Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

And by their own words and admissions, they dont know and didn't know everything about the space environment to send men safely to the moon and back.

Where exactly do you get that from? People learn new things every day, but that doesn't keep them from acting on what they already know, does it?

It does when this was at stake:

The mission was extensively covered in the press. Over 53 million households, or over 93%, tuned in to watch this mission on TV, and over 125 million viewers watched the moon landing. This broke the previous record of the most viewers, and launched the Apollo 11 coverage to be the most watched TV programming up to that date

and

NASA's budget peaked in 1966, during the height of construction efforts leading up to the first moon landing under Project Apollo. At its peak, the Apollo program involved more than 34,000 NASA employees and 375,000 employees of industrial and university contractors. Roughly two to four cents out of every U.S. tax dollar (or 4% of the total federal budget) was being devoted to the space program.

When you are playing with someone else's money, you better come up with the goods.
Tell me, why were Native Americans called Indians?
And

The Space Race was a mid-to-late twentieth century competition between the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States (USA) for supremacy in outer space exploration. The race was both ideological and technological,

Prestige, economic and cultural dominance was at stake.

You ask what preparations NASA made concerning CMEs for Apollo, then point out that the first CME was identified in 1971. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would mean that they made no preparations because they didn't know about them yet.

Give the man a hand... ladies and gentlemen, he gets it... wow
Thats right, there were theories about it, but confirmation didnt occur till the early 70's.

Christopher Columbus knew nothing about hurricanes, until he encountered one. (First European to do so, in fact.)

So? Im sure the Natives knew all about them. What they dont count as witnesses because they weren't European? And are you suggesting storms in Europe never sunk ships?

Does that mean Columbus didn't cross the ocean? Fortunately, there were no CME's during an actual Apollo mission, otherwise they would have been identified before 1971, wouldn't they have?

No, it means there were no missions to the moon.
There were CME's. Thats a fact that nobody can deny.
As a matter of fact, since no Apollogist wants to
say it, CME's occur an average of one per day.
And guess what, during the active years of a Solar cycle, they average 4 to 5 per day.
Thats 4 to 5 Major SPE's occurring during Apollo.

Do we have an average of one hurricanes a day over the year? Do we have an average of 4 to 5 hurricanes during hurricane season? Because if we did, wouldn't Columbus encounter a hurricane every day?

This whole post has me experiencing deja vu, I'm pretty sure I said exactly the same thing 100 pages ago.

Probably, you guys tend to argue in circles with circular arguments.









en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by FoosM


Again.....here you go, spouting rubbish, and you have NOTHING to back up these claims:

There were CME's. Thats a fact that nobody can deny.

You have nothing.

As a matter of fact, since no Apollogist wants to
say it, CME's occur an average of one per day.

Show. Proof. Of. "Danger." You cannot. Because, you CANNOT properly interpret the data, through your blindness.....

And guess what, during the active years of a Solar cycle, they average 4 to 5 per day.
Thats 4 to 5 Major SPE's occurring during Apollo.

UTTER nonsense, and pure distortion of the truth....in other words, OUTRIGHT lie.

You HAVE learned well at the knee of the "White" (noise), given first name "Jarrah"....HE lies and distorts with equal alacrity. And, with just as little shame......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...almost missed this classic "pot/kettle" moment:

Probably, you guys tend to argue in circles with circular arguments.

reply to post by FoosM



Pathetic!

Probably, you guys tend to argue in circles with circular arguments.

Your the one with the red hands and the cookie jar Foosm!

YO POT IT'S THE KETTLE!

Your arguments here have been peat and repeat over and over again.

Do you actually have any proof about an Apollo hoax other than your gut feelings?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Again.....here you go, spouting rubbish, and you have NOTHING to back up these claims:

And guess what, during the active years of a Solar cycle, they average 4 to 5 per day.
Thats 4 to 5 Major SPE's occurring during Apollo.

UTTER nonsense, and pure distortion of the truth....in other words, OUTRIGHT lie.

You HAVE learned well at the knee of the "White" (noise), given first name "Jarrah"....HE lies and distorts with equal alacrity. And, with just as little shame......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...almost missed this classic "pot/kettle" moment:

Probably, you guys tend to argue in circles with circular arguments.

QUESTION:
How do you know when CME's occur? Chad and Chris, Beers Street Middle School

ANSWER:
We can observe CME's only after they've started to occur. Although a group of scientists recently discovered that they can predict when certain CME's will occur. However, we cannot predict all CME's and even then it's less reliable than a 5-day weather forecast. When a CME is occurring, we can see them with special telescopes called coronagraphs, which block the bright light from the solar surface so that we can see the fainter atmosphere.

