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.
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Zaphod58
It seems funny that NASA is always so precise and exact yet they are flying the Apollo 14 through a "hot" zone. I wonder how that happened?
Originally posted by turbonium1
Originally posted by DelMarvel
A hoax would have required the cooperation of thousands, probably many thousands.
It would have been humanly impossible to keep that secret for a half a century.
Too many girlfriends, wives, children and drunken companions.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
The vast majority would have no idea about what really happened. Just because they played a part in the program doesn't mean they would know everything about it. No way.
However, if you can support your claim with some specific case examples, please go right ahead.....
Originally posted by choos
From the results in figures 4 and 7, it is clear that aluminum is marginally useful as a shield material for reduci ng adverse astronaut health risks.
figures 4 and 7 are the numbers i am reffering you to look at. those numbers indicate that for 12 days the amount of radiation received is well under the 30 day limit of 0.25Sv (25cSv). you cannot deny this, it is a fact, clear as day written in the report.
you believe the report supports your claim that radiation makes the apollo missions impossible as it will probably kill everyone on board within one week.. but the numbers in the report show to anyone who knows basic maths, that 12 days exposure to GCR's is well under the safe limits.. not even close to making anyone sick let alone kill everyone.
"
From the results in figures 4 and 7, it is clear that aluminum is marginally useful as a shield material for reduci ng adverse astronaut health risks.
Originally posted by choos
Originally posted by turbonium1
Of course. That's the problem NASA has now. And it's why the Apollo story will eventually unravel, too..
The experts know it, that's why the Apollo data is largely ignored. Real data would be like gold to them. You see anything like that? No chance.
utter lunacy at its finest.. can you please tell us how NASA can keep thousands upon thousands of scientists from around the world to keep using fake data, to hide the readings they have obtained and to modify them to fit what NASA says?
apollo data is ignored because the data they have obtained is for about 6-12 days at a time.. you know nothing about usable scientific data. but alot of scientists use data from the apollo era, because NASA have sent up multiple probes into deep space to obtain such information.
now for 40+years and probably more. more and more new scientists need to be included into the hoax or they will accidentally expose the "truth".. utter lunacy..
Originally posted by turbonium1
Originally posted by choos
From the results in figures 4 and 7, it is clear that aluminum is marginally useful as a shield material for reduci ng adverse astronaut health risks.
figures 4 and 7 are the numbers i am reffering you to look at. those numbers indicate that for 12 days the amount of radiation received is well under the 30 day limit of 0.25Sv (25cSv). you cannot deny this, it is a fact, clear as day written in the report.
you believe the report supports your claim that radiation makes the apollo missions impossible as it will probably kill everyone on board within one week.. but the numbers in the report show to anyone who knows basic maths, that 12 days exposure to GCR's is well under the safe limits.. not even close to making anyone sick let alone kill everyone.
How interesting. You cited this part of the report....
""
From the results in figures 4 and 7, it is clear that aluminum is marginally useful as a shield material for reduci ng adverse astronaut health risks.
But you missed the two sentences right after that. I'll bold them for you...
"From the results in figures 4 and 7, it is clear that aluminum is marginally useful as a shield material for reduci ng adverse astronaut health risks. In fact studies using biological-based models of radiation response indicate that aluminum may indeed provide an additional hazard to the astronaut (ref. 7). This ineffectiveness and possibly added hazard of aluminum result from the secondary particle production processes in breaking up incident GCR ions within the shield"
Do you know what they are saying in bold? I'll bet you do, and that's why you left it out of your post. Let's review that part, shall we?
They are referring to "studies using biological-based models of radiation response". So do they include these studies in their charts or tables? No.
Why not? Let's continue, with the complete sentence...
"In fact studies using biological-based models of radiation response indicate that aluminum may indeed provide an additional hazard to the astronaut"
Hmm...Now, why would they need to cite "biological-based models" of radiation response, when they have nine actual manned missions available for study? Can you think of any reason they'd do that?
The only logical reason I see.....is because there were no actual missions.
If there had been NINE actual manned lunar missions, we'd already know that aluminum is an additional hazard to astronauts. We wouldn't need to use models 20+ years later to find that out.
GCR's were detected in deep space, during the Apollo moon missions, right? Actually, no. Because, as we now know, aluminum makes GCR radiation more hazardous than it was before. But supposedly Apollo was unaffected.
That is Impossibe.
You get it now?
The experts will never admit such a thing, of course, since it would open up a huge can of worms. That's why Apollo' is ignored. At most, it's a footnote. They never connect the dots, because it would rip Apollo to shreds.
These numbers are merely estimates, nothing more. Show me where they say it is genuine, valid data, because I find no such claims being made.
