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.

 

Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

page: 68
62
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1
 


It doesn't matter if it's six times higher or not, it's still well within limits that the human body can take. NASA has imposed stricter limits since the 1990s, and what Apollo was exposed to still falls way below those limits. Using the mGy figure of 1.8 mGy a day, on a 12 day mission, they were exposed to 21.6 mGy on average. The new NASA figures, from the 1990s, allow for 1000 mGy for the eye lens, 1500 mGy for skin, 250 mGy for BFO, 250 mGy for the heart, and 500 mGy for the CNS, in a 30 day period. They weren't even remotely close to the stricter limits imposed by NASA for more modern missions.

Even other space agencies have a much higher exposure limit than the Apollo astronauts would have been exposed to.


That's not relevant to my point.

Look...

Apollo craft took readings of radiation in deep space, right?

These readings were taken from both outside the craft, as well as inside the craft, right?

The craft was primarily aluminum, right?

Aluminum increases the hazard of deep space radiation, right?

What did we find with the Apollo readings, then?


They found no increased hazard within their aluminum craft, right?



Why not?

Because they were too small?

No.

The radiation is altered by aluminum fragmenting its particles. Small indeed!

But if you have sources to support your case, let's see it...




.



This is because you dont understand there are different types of radiation. basically 5 types astronauts are concerned with they are alpha particles beta particles gamma and x rays and finally neutrons. So aluminum easily stops alpha and beta particles so there not an issue. now we have gamma and x rays well apollo walls were not just aluminum let me explain.First the command module actually had 2 structures bonded together.The inner one consisted of a sheet of aluminum then honeycombed aluminum and then a bonded face sheet. Now this was done for thermal protection but the funny part is it helped alot against radiation as well.

Then we have the heat shielding. this started with fiberglass then a brazened steel honeycomb layer. then at least two inches of phenolic epoxy basically a type of plastic designed to burn off on reentry. So now that i went thru that back to gamma and x rays x rays can be stopped by glass. Oh wait there was glass in the walls we call it fiber glass and plastic so 3 of the 5 down. Now for the last two gamma and neutrinos. Gamma is dangerous especially if it and aluminum isnt much protection but wait as i pointed out there was more to the command module wasnt there. Granted not enough to stop them but enough not to make it worse either. And finally neutrinos nothing all all can stop them this is why the astronauts were seeing flashes of light that they kept reporting. they were registering as they passed thru them.

So now why do you know why the radiation might register higher on the outside of the craft since alot of the radiation would indeed be blocked? Loog the basic problem is gamma rays on a short mission even though they penetrated the hull its not going to hurt them in such a short exposure. However put them in the craft for a 2 yr mission to mars and its a whole different ball game.Odds are they would go thru a couple of gamma ray bursts wont kill them at least not right away but will all but guarantee they die of cancer.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:49 AM
link   
To recap, you said Apollo couldn't detect any increase in GCR radiation because the levels were too small.

So, if you can, show me your sources...



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
This is because you dont understand there are different types of radiation. basically 5 types astronauts are concerned with they are alpha particles beta particles gamma and x rays and finally neutrons. So aluminum easily stops alpha and beta particles so there not an issue. now we have gamma and x rays well apollo walls were not just aluminum let me explain.First the command module actually had 2 structures bonded together.The inner one consisted of a sheet of aluminum then honeycombed aluminum and then a bonded face sheet. Now this was done for thermal protection but the funny part is it helped alot against radiation as well.

Then we have the heat shielding. this started with fiberglass then a brazened steel honeycomb layer. then at least two inches of phenolic epoxy basically a type of plastic designed to burn off on reentry. So now that i went thru that back to gamma and x rays x rays can be stopped by glass. Oh wait there was glass in the walls we call it fiber glass and plastic so 3 of the 5 down. Now for the last two gamma and neutrinos. Gamma is dangerous especially if it and aluminum isnt much protection but wait as i pointed out there was more to the command module wasnt there. Granted not enough to stop them but enough not to make it worse either. And finally neutrinos nothing all all can stop them this is why the astronauts were seeing flashes of light that they kept reporting. they were registering as they passed thru them.

