Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by FoosM
How can he control that he doesn't go too high?

If i answer this one can we return to radiation?

Originally posted by Exuberant1


Do you believe that your side (the 'polo bleavers') is winning this debate?

Sorry is this a debate? I see one group of people presenting facts, figues and science. And another presenting youtube videos bereft of content yet patting each other on the back because they somehow think they are 'winning'.

Quite frankly the only reason i still contribute to this thread is to ensure that any logical, rational, sane person can clearly identify how poor the hoax argument is.

FoosM has done more damage to their cause than good, and his constant dodging of questions and changing the subject is blatant and transparent.

Of course you somehow think this is steering the debate...lol

How about you contribute something useful to this thread instead?

reply to post by Exuberant1


All I see is someone who is totally ignorant about more or less any subject concerning Apollo or science. I wouldn't really call it a debate, more a one way attempt to educate. But this fails miserably, that I agree too. Still, for other readers this can be useful, so the attempt in not in vain.

Remember that if an astronaut were to vomit within a space suit, they would likelysuffocate to death. Therefore, the point at which an astronaut vomits is very important.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

The VABs in those diagrams, I have said countless of times, and nobody can dispute it, are wrong in size and scope. You (Chrlz) stated that NASA has published a trajectory of Apollo and have produced nothing.

Which diagram? Please post the diagram you are referring to and a map for comparison.

If you have been actively involved in this thread the last few pages you know what diagrams I'm talking about. Im talking about using a correct scale for the VABs in relation to the Earth

Looking at the distance to the white circle in Fig. 1 really does put this 'achievement' into perspective for anyone except those who are physically or willingly blind... But still well less than one third of the claimed distance to the Moon!

Glass of the CM and LM windows, nobody as of yet has proven it could block any radiation of any kind.

All materials block radiation to a certain extent. Even those transparent to visible light. It was not ordinary glass, it was aluminum glass.

So what if it was aluminum glass, what does that have to do with shielding astronauts from radiation? Its like if NASA used paper towels you would say

"All materials block radiation to a certain extent."

That proves that the Astronauts were well shielded for Solar Radiation? No. So as it stands

Glass of the CM and LM windows, nobody as of yet has proven it could block any radiation of any kind.

NASA themselves said the glass was used as a heat shield, not a radiation shield.

Nobody has been able to dispute JWs or anybody else's figures on how many major flares were produced by the sun during the missions and how much radiation would have slammed Apollo with on the moon or in space.

Oh?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
(And we won't even get into the issue of the CFI's usefulness for the question at hand. Or whether 7 out of 15 qualifies as "major." Or the fact that none of the solar flares produced significant proton fluxes.

So what did that post prove? Nothing. What's wrong with JW using the 100 rem/hr number?

SOLAR FLARE

Very hazardous and intermittent but may persist for 1 to 2 days.
High energy protons travel at the speed of light so there is no time to get under cover

Protected dose 1O-100 REM/hr
Unprotected dose Fatal

So what number would you guys like to use? 10?

Dose rates:
30 day max
25 rem (bone marrow)
75 rem (skin)

Flares can last from several hours to days.
3 hours and you're already going over you're month limit.

X-rays and Gamma rays pass through Aluminum.


This is why, prior to Apollo, many scientists were talking about using lead to protect spaceships. All of a sudden Aluminum was good enough?

So lets make this clear:
Its not about whether or not Apollo went to the moon and back and should be dead due to the radiation. Its about NASA would not risk astronauts to the possible chance they could die by conducting the mission during the solar maximum. In other words, NASA would not know what could happen up there. Besides technical failures, crash landing on the moon, etc. It was simply to risky to send men before animals. Radiation was large component to that risk.

You cant even provide the information when NASA would warn astronauts that a flare is coming and how they can determine if its a major flare or not.

A system of solar-monitoring stations, the Solar Particle Alert Network (SPAN), provides a NASA-sponsored network of continuous data on solar-flare activity. SPAN consists of three multiple-frequency radio telescopes and seven optical telescopes. The network gives data for determining the severity of solar-particle events and the resultant possible radiation hazards to crewmen. After the appearance of particles is confirmed onboard a spacecraft, protective action can be taken....

In terms of hazard to crewmen in the heavy, well shielded Command Module, even one of the largest solar-particle event series on record (August 4-9, 1972) would not have caused any impairment of crewmember functions or ability of the crewmen to complete their mission safely. It is estimated that within the Command Module during this event the crewmen would have received a dose of 360 rads

to their skin and 35 rads to their blood-forming organs (bone and spleen)....