I can't wait to see it.....
Originally posted by turbonium1
Do you know what they are saying in bold? I'll bet you do, and that's why you left it out of your post. Let's review that part, shall we?
IN the exploratory manned space missions of a few to
several weeks duration of the past, only the more
intense sources of space radiations, such as solar
cosmic rays and trapped radiations, were considered
to be the principal radiation hazards. The primary
radiation protection issues were the control of early
somatic effects of radiation exposure and their impact
on mission safety (Billingham et al. 1965). It was
reasoned that few, if any, astronauts would make more
than one high profile trip to the moon so that career
exposures were of secondary importance. In this context, the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) background exposures at rates of 150 to 200 mGy y- _were not of great
concern (Wilson 1978; Wilson et al. 1991).
ia700604.us.archive.org...
Hmm...Now, why would they need to cite "biological-based models" of radiation response, when they have nine actual manned missions available for study? Can you think of any reason they'd do that?
The only logical reason I see.....is because there were no actual missions.
If there had been NINE actual manned lunar missions, we'd already know that aluminum is an additional hazard to astronauts. We wouldn't need to use models 20+ years later to find that out.
GCR's were detected in deep space, during the Apollo moon missions, right? Actually, no. Because, as we now know, aluminum makes GCR radiation more hazardous than it was before. But supposedly Apollo was unaffected.
That is Impossibe.
You get it now?
The experts will never admit such a thing, of course, since it would open up a huge can of worms. That's why Apollo' is ignored. At most, it's a footnote. They never connect the dots, because it would rip Apollo to shreds.
These numbers are merely estimates, nothing more. Show me where they say it is genuine, valid data, because I find no such claims being made.
I can't wait to see it.....
Originally posted by turbonium1
You think they're stupid enough to say it's a hoax? Come on, now.
It doesn't matter how many know it's a hoax, none will speak of it.
Their quotes make it clear - you just need to connect the dots.
Originally posted by turbonium1
Here are some facts..
Aluminum makes GCR radiation more hazardous to humans.
Apollo's craft was primarily aluminum.
GCR radiation wasn't found to become any more hazardous during the Apollo missions.
It's just that simple.
Originally posted by paradox
I forgot how many retards roam this website.
Originally posted by choos think you might be confusing yourself here.. keep going like this and people will start to think you are coming up with theories on the fly
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Originally posted by choos think you might be confusing yourself here.. keep going like this and people will start to think you are coming up with theories on the fly
I noticed that you haven't posted the empirical data of the Apollo PRD's. Maybe you will claim that NASA lost the PRD data, too. It's kind of like the 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes were lost or like the moon rock audits which showed a whole lot of missing rocks.
You seem to breeze over the missing data and rely on NASA's published summary tables for your faith-based claims. Any scientist who examined Apollo radiation claims would want to see the empirical data of the individual Apollo PRD's which.... as we have seen so far in this thread.... that PRD data does not exist.
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
I noticed that you haven't posted the empirical data of the Apollo PRD's. Maybe you will claim that NASA lost the PRD data, too. It's kind of like the 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes were lost or like the moon rock audits which showed a whole lot of missing rocks.
You seem to breeze over the missing data and rely on NASA's published summary tables for your faith-based claims. Any scientist who examined Apollo radiation claims would want to see the empirical data of the individual Apollo PRD's which.... as we have seen so far in this thread.... that PRD data does not exist.
ntrs.nasa.gov...
Bad Request
Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.
Size of a request header field exceeds server limit.
Cookie
/n
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
ntrs.nasa.gov...
Something is wrong with your url. I'm getting
L To appear in 5th Edition of Space Physiology and Medicine. Space Radiation Organ Doses for Astronauts on Past and Future Missions Francis A. Cucinotta NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston TX 77058
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
ntrs.nasa.gov...
Something is wrong with your url. I'm getting
Bad Request
Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.
Size of a request header field exceeds server limit.
Cookie
/n
Originally posted by choos
you keep calling for the empirical PRD data.. but you have one flaw.. i believe only cumulative data was collected and stored and i believe this was collected once they returned to earth and studied afterwards.
its not that its missing but i think its because you dont know how the data for radiation was collected.
so then how does it fit in with the von braun disclosure? or have you dropped that theory now?
also if the empirical data was so important why is it that all recent studies all have data that is in line with the apollo missions and yet this means nothing to you? and none of which show that a 12 day mission will make astronauts seriously sick or even kill them. all that the studies show is that aluminium is not acceptably effective enough to protect astronauts for long missions against GCR's.
i wonder if you HB know how the career space limits were calculated?