discovered in 1890 and the proper name of which you didn't even know a few posts ago) was both well known, measured, and accounted for in Apollo's design.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
These

ntrs.nasa.gov...

ntrs.nasa.gov...


also contain material of interest.

Must be fake: secondary radiation was only discovered recently. Turbonium says so!

No, Turbonium said the processes were only discovered recently, which create secondary radiation.

Rob48 can't say anything is so. He's dining on a size 10 Nike at the moment..

This is where you are going wrong: what you are talking about is related to GALACTIC COSMIC RAYS, not Van Allen belt radiation.

GCR radiation flux is much, much lower than Van Allen belt radiation, so it can essentially be ignored for the Apollo missions.

What is true is that the flux and biological effect of the fragmented GCR ions was not well known and is actually higher than previously thought.

That is WHY better radiation shields will be needed for LONG MISSIONS.

Again, this is irrelevant to Apollo.

Try READING the papers you quote from rather than cherry-picking sentences that you think support your case.

Deep space exposure estimates using LET-dependent quality factors result in exposures of as much as 1 Sv/yr near solar minimum depending on shielding. A large potential impact exists on the career of a space worker for whom annual exposure limits (table 1) are currently 0.5 Sv/yr

Based on the numbers in that paper, an aluminium hull is perfectly safe for missions not exceeding a few months in deep space. For longer missions, alternative shielding materials will be needed.

How many Apollo missions exceeded a few months duration?

Please provide a straight answer to the bolded question.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

X-ray production happens whenever electrons of high energy strike a heavy metal target, . When electrons hit this material, some of the electrons will approach the nucleus of the metal atoms where they are deflected .This deflection causes the forming an x-ray

a reply to: Misinformation

Very good. Well done. Bravo.

Now, how much of this is likely to happen with CSM shielding, as opposed to, for example, lead.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

The concept of there being more than one type of radiation in space is clearly too much for these people to understand.

Turbonium is trying to take papers talking about fragmentation of HZE ions in deep space and apply that to the dangers of passing through the Van Allen belt, or something.

Never mind that the paper he quoted gives a maximum exposure of 1 Sv per year, which for the longest Apollo mission would give a dose from GCRs of about 0.03 Sv, or 3 rad!

a reply to: onebigmonkey

one must still consider the relative frequency of K-shell knockout which effects the various radiation scattering process.

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: onebigmonkey

one must still consider the relative frequency of K-shell knockout which effects the various radiation scattering process.

And how does the K-shell characteristic energy for lead compare to that of aluminium, Mr I-Google-Things-I-Know-Nothing-About?

originally posted by: Rob48
This is where you are going wrong: what you are talking about is related to GALACTIC COSMIC RAYS, not Van Allen belt radiation.

GCR radiation flux is much, much lower than Van Allen belt radiation, so it can essentially be ignored for the Apollo missions.

What is true is that the flux and biological effect of the fragmented GCR ions was not well known and is actually higher than previously thought.

That is WHY better radiation shields will be needed for LONG MISSIONS.

Again, this is irrelevant to Apollo.

Try READING the papers you quote from rather than cherry-picking sentences that you think support your case.

Deep space exposure estimates using LET-dependent quality factors result in exposures of as much as 1 Sv/yr near solar minimum depending on shielding. A large potential impact exists on the career of a space worker for whom annual exposure limits (table 1) are currently 0.5 Sv/yr

Based on the numbers in that paper, an aluminium hull is perfectly safe for missions not exceeding a few months in deep space. For longer missions, alternative shielding materials will be needed.

How many Apollo missions exceeded a few months duration?

Please provide a straight answer to the bolded question.

They are crude estimates. They base it on LEO measurements, assume it is diminished to a degree in LEO, and that's how they got these numbers .

Do you think it's rather odd that they totally ignore the (supposed) ACTUAL numbers from Apollo missions, and use LEO to make rough estimates instead?? You should.

If we have the real data, we would not need to base it on LEO data ,and extrapolate some pie-in-the-sky numbers.

Anyway, that's what they did. It's fine with you, I'm sure.

The numbers are not data of any kind, they are guesstimates, based on assumptions. It hardly changes the fact we know aluminum is a poor shield. It is.

a reply to: turbonium1
Why are you talking about LEO in the context of GCR exposure? GCR exposure is only really a factor in deep space, ie beyond the Van Allen belts.

You still totally fail to grasp the fundamental difference between the radiation environment in LEO (including forays into the VABs) and that in deep space.

The answer to "how many Apollo missions exceeded a few months duration" is NONE, which is precisely how much of a problem GCR exposure was for Apollo.

originally posted by: turbonium1

They are crude estimates. They base it on LEO measurements, assume it is diminished to a degree in LEO, and that's how they got these numbers .

you must have a memory that only lasts a few months..

we've told you last year that the mars curiosity mission specifically took radiation readings on its journey to mars heres a quote from your own post:

originally posted by: turbonium1
The RAD data showed the Curiosity rover was exposed to an average of 1.8 milliSieverts of GCR per day on its journey to Mars,” NASA reported.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Rob48

And how does the K-shell characteristic energy compare

Whats a K-shell ? I tried Google, but all that came up was about selling C-shells by the seashore.

originally posted by: turbonium1


Whereas aluminum was considered a useful shield material a few years ago, now it is considered as not only a poor shield material but may even be hazardous to the astronaut's health because dose equivalent may be a poor predictor of astronaut risk.

Clearly, aluminum which was taken as a reasonable shield material a few years ago is now considered a poor candidate for future spacecraft construction.

In fact studies using biological-based models of radiation response indicate that aluminum may indeed provide an additional hazard to the astronaut..This ineffectiveness and possibly added hazard of aluminum result from the secondary particle production processes in breaking up incident GCR ions within the shield.

Aluminum is now estimated to be of little value in protection from the galactic rays, and further code improvement is expected to further detract from aluminum as a useful shield material.

During the past several years of shield code development, it has been established that aluminum space structures would make poor shields for human occupants. The need to look at new ways of constructing spacecraft is now evident because current estimates indicate aluminum to be an ineffective protection material.



www.cs.odu.edu...

The TITLE of the document should be enough to tell you it's NOT RELEVANT to Apollo Missions.

Document Title NASA Technical Paper 3682 Galactic and Solar Cosmic Ray Shielding in Deep Space

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

They are crude estimates. They base it on LEO measurements, assume it is diminished to a degree in LEO, and that's how they got these numbers .

you must have a memory that only lasts a few months..

we've told you last year that the mars curiosity mission specifically took radiation readings on its journey to mars heres a quote from your own post:

And I believe it's also been pointed out before that both US and Soviet pre-Apollo lunar probes took radiation readings.

a reply to: wmd_2008

its NOT RELEVANT to Apollo Missions

Not much is ,since they never happened

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: wmd_2008

its NOT RELEVANT to Apollo Missions

Not much is ,since they never happened

So now we didnt send out probes like surveyor either? wow anything else we didnt do like invent airplanes???