Did NASA just admit they never put Man on The Moon? [Video]

a reply to: choos

Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is completely harmless.

a reply to: DJW001

What makes you think there might not be missing or mislabeled boxes that will turn up later? Think things through much?

The research team conducted a multi-year investigation in the hopes of finding the most pristine and usable versions of the moonwalk. If the original SSTV format tapes were to be found, more modern digital technology could make a higher-quality conversion. The researchers discovered that the tapes containing the raw unprocessed Apollo 11 SSTV signal were erased and reused by NASA in the early 1980s. This was according to NASA's procedures, as they were facing a major data tape shortage at that time.

Sure do.. How about you..
p.s. If you don't want a response don't reply to my post..

Seeya

a reply to: ConvenientExpert

theres more particle radiation than just from the VAB..

Last month, the investigators on the Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) instrument aboard NASA’s Curiosity rover announced some of their findings. According to the scientists, the RAD measurements indicate that the crew of a human Mars expedition using present-day propulsion technology (six-month transits each way, 18 months on the surface) would receive a round-trip radiation dose of about 0.6 Sievert (Sv), or 60 rem (1 Sv = 100 rem.) - See more at: spacenews.com...

and not to mention the longer you spend in deep space the higher the chance of being caught in a large solar flare.

a reply to: choos

theres more particle radiation than just from the VAB..

And this is higher than in the VABelts?

I mean, according to that NASA pdf, the shielding makes the radiation exposure levels in the VABelts, harmless.

a reply to: ConvenientExpert

the particle radiation levels in deep space are much lower than the VAB, but have higher energy thus penetrating further.

the shielding will effectively shield particles upto a certain energy level.. particles with higher energy will pass through losing only a little..

a reply to: choos

Any sources to back that up?

a reply to: choos

According to the scientists, the RAD measurements indicate that the crew of a human Mars expedition using present-day propulsion technology (six-month transits each way, 18 months on the surface) would receive a round-trip radiation dose of about 0.6 Sievert (Sv), or 60 rem (1 Sv = 100 rem.) - See more at: spacenews.com...

So we are talking 60 rem in 30 months.....

Similarly, a single dose of 100 rem may cause a person to experience nausea or skin reddening (although recovery is likely), and about 25 rem can cause temporary sterility in men. However, if these doses are spread out over time, instead of being delivered all at once, their effects tend to be less severe."

www.livescience.com...

60 rem spread out over 30 months seems completely harmless.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: Pauligirl
Computer Function – Orion’s computer is the first of its kind to be flown in space. It can process 480 million instructions per second. That’s 25 times faster than the International Space Station’s computers, 400 times faster than the space shuttle’s computers and 4,000 times faster than Apollo’s. But to operate in space, it has to be able to handle extreme heat and cold, heavy radiation and the intense vibrations of launches, aborts and landings. And it has to operate through all of that without a single mistake. Just restarting the computer would take 15 seconds; and while that might sound lightning fast compared to your PC, you can cover a lot of ground in 15 seconds when you’re strapped to a rocket.

Dear mam,

You seem to draw a imaginary connection between a computer's performance statistics and its need for shielding against space radiation, but it is just that; imaginary. Please post any scientific sources for such a purposed connection in this thread, please.

-MM

www.nasa.gov...

a reply to: Pauligirl

Five Things We’ll Learn from Orion’s First Flight Test -Computer Function – Orion’s computer is the first of its kind to be flown in space. It can process 480 million instructions per second. That’s 25 times faster than the International Space Station’s computers, 400 times faster than the space shuttle’s computers and 4,000 times faster than Apollo’s.

But to operate in space, it has to be able to handle extreme heat and cold, heavy radiation and the intense vibrations of launches, aborts and landings.

It seems to me that all these factors can be tested perfectly here on Earth. As if they would send it up there without having tested this computer for exactly those conditions.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

If you change the shielding you have to start the testing program all over again to test it with the new weight and balance. Instead of having to test three different capsules, spending five or six times the amount of money or more, one for all the missions makes more sense both fiscally and mission wise.

Omg. He is talking about added shielding as opposed to previous spacecrafts, he was not suggesting that Orion should get added shielding as opposed to its original design.