So now why do you know why the radiation might register higher on the outside of the craft since alot of the radiation would indeed be blocked? Loog the basic problem is gamma rays on a short mission even though they penetrated the hull its not going to hurt them in such a short exposure. However put them in the craft for a 2 yr mission to mars and its a whole different ball game.Odds are they would go thru a couple of gamma ray bursts wont kill them at least not right away but will all but guarantee they die of cancer.


Let's see -

It's mostly aluminum. But it also has fibreglass, epoxy, steel,

Sandwiched, it makes for a fine radiation shield!


What about your sources on all this, now?

Fibreglass shielding? Epoxy?

Or is this only good as a 'combined' shield?

Hmm..



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 02:57 AM
link   
It's funny -

They didn't know aluminum was actually more hazardous than having no shield at all in deep space.

But they knew aluminum was not more hazardous - just add some epoxy, fibreglass and steel.


Sure they did, yup
edit on 13-7-2013 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 


It's not more dangerous than no shield as much as you wasn't it to be. It's not as effective but no matter how many times you say it, it's not as bad as no shield. Even the experts you misquote don't say that.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1
 


It's not more dangerous than no shield as much as you wasn't it to be. It's not as effective but no matter how many times you say it, it's not as bad as no shield. Even the experts you misquote don't say that.


Why would they need to state it, when it's so blatantly obvious?

They say aluminum increases the radiation hazard, yes?. .

So we first have the existing radiation.

If we have no aluminum, the radiation hazard remains the same.

If we have aluminum, the radiation hazard increases.


Which of the two options is worse?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Aluminum isn't a shield in deep space. It's worse than no shield at all, by intensifying the already-existing hazard.

They had no idea it could backfire back then. They've now been caught in a massive lie.
edit on 13-7-2013 by turbonium1 because: add part



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by turbonium1
 


Ill be short, you have to look it up yourself or I'll do it later, but solar protons are shielded effectively by aluminium.

Solar protons do not penetrate aluminum like gcr.

Sorry no time you need to look it up yourself.


How is this relevant to my point?

Who said solar protons? Not me.

GCR's were mentioned, you do know that?


who said solar protons?? why the report said so..

heres yet more evidence of you pushing disinfo, lying and twisting the words of the reports to suit your agenda.

here is the full paragraph:

Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses
received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 to 15 were small because no major
solar -particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected
by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose
to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected. Solar -particle releases are random
events, and it is possible that a flare, with the accompanying energetic nuclear parti-
cles, may hinder future flights beyond the magnetosphere.
www.hq.nasa.gov...


the very quote you quoted from the report was talking about solar particle events, and you are telling me what relevance solar protons has and that it was talking about GCR's??

why do you feel the need to lie and push dis-information to try to convince people?
edit on 13-7-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos

the very quote you quoted from the report was talking about solar particle events, and you are telling me what relevance solar protons has and that it was talking about GCR's??

why do you feel the need to lie and push dis-information to try to convince people?
edit on 13-7-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)


The point at hand was related to GCR particles, nothing else. It was not about solar protons, SPE's.

Now, if you can show the sources I asked you for....



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

The point at hand was related to GCR particles, nothing else. It was not about solar protons, SPE's.

Now, if you can show the sources I asked you for....


yes we were talking about GCR's and you used a quote refering to SPE's to prove a point about how sensors outside the craft registered a small event and inside didnt..

so how does that make sense?? using a small SPE to prove something about GCR's?
edit on 13-7-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)


p.s. the PRD's have a tolerance of 0.01 to 1000 rads i think it was.. so the SP event you are referring to added less than 0.01 rads difference, and you are the one making the claims, you need to provide your sources.. you have never once provided any source that shows that the radiation inside an aluminium shell was high enough to make the astronauts sick within 6 days and probably kill the.

you are absolutely sure that the radiation will make them sick or kill them in about 6 days, so show us the numbers which make you so sure of this.
edit on 13-7-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos
why do you feel the need to lie and push dis-information to try to convince people?


Because:

“The difference between a vampire and a conspiracy theorist is that with a vampire, if you put a stake through its heart, it’s done. With conspiracy theorists, there’s nothing you can do to shut them down,” he said. “They have an unwillingness to confront what the consensus of humanity knows to be a fact.”

