Learning to walk (to the Moon) all over again.

I don't know where you're getting your info's from but one thing I know is you AIN'T keepin up with NASA's staements, So to what lengths did NASA take to shield the astronauts against the radiation? Its accepted that a minimum of 10 cm width of aluminium would be needed at the very least to keep out radiation. However the walls of the Apollo craft and capsule were made as thin and as light as possible and as a result the craft initially could not carry enough air inside to withstand the equivalent to sea level air pressure. NASA had to reduce air pressure inside the cabin to cope. Here are the official stats from a NASA website: www.hq.nasa.gov...



[edit on 21-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Its accepted that a minimum of 10 cm width of aluminium would be needed at the very least to keep out radiation. However the walls of the Apollo craft and capsule were made as thin and as light as possible and as a result the craft initially could not carry enough air inside to withstand the equivalent to sea level air pressure. NASA had to reduce air pressure inside the cabin to cope. Here are the official stats from a NASA website: www.hq.nasa.gov...

[edit on 21-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

Imagine for a second your inside an apollo atmosphere re-entry 'vehicle'. Your traveling around mach 36 (the mach 36 info is referenced from John D. Anderson Jr.'s Fundamentals of Aerodynamics) Do you really believe radiation is going to be a factor when you have the enough protective shielding to withstand re-entry through the atmosphere?

Listen, I'm not just talking about the reentry, I'm more concerned with the long period of time the L.M. stayed in deep space abosorbing HUGE non-Van Allen Belt Solar Rays, it took them (SUPPOSEDLY) four days to get to the moon, then another what four days to get back, now in reality the first four days going to the moon if it was a real mission would have killed them because of the sun's ray's out side of the Van Allen Belt hitting the L.M. they would have died with in 3-4 minutes after they were out of the Van Allen Belt.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

ST, we have gone over and over this subject many, many times. Your persist in your viewpoint despite the fact that every one of your arguments has been systematically shot down.

You are being deliberately obtuse now, and I am getting a little tired of it.

Yes, there is radiation in space. There is also radiation coming out at you from the monitor in front of you. I will no longer argue with you unless you can demonstrate to me that you understand the difference between alpha, beta, gamma, high energy protons and cosmic rays.

You also need to demonstrate a knowledge of the sunspot cycle, and its relationship to solar radiation.

When you have demonstrated this understanding, then you will stop making these absurd claims.

I'm getting tired of YOUR LIES you keep talking about my argument about the sun's rays being stronger outside of the VAB being disproven, NO has ever disproved that, AND they can't because science has stated that,so what in the WORLD are YOU talking about HHUUU!!!???? You tryin to give disinfo about what I posted so no one understands?

Dude. . .

Take a breath, and calm down a bit, okay?

I never said that radiation outside of the Van Allen belt wasn’t a concern. It is. What is important to realize is that that radiation varies considerably in its intensity and consequentially it effects. Most of the time the solar radiation levels are low and are well within the acceptable risk limits. Occasionally, there are solar storms that produce high levels of radiation that can indeed be hazardous to humans.

There is no data to support your claim that the astronauts would have died within three minutes after leaving the Van Allen belt. No scientist* any where, has ever made that assertion.

Here is an analogy. Suppose you have a small sailboat. Now suppose you live in Cuba but you want to live in the USA, because you want to play baseball and become the next Sammy Sosa (I know, he’s Dominican, but stick with me here ) Now you know form your sailing experience that It will take you about three days to cross over from Havana to Miami. You also know that your boat is handles great in average winds, but will capsize and sink if the winds get over 50 knots. So what do you do? Do you set off and hope that the weather holds until you get to Miami, or do you check the weather predictions to see if there are any storm warnings forecast? After all, you don’t want to set out a day before a hurricane is expected to hit, now do you? Obviously you figure out what the weather will be like before you set out.

Now back to space. Since the intensity of solar radiation in trans-lunar space is directly related to solar flares and CMEs, and these events are directly related to solar sunspots, it stands to reason that if you know what the sunspot activity is, you can reasonably predict the likelihood of a solar flare.