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

Again:
"High energy protons travel at the speed of light so there is no time to get under cover"

Second, you keep referring to the CM, besides its unprotected windows, besides it being rated less than the ISS who still worry about flares, you fail to explain how that helps anybody in the LM or out in during an EVA. Or how this would be a non issue for Apollo 13?

But how good was SPAN really?
You left a little piece out:

No major solar-particle events occurred during an Apollo mission.
Although much effort has been expended in the field of solar-event forecasting, individual eruptions from the solar surface have proved impossible to forecast. The best that can be provided is an estimate of particle dose, given visual or radio-frequency (RF) confirmation that an eruption has occurred.

Lets go deeper

Approximately 20 percent of the largest solar flares... will result in particle fluxes in the earth/moon region that can be related in intensity to early RF or visual characteristics. A warning interval of from less than one to several hours (typically, 2 to 4 hours) is obtained between the RF/visual indication and the appearance of particles in the earth/moon region. Because only approximately 20 percent of the flares result in particle events, it is not necessary to change normal mission procedures on the basis of RF or visual observations alone. Rather, radiation sensors on board solar-orbit and earth-orbit satellites, as well as on board the Apollo spacecraft itself, are used to confirm the particle event. Only after the appearance of particles is confirmed would action be taken to protect the crewmen. For a typical event, approximately 8 hours would be available from the time particles are confirmed to the time of peak radiation dose.

So they basically would see a flare and do nothing. Because they thought, well only 20% of the big flares produce particle events so if the dosimeters go off, then we take action. But what do we know now:

It was previously thought that SPEs were caused by solar flares, but now it is becoming accepted that larger ones are caused by the shock created during fast coronal mass ejections(CMEs). CMEs are large releases of mass from the sun. A CME can discharge between 1014 and 1016 grams of mass into space at speeds of 1,500 km/s. The ejection causes a shockwave that pushes protons at high speeds into the solar winds. These protons (as well as some other particles) are what create SPEs

We are now learning more about CMEs, which were discovered in 1971. Again NASA putting humans at risk. I know-I know people take risks when exploring, but this wasn't a search for treasure, or new lands, this was a publicity stunt on an international scale. People don't risk their lives to just to get moon rocks.

www.spacetethers.com...
www.realityreviewed.com...
206.192.68.20...

Originally posted by FoosM

So what did that post prove? Nothing. What's wrong with JW using the 100 rem/hr number?

The fact that there were no major solar particle events during Apollo missions is what is wrong with him using the 100rem/hr figure (aside from it being the upper value in that range, that is wrong in and of itself).

Once again, dont confuse solar flares with particle events, not all flares (even major ones) involve significant particle ejections from the sun.

JW is completely confused on this topic, he sees major flare and assumes that it emitted huge amounts of dangerous radiation. This is completely wrong.

reply to post by FoosM

If you have been actively involved in this thread the last few pages you know what diagrams I'm talking about. Im talking about using a correct scale for the VABs in relation to the Earth

A correct scale where? Which particular diagram are you objecting to? This one, from Dr. Van Allen himself?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e56bdd3f82e9.jpg[/atsimg]

Note that the lines of flux trail off at about seven Earth radii, or 44.646 kilometers. I think you have some confusion about the scales involved and the difference between what you call the "VAB" and the Earth's magnetosphere, Here's a diagram of the magnetosphere to give you some perspective:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e39c1039eea5.jpg[/atsimg]

Notice how close to the Earth the Van Allen Belts are, and how extended and complex the magnetosphere is.

Looking at the distance to the white circle in Fig. 1 really does put this 'achievement' into perspective for anyone except those who are physically or willingly blind... But still well less than one third of the claimed distance to the Moon!

You were wise not to put a link to this cryptic statement. I visited realityreviewed,com and my computer crashed... but not before I was able to spot some of its guiding principles: "Zionism and Zionist are evil." A dissertation on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." An harangue against US atrocities in Iraq, and so forth. Thank you for making your politics explicit. I assume you consider this site to be credible or you would not be citing it. Now please explain what the quotation you provide is supposed to mean, exactly. "Less than one third the claimed distance to the Moon?" What? Are they claiming the distance to the Moon is a lie? Are they claiming that the Van Allen Belts extend to one third of the distance between the Earth and the Moon? The VAB taper off around 7 Re, or 44,646 kilometers. The Moon, at its closest or "perigee," as I now hope you have learned to call it, is 363,104 kilometers. Your VABs, by charitable calculation, extend only 1/8 of the way to the Moon. Furthermore, they are elongated and compressed by the solar wind... and they were travelling, more or less, at right angles to it.