SCIENTIST: Doug Biesecker, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

QUESTION:
What is the frequency rate of CME's?

ANSWER:
That depends on where you are on the solar cycle. At solar minimum there is about 1 per day, and at solar maximum there are about 10 per day. At the moment there are about 3 to 4 CME's per day.

SCIENTIST: Jack Ireland, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

passporttoknowledge.com...

reply to post by FoosM


You're quoting a website aimed at children? Okay, fine. Show me where on this website they discuss specific details about the proton flux of these CMEs. I'm going to get some sleep. If you don't answer the simple question "Where does JW provide any witnesses to support his claim that the Apollo missions remained in Earth orbit," I will assist new-comers to this thread by posting highlights of the last two exchanges on the "radiation argument." Yes, FoosM, I am threatening you with your own words. Answer the question, or admit that Jarrah White makes statements that he does not back with evidence.

Originally posted by FoosM
With this post I want to offer another example of NASA not fully understanding
the space environment prior to claiming to send men to the moon and back
as brought up recently by SayonaraJupiter

I don't think anyone is claiming they *fully* understood the environment. If they fully understood it, there wouldn't be much point in sending anyone into space. What they did have was a good enough understanding to send crews up with an acceptable level of risk.

Originally posted by FoosM
So, did NASA calculate CME's in their planning of Apollo EVAs?

Well since CMEs weren't confirmed until 1971, I'd say that they specifically didn't do calculations of CMEs.

Originally posted by FoosM
In an earlier post I revealed that at least 17 proton emitting X-class X-ray LDE Solar Flares were observed during Apollo mission dates. 10 flares alone during Apollo 12 including an EVA.

I dispute that. According to this Catalog of LDE Flares, I get 7 X-class flares occurring during actual mission dates for Apollo 10-17, and all of those happened on Apollo 12.

Apollo 10, 16:49:00 18-MAY-1969 to 16:52:23 26-MAY-1969 (UTC)
Flare: 19:00 22-MAY-1969
Rating: M9

Apollo 11, 13:32:00 16-JUL-1969 to 16:50:35 24-JUL-1969 (UTC)
Flare: 17:51 16-JUL-1969
Rating: M4

Apollo 12, 16:22:00 14-NOV-1969 to 20:58:24 24-NOV-1969 (UTC)
Flare: 17:01 17-NOV-1969
Rating: M3

Flare: 15:49 18-NOV-1969
Rating: X5

Flare: 05:20 19-NOV-1969
Rating: X5

Flare: 18:50 19-NOV-1969
Rating: X1

Flare: 21:19 21-NOV-1969
Rating: X1

Flare: 21:08 22-NOV-1969
Rating :X1

Flare: 09:59 23-NOV-1969
Rating: X3

Flare: 15:21 23-NOV-1969
Rating: M3

Flare: 09:15 24-NOV-1969
Rating: X5

Flare: 11:40 24-NOV-1969
Rating: M9

Apollo 13, 19:13:00 11-APR-1970 to 18:07:41 17-APR-1970 (UTC)
Flare: 17:14 12-APR-1970
Rating: M8

Apollo 14, 21:03:02 31-JAN-1971 to 21:05:00 9-FEB-1971 (UTC)
No Flares

Apollo 15, 13:34:00 26-JUL-1971 to 22::45:53 7-AUG-1971 (UTC)
No Flares

Apollo 16, 17:54:00 16-APR-1972 to 19:45:05 27-APR 1972 (UTC)
Flare: 01:05 18-APR-1972
Rating: M3

Apollo 17, 05:33:00 7-DEC-1972 to 19:24:59 19-DEC-1972 (UTC): 6 flares
Flare: 23:22 8-DEC-1972
Rating: M3

Flare: 16:34 9-DEC-1972
Rating: M3

Flare: 00:45 10-DEC-1972
Rating: M3

Flare: 05:51 13-DEC-1972
Rating: M3

Flare: 04:02 16-DEC-1972
Rating: N/A

Flare: 06:51 18-DEC-1972
Rating: N/A

And none of the Apollo 12 flares, not just the X-class ones, occurred during an EVA:

Flare: 17:01 17-NOV-1969
Current activity: Just passing the equigravisphere heading towards moon, all crew in CM.

Flare: 15:49 18-NOV-1969
Current activity: In lunar orbit, all crew in CM.

