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 Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
Works just fine for me.
In 1970, the tapes were placed in the US National Archives in Accession #69A4099. By 1984, all but two of the over 700 boxes of Apollo era magnetic tapes placed in the Accession, were removed and returned to the GSFC for permanent retention. These tapes are now missing.
These missing data tapes include the raw Apollo 11 SSTV tapes. For the past several years, a search for these tapes has been undertaken by several former Apollo 11 personnel. To date, no Apollo 11 SSTV tapes have been found. SOURCE www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...
In 1970, the tapes were placed in the US National Archives in Accession #69A4099. By 1984, all but two of the over 700 boxes of Apollo era magnetic tapes placed in the Accession, were removed and returned to the GSFC for permanent retention. These tapes are now missing.
and a group is attempting to convert them to better quality through digitizing them.
In 1970, the tapes were placed in the US National Archives in Accession #69A4099. By 1984, all but two of the over 700 boxes of Apollo era magnetic tapes placed in the Accession, were removed and returned to the GSFC for permanent retention. These tapes are now missing.
Only the magnetic data tapes containing the recorded transmission from the moon's surface are missing. The data on these tapes includes the original slow-scan TV signals, plus voice and telemetry data of the first Apollo landing. The originally broadcast conversion of the slow-scan recordings of the landing are preserved at the National Archives.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
And all 700 boxes were back up tapes. They were high quality recordings of five moon walks, including Apollo 11. They were all back up recordings.
en.wikinews.org...
Only the magnetic data tapes containing the recorded transmission from the moon's surface are missing. The data on these tapes includes the original slow-scan TV signals, plus voice and telemetry data of the first Apollo landing. The originally broadcast conversion of the slow-scan recordings of the landing are preserved at the National Archives.
Among the 2,614 boxes of Apollo mission tapes that went to the facility, the original Apollo 11 may have been among them. Between 1975 and 1979, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center recalled all but two of the 2,614 boxes. The remaining two boxes included telemetry tapes from Apollo 9 Source www.nasa.gov...
Play It Again, Neil: NASA loses original Apollo 11 video, but Hollywood rides to the rescue
By SETH BORENSTEIN , Associated Press
July 16, 2009
WASHINGTON - NASA could put a man on the moon but didn't have the sense to keep the original video of the live TV transmission.
In an embarrassing acknowledgment, the space agency said Thursday that it must have erased the Apollo 11 moon footage years ago so that it could reuse the videotape.
But now Hollywood is coming to the rescue.
Originally posted by choos
because the whole point was to point out that it was over a period of ONE YEAR..
but if you were so concerned about the shielding perhaps you should have referred back to table 2 which give you the equivalent dosage in ONE YEAR and the equivalent dose penetrating 0cm depth is between 1.32Sv PER YEAR to 0.53Sv PER YEAR, DEPENDING ON SHIELDING
Yes, "DEPENDING ON SHIELDING"
That can be said for all missions into deep space! So what?
Originally posted by choos
then by all means use the real numbers which you seem to imply you have.
The experts don't know the real numbers, that's the problem.
Originally posted by choos
you realise all scientists/engineers will be using these numbers. if these scientists and engineers are using these "made-up" numbers you realise that it can fail??
Sure, the numbers can fail, and often do.
Because the numbers are just estimates.
Look at how their numbers have changed so much, over the years.
Why do you think that is?
Any idea?
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
You really don't understand the word "back up" do you?