Well, guess what, sunspots are highly cyclic and their occurrences can be reasonably forecast within the time frame of the mission planning.

Please try to understand the science behind these things.









*That is, no scientist with an ounce of self respect or with any respect from his peers.





[edit on 22-2-2005 by HowardRoark]

This IS what prooves I have won the argument ONCE AGAIN!!! YO HOWARD, Ichallenge you NOW in front of the ATS community who's watching this thread GO I said GO and get NASA's OFFICIAL staementS on the SUN'S RAYS outside the VAB and post it up on here, you'll see that what I said is 100% true, the suns rays are 100/200 times more leathal outside of the VAB than in the earths atmosphere AND in the VAB, no nylon cloth or plastic bage can withstand the heat in outer Van Allen Belt from sun's rays, first get nasa's words that Sun's rays are not more powerfull than in earths atmosphere, than you can say u dis proved me.

The Apollo program was recognized
as a high risk, exploratory venture in which the
radiation risks were a direct trade-off against the other
mission risks (ref. 8). As a result, the protection standards
were mainly concerned with early biological
effects associated with high exposures that may directly
impact mission safety. The late biological effects such as
cancer induction and cataract formation were of secondary
concern. Thus, the low level galactic cosmic rays
(GCR) were neglected in the design process. The important
solar particle events (SPE) of the time were those of
solar cycle 19, including 23 February 1956, 16 July
1959, and 12–13 November 1960, for which it was estimated
that serious exposures could impact mission
safety, but that early lethality was unlikely.

Radiation Analysis for the Human Lunar Return Mission

So what part of that don't you understand?

Abstract

The dose rates in the blood-forming organ of a typical astronaut for four space
shielding conditions are used to study the astronaut health effects of the solar particle
event which began on August 4, 1972. This event was chosen as it was the most hazardous
event for which detailed measurements have been made and for which dire
predictions of the potential health effects have at times been suggested. The code used
for health effects is the biological model developed for tactical nuclear weapons warfare
survival of young adults in a 1g environment. We find the risks of early lethality
to be very small especially if appropriate medical action (antibiotics and blood transfusions)
is taken soon after the exposure. The primary concern would then be for the
development of cancer later in life. Although leukemia could occur relatively soon
after the exposure, the risk of solid tumors might be best controlled by using mature
individuals for the mission, and thereby offset cancer risk by balancing life span
remaining against the long latency periods associated with solid tumors. Use of
genetic selection criteria could further reduce health risks during the mission. A
possible space experiment to evaluate synergistic effects of the microgravity environmental
stress and other space-related stress factors is discussed.

Yes, it can get dangerous out there, no one is denying that. 100% lethal, 1--% of the time? Not hardly.

Astronaut Protection From Solar Event of August 4, 1972

Any other questions?

Again, ST, you are confusing the difference between short term exploration missions and long term deep space habitation.

Short term missions such as apollo were recognized as high risk events. No one is denying this. That doesn't prove that they didn't happen.

Long term missions do face serious radiation hazard issues, Mainly because the longer you are out there the harder it is to avoid a high risk event. Still, the fact is, at any given time the radiation levels in space are perfectly acceptable for human exposure.


So tell me again how you "won" this argument?

How I won it is this 1. There is no radiation in space, space doesn't get radiated Radiation passes threw space but space isn't radiated objects that obsorbe the suns radiation in space get radiated and OUTSIDE of the vanalen belt the AstroNUTS would have died with thier space suits, and the flag on the moon would have burned up, the plastic bag Aldrine put on moon surface would have melted.

Thanks for the new sig, I knew you wouldn't disappoint me

What I was meaning when I said there is no radiation in space is space dosen't get radiated but radiation just travels threw space when I speak of radiation I'm talking about the Radiation from the sun's rays, I hope you didn't think I'm talkin about some other radiation.

And your point is?