Flare: 05:20 19-NOV-1969
Current activity: In lunar orbit, CM and LM separated.

Flare: 18:50 19-NOV-1969
Current activity: LM on surface, sleep period, CDR and LMP inside LM.

Flare: 21:19 21-NOV-1969
Current activity: Transearth injection started, all crew in CM.

Flare: 21:08 22-NOV-1969
Current activity: Heading toward earth, all crew in CM.

Flare: 09:59 23-NOV-1969
Current activity: Heading toward earth, all crew in CM.

Flare: 15:21 23-NOV-1969
Current activity: Heading toward earth, all crew in CM.

Flare: 09:15 24-NOV-1969
Current activity: 13.5 hours from reentry, all crew in CM.

Flare: 11:40 24-NOV-1969
Current activity: 9 hours from reentry, al crew in CM.

Originally posted by FoosM
Let me ask this question... how far did the Apollo astronauts travel with their rovers?

The maximum was 4.8 miles on Apollo 17. According to Radiation and the International Space Station: Recommendations to Reduce Risk:

[T]he arrival times for most events are 4 to 6 hours after the flare and radio burst. Peak particle intensities do not occur until another 4 to 6 hours after the arrival of particles. The strategy was to use this time to move the astronauts off the lunar surface and have them return to the more heavily shielded command and service module.

They had constant monitoring for flares by optical and radio telescopes during the missions via the Solar Particle Alert Network.

Originally posted by FoosM
Lets take a look at the satellites that measured and detected x-rays.
The earliest I could find was:

You didn't look very hard. Here are just a few: Explorer 7 (1959), Vanguard III (1959), Pioneer 5 (1960), Mariner 2 (1962), Solrad 8 (1965), Solrad 9 (1968).

Originally posted by FoosM
Did NASA calculate CME's in their planning of Apollo EVAs? And how many CME's occurred during the Apollo missions? How many of those occurred during an EVA? Where are those numbers?

CMEs are largely coincident with flares, so the fact they were monitoring for flares at all times meant they were (unknowingly) indirectly monitoring for CMEs as well. And of course CMEs are quite directional, and the earth-moon system presents a relatively small target. If earth was getting hit with 5 to 8 CMEs per day, the auroras would be constantly spectacular.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

You're quoting a website aimed at children? Okay, fine.

So? Does that make the information irrelevant?
I try to provide the facts as simple and direct as possible.
If it requires using websites for kids to make people understand, well so be it.

So instead of worrying about which website I used, unless you could prove
the information incorrect, why dont you lambast Weedwacker for putting his foot in his mouth by
calling me a liar. Or, actually calling NASA liars.

reply to post by FoosM

So? Does that make the information irrelevant?

Actually there seems to be a pattern of child related, issues with Jarrah White.

Why would he post rebuttal videos on a child safety news website?

Kalel Jordan Kent Had It Coming. Jarrah White Responds to Cyberbullying By Propagandists

I try to provide the facts as simple and direct as possible.

Give me a break.

So instead of worrying about which website I used, unless you could prove
the information incorrect, why dont you lambast Weedwacker for putting his foot in his mouth by
calling me a liar. Or, actually calling NASA liars.

The only person that calls NASA liars is you Foosm. Now you switch the stance on someone else, like no one will notice?

Do you pay any attention at all to the things you say?

I know that answer, obviously not.

reply to post by theability

The only person that calls NASA liars is you Foosm. Now you switch the stance on someone else, like no one will notice?

I'm staying clear of posting in this thread anymore because anyone that disagrees seems to get attacked but I couldn't let that statement pass without comment..

Googling "Never A Straight Answer" gets 125,000 hits....
So I think it's safe to point out Foosm is certainly not the only one that thinks NASA occasionally lies..

www.google.com.au...=en&source=hp&biw=1259&bih=491&q=nasa+never+a+straight+answer&aq=1&aqi=g3g-m3g-v4&aql=&oq=nasa+never&gs_rfai=&fp=42c33c885 e5e233

reply to post by backinblack

I'm staying clear of posting in this thread anymore because anyone that disagrees seems to get attacked but I couldn't let that statement pass without comment..

Googling "Never A Straight Answer" gets 125,000 hits....
So I think it's safe to point out Foosm is certainly not the only one that thinks NASA occasionally lies..

I see logic isn't your forte either....

The basis of Foosm argument is NASA lying about the Apollo Missions. This is his entire argument!

reply to post by theability

I see logic isn't your forte either....

The basis of Foosm argument is NASA lying about the Apollo Missions

Why would you question my logic?