Please clarify what this first part of your post means before we proceed any further.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by DJW001]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

'polo bleavers'...

Well, personally I think most of us like being known as 'Scientists' and/or 'Engineers' but I can understand your jealously at only being able to gaze up in awe at those with a level of knowledge you can only dream of.
I guess 'polo bleavers' isn't too bad, better than the alternative for the other 'side'. Amusingly it sounds like the kind of weird, oddly pronounced name a toddler would come out with when trying to speak. Reminds me of Teletubbies actually, are they on YouTube too? I might have seen them in Jarrah's recommended videos... not sure...

EDIT:
Apologies, it was not Teletubbies but 'Thomas the Tank Engine' and 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles'

Interests
Apollo Moon Landing Conspiracies, Godzilla, James Bond, TMNT, Ranma ½, Thomas The Tank Engine

Jarrah White's Profile


[edit on 16-8-2010 by AgentSmith]

reply to post by FoosM

Protons have mass, they cannot not travel at the speed of light. Extremely energetic protons can arrive very soon after the flare, in the case of an extremely energetic flare but the average arrival time is about 15 hours.

On March 6, 1989 there was an X15 flare which produced a proton event. The protons arrived 28 hours later. If there had been an X15 flare the astronauts would have stayed in the CM (or returned to it).
trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov...

The "Bastille Day event", on July 14, 2000. An X5 flare. The protons arrived in 15 minutes (half the speed of light).

Both were rare events. Nothing like them occurred during any of the Apollo missions. What part of "calculated risk" do you not understand.

Originally posted by FoosM

So lets make this clear:
Its not about whether or not Apollo went to the moon and back and should be dead due to the radiation. Its about NASA would not risk astronauts to the possible chance they could die by conducting the mission during the solar maximum. In other words, NASA would not know what could happen up there. Besides technical failures, crash landing on the moon, etc. It was simply to risky to send men before animals. Radiation was large component to that risk.

How risky is it to strap a jet that has never flown to your back, push the throttles to "burner" (OK, "military"), and let go of the brakes?

There was a reason most of the Apollo astronauts were test pilots. They were paid to take risks.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5b2176ed878a.jpg[/atsimg]

(note: not an actual crash of an aircraft test)

Ya know.....what people like "Jarrah 'White Noise' White", and others who are so doggedly intent on believeing in an Apollo "hoax' need to do is try to get up, out and read some history.

Specifically, the history of the Soviet efforts in the early and late 1960s. For, it really was a "race". . . and the Soviets' motivation was nothing but propaganda.

Still...they WERE endeavoring to 'win' the 'race'. SO, to those who believe that the "deadly radiation" makes it "impossible" for humans to go to the Moon and back?

Why were the USSR actively attempting manned Lunar missions?

An excerpt:

In March 1968, the cosmonauts started training in preparation for a Moon landing at Star City, Moscow. A moonwalk simulator was installed in the gymnasium, and the cosmonauts practised lunar landings with a modified version of the Mi-8 helicopter (Pirard, 1993). But they still had no L3 spacecraft to fly a year later - the constant Soyuz and L1 troubles in 1967-68 apparently had prevented the Soviet engineers from devoting their attention to the manned lunar-landing spacecraft. Consequently it was decided on 1 January 1969 to test the N1 by launching an unmanned L1 craft, to perform high-resolution photography of potential landing sites from lunar orbit. The L3 spacecraft (LOK and LK) would be tested later, for a first landing in 1970-71. The first lunar-landing mission would be commanded by the Voskhod 2 veteran, Alexei Leonov, with Oleg Makarov serving as the LOK pilot in lunar orbit.

I suggest those 'doubters" (you know who you are) should read The Soviet Manned Lunar Program as a start. It unveils a lot of what was formerly secret, under the old Soviet system....since much informaiton came forward after the collapse of the Communist State.

The critical thing to note, here, is the vast difference at the time...NASA and the US were very open and public, good and bad.

Soviets were hiding behind a great deal of secrecy....and the fact that they were failing repeatedly with the heavy-lift capacity (the "N1") vehicle was probably not known to the Americans, at the time.

Here, is a bit on it:

The Soviets were now ready to test their various lunar-landing spacecraft for the first time. The first to go was an unmanned Ye-8 lunar rover which would have landed on the Moon and relayed back TV pictures of the landing site. But its UR-500 rocket exploded 40 seconds after launch on 19 February 1969.