This particular discussion and your comments that followed this misinterpretation of yours are BS at best.

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: ConvenientExpert

theres more particle radiation than just from the VAB..

Last month, the investigators on the Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) instrument aboard NASA’s Curiosity rover announced some of their findings. According to the scientists, the RAD measurements indicate that the crew of a human Mars expedition using present-day propulsion technology (six-month transits each way, 18 months on the surface) would receive a round-trip radiation dose of about 0.6 Sievert (Sv), or 60 rem (1 Sv = 100 rem.) - See more at: spacenews.com...

and not to mention the longer you spend in deep space the higher the chance of being caught in a large solar flare.

Btw, did you even read the article you posted? I did.

Therefore, in compliance with its own regulations, the agency’s leadership is allegedly justified in avoiding the challenge of human Mars exploration - See more at: spacenews.com...

This argument is irrational for several reasons.

In the first place, the 3 percent risk estimated for the 60 rem dose is overstated....... - See more at: spacenews.com...

originally posted by: ConvenientExpert
a reply to: choos

Any sources to back that up?

sources for what exactly??

So we are talking 60 rem in 30 months.....
60 rem spread out over 30 months seems completely harmless.

60 rem according to the article translates to a 3% increase risk of developing cancer.. where as 100rem or 1Sv is roughly about 5% increased chance..

NASA has a prescribed career limit of 1Sv or about 100REM.. which means any astronaut that accumulates 100REM in their career are no longer allowed to go to space..

this is just the limits prescribed, you can easily survive 100 REM over 30 months, but the rules say to not take the risk.

Btw, did you even read the article you posted? I did.

yes i did read it, and you should read it again..
the article says that 60 rem over the mars trip is the argument by NASA HQ as the show stopper..
the article claims NASA's argument is irrational as the 60 rem is overstated and the calculation of 60 rem equaling roughly 3% increased chance of developing cancer is a conservative estimate..

a reply to: choos

sources for what exactly??

For what you claimed in the comment I responded to with that line.

yes i did read it, and you should read it again..

I should? You responded to me with this article attempting to show that the Orion's future occupants would be exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, but the article itself claims that this notion is false. Just like I said and backed up with my own source.

Don't try to wiggle your way out of it.

60 rem according to the article translates to a 3% increase risk of developing cancer.. where as 100rem or 1Sv is roughly about 5% increased chance..

According to NASA, not according to the article.

Still wanna claim that I should read it again?

a reply to: ConvenientExpert

Go back and actually read it before spouting off. He specifically said:

If Orion needs more sheilding because it is a multipurpose spacecraft that might go to Mars at a later stage (Yeah, right...Like that is ever going to happen...), then don't you think they will change the shielding according to the requirements of the purposed mission,

How is talking about changing the shielding on Orion talking about shielding on other craft?

Next time read before sticking your foot in your mouth.

originally posted by: ConvenientExpert

For what you claimed in the comment I responded to with that line.

all of it??

well deep space radiation being lower than radiation from the VAB is self explanatory.. look at the article i posted 60rem over 30 months is roughly 2 rem per month, 1 rem is roughly 1 rad

and previously you posted the article of spacemath using 13rads/hour unshielded.. which is roughly 9360 rem/month.. self explanatory right??

and regarding shielding can be effective upto certain energy levels:

This formula provides calculated ranges in units of g/cm^2 in close agreement to those obtained from Eqs 1.26 and 1.27 or those found from Fig. B.3 in Appendix B.
According to Eq.1.26 a 1.0MeC beta particle has a calculated range of 0.409 g/cm^2. This value may be divided by the density, p, of the absorber material to provide the range in centimeters of absorber thickness. Thus, it can be estimated that a1.0MeV beta particle travels approx... 0.15cm in aluminum.
books.google.com.hk... fOvhRCA&hl=en&ei=yN7MSfvZDprNlQfnqtXQCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=beta%20particle%20range%20in%20air&f=false

I should? You responded to me with this article attempting to show that the Orion's future occupants would be exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, but the article itself claims that this notion is false. Just like I said and backed up with my own source.

Don't try to wiggle your way out of it.

According to NASA, not according to the article.