You stated Footsm was the ONLY one that thinks NASA lies..
I show you PROOF that your statement was wrong...

Seems perfectly logical to me...

edit: now you see what I meant about getting attacked for no reason..

reply to post by backinblack

You stated Footsm was the ONLY one that thinks NASA lies.

NO that is not what I said!

That is what you implied from my statement.

The point was that between WW and Foosm Calling NASA a liar it was FOOSM indeed. You'll see that here if you actually read all the posts in the thread.

Here I'll even do the work for you, the post my comment was in response too:

post by FoosM

Now stop putting words in my mouth.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by backinblack

 

You stated Footsm was the ONLY one that thinks NASA lies.

NO that is not what I said!

That is what you implied from my statement.

The point was that between WW and Foosm Calling NASA a liar it was FOOSM indeed. You'll see that here if you actually read all the posts in the thread.

Here I'll even do the work for you, the post my comment was in response too:

post by FoosM

Now stop putting words in my mouth.

edit on 19-12-2010 by theability because: (no reason given)

This is what you posted..

The only person that calls NASA liars is you Foosm. Now you switch the stance on someone else, like no one will notice?

reply to post by backinblack

This is what you posted..

The point was between FOOSM and WEEDWHACKER can you understand that???


Here is the post once again, so that maybe you can see the logic of it.

Amazing the lack of understanding among you Hoax pushers.

reply to post by theability


Amazing the lies you guys tell..

Amazing the lack of understanding among you Hoax pushers.

I have not ONCE claimed the apollo missions were a hoax..

It's just that you guys attack anyone who even remotely questions anything..

Heck, I even got attacked for saying "mate" too often.

Kinda pathetic....

reply to post by nataylor


I just wanted to say that I like your posts. Especially your last ones. They're to the point with the facts presented clearly for everyone to see. And none of this bickering that's been going on for so long (which both sides are guilty of doing). Hopefully others will follow suit from your example.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Do you have data that it didnt?

Yes, the actual measurements of radiation received by the crew. as reported in the Protection Against Radiation section of the Apollo Experience Report.

In summary:

Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo mission 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.

Absolutely none of what you present suggests that radiation was any kind of problem for the Apollo program. you need to show actual data that would make travel to the moon impossible. Merely saying that scientists wish to better understand the radiation environment does not mean that the environment is impassible. Scientists today wish to better study ocean and wind currents, but that doesn't mean Columbus didn't make his trip to the New World.

This report, "Apollo Experience Report - Protection Against Radiation" was written in March 1973, is essentially NASA's Warren Commission Report on space radiation in and beyond the VAB....

nataylor, in this graphic you posted above, is called "Table 1". The title of "Table 1" is...

"TABLE I. - AVERAGE RADIATION DOSES OF THE FLIGHT CREWS FOR THE APOLLO MISSIONS".

In the paragraph preceding Table 1 (see page 7 of the pdf) NASA describes that the "Skin dose, rads" are "...the tabulated radiation doses are the averages of all readings on the thermoluminescent dosimeters for the respective mission. Individual dosimeter read-ings have varied approximately 20 percent from the average because of variations in the shielding effectiveness of the Apollo spacecraft and the differences in duties, movements, and locations of the crewmen."

So, Table 1 is NOT describing a total radiation environment for Apollo astronauts.. Table 1, in FACT, only describes the averages of all readings on the "thermoluminescent dosimeters". What are these "thermoluminescent dosimeters"? They are worn on the flight garment (ankle, thigh, chest) for the duration of the flight.

This document refers to several different kinds of dosimeters.
PRD - Personal Radiation Dosimeter (each crew member carries 1 device)
RSM - Radiation Survey Meter
VABD - Van Allen Belt Dosimeter
NPDS - Nuclear Particle Detection System
passive dosimeters - 3 devices placed on each crew member = "thermoluminescent dosimeters"

There is also some discussion about the Type 19, Type 39 and Type 59 radioluminescent button tips. It seems that these button tips caused a serious radiation concern for NASA because the Type 19's were leaking Prometheum-147 and were replaced by Type 39. But the Type 39's also leaked Prometheum-147 and were in turn replaced by Type 59's.

Apollo 10 was shut down for 14 hours before launch when Type 39 tips were replaced by Type 59 tips. Why all the big fuss about radioactive Prometheum-147 in the button tips?