Ross Baker, professor of political science at Rutgers University.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by turbonium1

The point at hand was related to GCR particles, nothing else. It was not about solar protons, SPE's.

Now, if you can show the sources I asked you for....


yes we were talking about GCR's and you used a quote refering to SPE's to prove a point about how sensors outside the craft registered a small event and inside didnt..

so how does that make sense?? using a small SPE to prove something about GCR's?
edit on 13-7-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)


The point was to show that sensors were on the outside and inside, that's all.

You know the issue is related to GCR's, so why not stick to this point?

.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

The point was to show that sensors were on the outside and inside, that's all.

You know the issue is related to GCR's, so why not stick to this point?


so why say this:
"They had sensprs outside the capsule, as well as inside it, Clearly, they'd have different readings. But they didn't find any at all. Which means they weren't in deep space."

didnt find any at all??? the quote you used doesnt even say no detection.. it says no increase was detected related to the SPE.. why are you so sure they werent in deep space? you obviously have the numbers to prove that the radiation should have killed or made the astronauts sick within 6 days.. so lets see it.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 


You really should learn about what you are talking about before you spout off on things you don't understand.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by turbonium1

The point at hand was related to GCR particles, nothing else. It was not about solar protons, SPE's.

Now, if you can show the sources I asked you for....


yes we were talking about GCR's and you used a quote refering to SPE's to prove a point about how sensors outside the craft registered a small event and inside didnt..

so how does that make sense?? using a small SPE to prove something about GCR's?
edit on 13-7-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)


The point was to show that sensors were on the outside and inside, that's all.

You know the issue is related to GCR's, so why not stick to this point?

.


Look this is easy the command module wasnt just a sheet of aluminum so saying aluminum makes it worse there fore its impossible is stupid. My first suggestion for people who believe this why dont you take the time to look up how the craft was built.Here ill even help heres a good starting point.

www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Scientific fraud is a reality today, it was a reality during the Apollo era and it has been studied.


When I first began looking into the increasingly vexing problem of irreproducible scientific research I assumed that the bulk of the problem was caused by sloppy science. Not so, says a National Academy of Sciences study that attributes two thirds of the retractions in the biomedical and life-sciences to scientific misconduct. And remember, these are only the people that have gotten caught. source www.forbes.com...



How many graduate students are likely to turn in their Principal Investigator (PI) knowing that this would dash their hopes of earning a Ph.D.? How many post-docs would do the same, throwing away their chance for a faculty appointment? How many assistant professors would risk receiving tenure by outing a colleague? And how many PIs would be willing to wade into a controversy by bringing charges against the very same peers who review their publications and grant proposals?


Because Apollo is a very special claim it requires very special analysis and it also requires the very special understanding of world events, realpolitiks, including, of course, Richard Nixon's presidency.

The scientific method does not care who went to the moon or when or why. Science does require that the data be sound and reproducable.... which tends to put Apollo Program "way out there" on the spectrum of believability.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1
 


You really should learn about what you are talking about before you spout off on things you don't understand.


Right, it's so much better to just spout off about others who actually contribute something to the subject!

Sheesh...



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 


You're absolutely right, I haven't contributed a single thing to this thread.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Look this is easy the command module wasnt just a sheet of aluminum so saying aluminum makes it worse there fore its impossible is stupid. My first suggestion for people who believe this why dont you take the time to look up how the craft was built.Here ill even help heres a good starting point.

www.hq.nasa.gov...


Your source has a specific section on the heat shield, but nothing on a radiation shield!

You'd think it might be worth mentioning, perhaps? If the craft is actually going tp fly beyond LEO, that is!

We're talking about radiation hielding, and you give me a paper that only describes heat shielding. How is that for stupid?


So what makes it an adequate shield? Adding some epoxy, fibreglass, etc.?

I'm still waiting for sources on that.

So how about it?



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 


Epoxy and fiberglass are fine for stopping alpha and beta particles, while the water and fuel tanks would help show the gamma particles. The numbers provided by you prove that Apollo was entirely possible. Exposure levels were well below the stricter limits imposed in the 90s for a zero cancer rate mission. If they are willing to accept a 3% increase in cancer chances the exposure limits are even higher. Either way you proved that radiation levels weren't a problem.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join