You still havent provided any proof to support your contention that the astronuats would have died a few minutes after they left the Van Allen Belt.

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Listen, I'm not just talking about the reentry, I'm more concerned with the long period of time the L.M. stayed in deep space abosorbing HUGE non-Van Allen Belt Solar Rays, it took them (SUPPOSEDLY) four days to get to the moon, then another what four days to get back, now in reality the first four days going to the moon if it was a real mission would have killed them because of the sun's ray's out side of the Van Allen Belt hitting the L.M. they would have died with in 3-4 minutes after they were out of the Van Allen Belt.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

You totaly changed your debate when i presented those facts about the van allen belts and when howard presented his documents. Something I just want to know is where/why your knowledge of radiation is coming from? Is it mathematical? Conceptual? or just out of no where? Show the proof man this thread isn't going to just disapear. I've seen you online, but no response?

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
This IS what prooves I have won the argument ONCE AGAIN!!! YO HOWARD, Ichallenge you NOW in front of the ATS community who's watching this thread GO I said GO and get NASA's OFFICIAL staementS on the SUN'S RAYS outside the VAB and post it up on here, you'll see that what I said is 100% true, the suns rays are 100/200 times more leathal outside of the VAB than in the earths atmosphere AND in the VAB, no nylon cloth or plastic bage can withstand the heat in outer Van Allen Belt from sun's rays, first get nasa's words that Sun's rays are not more powerfull than in earths atmosphere, than you can say u dis proved me.

*waddles into thread*

The Van Allen Belt is very, very, thin in certain areas. Mission Control on purpose had the rocket launch into the thinest part. Next, the rocket is going superfast, so any exposure is sooo minimal, soo fast, it's within normal limits.

When you get X-Rays taken, the attendant still stands behind 200 feet of lead shielding (OK I'm exaggerating a tiny bit LOL!). Does this mean your gonna die?! I mean, why is the hospital attendant running over and hiding behind his shielding? While your butt naked in front of that X-Ray machine?

Radiation isn't harmful to humans. too much radiation is what's harmful to humans. There are acceptable levels of radiation that the human body can tolerate without dying.

Next, after the body is exposed to radiation, even if it starst to be harmful, the body reheals itself. The cells that died from radiation are pushed out, discarded, and new cells replace them. As long as the body isn't killed off faster than it can replace its cells.

Oh yeah, did you know space is freeeezing COLD? Even when one leaves the Earth's atmosphere it's still freezing cold. The reason why the earth is warm, and not a ball of ice, is because the sun's heat is trapped on earth by the atmosphere.

Of course, if the spaceshuttle, or apollo rocket, tried travelling to the sun, after a while, they'd evaporate from being tooo close to the sun where they'd get too hot, hotter than the coldness of space.

And if you think simple "cloth" can't protect them, then why are modern spacemen able to spacewalk in "cloth" spacesuites no problem? From the USA, Russia, Japan, and S. America? (Whoops... I almost forgot S. America's rocket got sabatoged by the CIA. )

*Waddles back out of thread*

[edit on 11-4-2005 by OpenSecret2012]

Originally posted by sumsingwong
"After the Apollo program ended, the equipment, tools and plans for building the rocket were lost" (2nd paragraph)
REALLY? AND HOW DO YOU LOSE SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

[edit on 2-2-2005 by alien]

It's not all lost ... yet
Thanks to Matt Marriott, that saved the software and the hardware for the coming generations that will see the moon from a distance on their journey to Mars
matt-marriott.faithweb.com...

Basicaly the reason we couldn't(or america couldn't anyway) rebuild a saturn V is that the tooling
and the blueprints have apparently been destroyed
this is apparently because it was costing to much to store the documents and tooling when there was no aparent use for them in the near future
or so i have been told
realistically the amount of documentation needed is immense
during the design of the Apollo landers and the Saturn V the design changed many many times
indeed following the fire there was a major rethink and redesign
so much paper and all of it needed storage
you'd probably be able to find general descriptions but not the detailed documents needed