Radioluminescent panels on the Lunar Communications Relay Unit were found to be painted with luminescent paint containing microspheres of Prometheum-147. The radioactive estimate of the panels had a soft X-ray dose of 13/rads per hour at a distance of 2 inches. Tests showed that 13/rad per hour could be reduced to .3/rads per hour using a plastic coating over the panel but plastic coating was not used. The report says that the crew members were protected by "space suits".

It seems rather odd in reading this "report" that NASA halted the launch of A10 for 14 hours due to "leaking button tips" but then allowed the radioluminescent panels of the LCRU to pass at 13/rad per hour.

It also seems strange to me that Table 1 of this "report" shows "Skin dose, rads" from passive "thermoluminescent dosimeters" only. There are no figures shown in this report for the PRD, the RSM, or the VABD.

Further, the design of the VABD was "compromised". It was decided that the VABD would not use "tissue-equivelant plastic" but instead used aluminum. The VABD had only 180(degree) radiation acceptance angle when the previous sentence clearly states "Therefore, dosimetry instrumentation in the Van Allen belts must use relatively omnidirectional radiation sensors so that the radiation flux can be measured accurately." (See page 8 of the pdf). It doesn't take a math graduate to understand that 180(degrees) is not OMNI-DIRECTIONAL.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
So, Table 1 is NOT describing a total radiation environment for Apollo astronauts.. Table 1, in FACT, only describes the averages of all readings on the "thermoluminescent dosimeters".

If you are interested in the radiation received by the crew, it makes sense to measure that at the skin. People tend not to want detectors implanted in them. The passive dosimeters use different types of materials that were reactive to all types of ionizing radiation and provided accurate radiation information about the amount of radiation actually received by the crew members at three different locations on the body. What they did not tell was the type of radiation received, the specific timing of events, etc. They were simply to measure the total dosage received over the duration of the mission.

The other dosimeters were not used to track overall radiation exposure.

The personal radiation dosimeters provided an actual readout of radiation received in rads/hour. This was useful for providing an immediate evaluation of the environment. They were not used to record total dosages.

The Radiation Survey Meter was a handheld device that could be used by crew members to take an instantaneous reading of a location in the vehicle. It would be used to find the lowest-dosage area of the vehicle to take shelter in should there be a radiation emergency (due to changes in the spacecraft orientation, the direction of incoming particles, and the non-uniform nature of the shielding, the lowest-dosage areas would be different from moment to moment).

The Van All Belt Dosimeter was designed to provide readings specifically of radiation in the Van Allen belts. It provided a rads/hour value which helps categorize the radiation in the belts as well as the contribution to the overall dosage received for the mission.

The Nuclear Particle Detection System was used to measure solar particle events, and measured proton and alpha particles in a number of specific energy channels.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
It seems rather odd in reading this "report" that NASA halted the launch of A10 for 14 hours due to "leaking button tips" but then allowed the radioluminescent panels of the LCRU to pass at 13/rad per hour.

The launch wasn't "halted." As the document states:

However, cleanroom facilities were shut down for a period of 14 hours before the launch of the Apollo 10 mission when several leaking tips onboard the lunar module required last-minute replacement.

This was in the assembly cleanroom, before the LM was even added to the stack. Once stacked, there was no way to access the LM.

The switch tips were an issue because the radioactive material could escape from them and be inhaled or otherwise contaminate both the crew and the people assembling the LM. The luminescent paint was not an issue because the radioactive material did not actually escape from it and since it was all on the LRV, it would always be used when the crew was suited and well protected.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
It also seems strange to me that Table 1 of this "report" shows "Skin dose, rads" from passive "thermoluminescent dosimeters" only. There are no figures shown in this report for the PRD, the RSM, or the VABD.

Since this report dealt with the radiation received by the crew, it makes sense to use the pass dosimeters, since they were the most accurate way to provide a total dosage incurred during the missions.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiterIt doesn't take a math graduate to understand that 180(degrees) is not OMNI-DIRECTIONAL.

The document says:

The Van Allen belt dosimeter (VABD) (fig. 3) was designed specifically for Apollo dosimetry within these radiation belts and has proved satisfactory because dose values derived from its greater than 180 degree radiation acceptance angle have correlated well with doses indicated by postflight analyses of passive dosimeters worn by the crewmen.

Notice it says "greater than 180 degree radiation acceptance angle." As the image of the device shows, it used a partial sphere detector that clearly covers more than 180 degrees of coverage:



As they state:

[D]osimetry instrumentation in the Van Allen belts must use relatively omnidirectional radiation sensors so that the radiation flux will be measured accurately.

The VABD was "relatively omnidirectional."