Still wanna claim that I should read it again?

actually no, i posted the article to show you that there was more particle radiation than just from the VAB. oh and also to show you mission length does matter..

however, 60rem over 30 months is considered by NASA as too dangerous of a risk for their astronauts, 60 rem is not much if you are willing to accept the risk but going by the guidelines prescribed it is too dangerous/risky..

these are the guidelines that NASA are following and must design human-rated crafts by.. if the craft can only lower the accumulated dosage to 60 rem in 30 months and it is considered too risky they must shield it better OR shorten the transit time between earth and mars..

a reply to: choos

well deep space radiation being lower than radiation from the VAB is self explanatory..

Yes, and since the shielding was good enough to make the VAB radiation harmless, according to NASA, how was your comment relevant?

But you also said this,

the particle radiation levels in deep space are much lower than the VAB, but have higher energy thus penetrating further.

Did you forget? Penetrating further? Again, sources? It seems you are suggesting that this radiation is more harmful that the VAB radiation which is harmless because of shielding, according to NASA.

look at the article i posted 60rem over 30 months is roughly 2 rem per month, 1 rem is roughly 1 rad and previously you posted the article of spacemath using 13rads/hour unshielded.. which is roughly 9360 rem/month.. self explanatory right?? and regarding shielding can be effective upto certain energy levels:

This info was not disputed, and parts of it just irrelevant to the specific discussion you just posted it in.

actually no, i posted the article to show you that there was more particle radiation than just from the VAB. oh and also to show you mission length does matter..

What is the point if you didn't intend to show that radiation exposure is in fact harmful on longer missions, since this was the point I was disputing with the post you responded to.

however, 60rem over 30 months is considered by NASA as too dangerous of a risk for their astronauts, 60 rem is not much if you are willing to accept the risk but going by the guidelines prescribed it is too dangerous/risky.. these are the guidelines that NASA are following and must design human-rated crafts by.. if the craft can only lower the accumulated dosage to 60 rem in 30 months and it is considered too risky they must shield it better OR shorten the transit time between earth and mars..

That's nice, but both my source and your source dispute the notion that those values are too risky, which is the point I was making in this particular part of the discussion.

Stop weaseling your way out of it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Now that we got that out of the way, any response to other comments directed at you?

a reply to: ConvenientExpert

He was talking about both, including different shielding levels on Orion for different missions, which it clearly says. Nice try to twist it though.

originally posted by: ConvenientExpert
Yes, and since the shielding was good enough to make the VAB radiation harmless, according to NASA, how was your comment relevant?

you claimed being exposed to harmless radiation for weeks or a year doesnt matter..

i posted an article that has harmless levels of radiation, but over the long term IT DOES MATTER..

Did you forget? Penetrating further? Again, sources? It seems you are suggesting that this radiation is more harmful that the VAB radiation which is harmless because of shielding, according to NASA.

really you cant work it out by checking the link i posted?? the higher the energy particles have, the further it will penetrate material, click the link i posted and scroll down a bit and you can see how far beta radiation will penetrate air depending on the energy it has..

also i never suggested its more harmful than the VAB.. over the short term deep space radiation is a non issue because it is very very low, but in the long term it builds up and becomes an issue for LONG DURATION MISSIONS..

This info was not disputed, and parts of it just irrelevant to the specific discussion you just posted it in.

probably because you dont get what im telling you..

you asked for sources and i gave it to you.. you can understand that 9000+ rem per month (VAB levels) unshielded is much much higher than 2 rem per month (deep space levels) shielded right??

What is the point if you didn't intend to show that radiation exposure is in fact harmful on longer missions, since this was the point I was disputing with the post you responded to.

you just dont get it do you.. 60 rem over 30 months, according to you, is not harmful, but to NASA it is..
you claimed duration of a mission shouldnt matter because the radiation is harmless.. but thats your opinion.. according to NASA 60 REM over 30 months is too dangerous regardless of whether you call it harmless or not..

That's nice, but both my source and your source dispute the notion that those values are too risky, which is the point I was making in this particular part of the discussion.

Stop weaseling your way out of it.

no you claimed and i quote

originally posted by: ConvenientExpert
The duration of the mission should not even matter, according to this,
It doesn't matter wether you are exposed to harmless levels of rads per hour for one week, or for one year.
www.abovetopsecret.com...