On 21 February the first N1 booster (number 3L) roared to life and the giant rocket began to rise skyward. However, at 12:19:12 Moscow time (66s after launch) a leaking oxidizer pipe started a fire at the rear of the first stage and the unmanned L1 payload's escape system activated, pulling it away from the booster. The N1 was destroyed by range safety while the L1 landed safely. Heat and vibrations from the first stage's 30 engines had damaged the rocket, it was later determined. The launch went virtually undetected in the West with only a British observation team reporting it, although CIA dismissed the report (Vick,1996).

They were STILL struggling with the N1, even after having "lost" the 'race', in the early 1970s....

SO...."hoaxists"....WHY did the USSR keep trying?? Even in 1972???

IF, it was, as the claims go....'impossible' for humans to survive?

(BTW...that is NOT the only source for Soviet Space Program history. Of course, there's Wiki....too. Just thought sometihng else would pique some interest.....)



Wiki Wiki

reply to post by weedwhacker


Actually, CIA's National Intelligence Estimates were pretty astute:
www.astronautix.com...
But this is a major digression.

reply to post by DJW001


Question....(thanks for that link, BTW)....not a digression, is it?

Why is a (formerly) Top Secret CIA document using the British English spelling of "miniaturzation", doyou suppose???

Advances in miniaturisation...

(Fourth sentence, paragraph '23')

reply to post by weedwhacker


Stupid Yalies. I honestly don't know. Astronautix appears to be a "wiki," and the author of the article may have unconsciously transposed the spelling while transcribing the document. Or the NIE might have been written by a pretentious Yalie. Stupid Yalies.

Originally posted by DJW001

You were wise not to put a link to this cryptic statement. I visited realityreviewed,com and my computer crashed... but not before I was able to spot some of its guiding principles: "Zionism and Zionist are evil." A dissertation on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." An harangue against US atrocities in Iraq, and so forth. Thank you for making your politics explicit. I assume you consider this site to be credible or you would not be citing it. Now please explain what the quotation you provide is supposed to mean, exactly. "Less than one third the claimed distance to the Moon?" What? Are they claiming the distance to the Moon is a lie? Are they claiming that the Van Allen Belts extend to one third of the distance between the Earth and the Moon? The VAB taper off around 7 Re, or 44,646 kilometers. The Moon, at its closest or "perigee," as I now hope you have learned to call it, is 363,104 kilometers. Your VABs, by charitable calculation, extend only 1/8 of the way to the Moon. Furthermore, they are elongated and compressed by the solar wind... and they were travelling, more or less, at right angles to it.

Please clarify what this first part of your post means before we proceed any further.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by DJW001]

Oh give me a break.
I dont care about that site's politics.
You would look for anything to gain an advantage in a discussion wouldn't you? I was looking for that particular diagram and they happened to be using it. Doesn't change the fact that is set up to scale.

Outer belt extends up to 10 re, look it up. As a matter of fact I had linked that fact pages ago. Next thing you guys will do is accuse me of spamming. You want to make it shorter, go right ahead if it helps you sleep at night.

But for the sake of expediency:

The large outer radiation belt extends from an altitude of about three to ten Earth radii (RE) above the Earth's surface, and its greatest intensity is usually around 4-5 RE.

www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

reply to post by FoosM

Yes. That's right. 10 Earth radii over the equator. Much less their northern and southern limits, where Apollo passed through them. The belts are not spherical. As this illustration from your link shows.

source



[edit on 8/16/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by FoosM

Yes, but, uhm, you haven't explained what your post was about... actually. Are you or are you not not a "Neo-Nazi?" Just curious...


[edit on 16-8-2010 by DJW001]

Originally posted by FoosM
If the American public discover that Apollo was faked, then maybe we will have a situation where the American public wake up from their manufactured dreams and actively take back their country en masse.

Whatever he is, he's made it clear his ultimate goal is to destabilise the Government and have the public 'take back their country en masse'.
One wonders if he would like to substitute 'en masse' with 'by force'.
Like a lot of these types I suspect his ultimate fantasy is for some sort of collapse where he and his like can be 'king of the new world' after killing off all the 'evil authority figures', including anyone with an IQ above 100 I suspect who may be competition or reveal the truth about them.
They seem to see themselves as some sort of unsung heroes LOL!
This is why you can never convince them, they don't want to accept the truth because it's not part of their ultimate goal. He probably knows man went to the Moon, but admitting it won't further the agenda so you'll never hear it from him. Anyway his masters would hit the roof if he dared do such a thing and ruined their great plan.

reply to post by Komodo


Quite the contrary... I asked him to explain his un-sourced quotation. The fact that he did not link to its origin puts him in violation of ATS copyright rules. His insouciance about Nazism merely proves how hypocritical he is about Werner von Braun's politics. So, FoosM, please explain what that gibberish quotation is supposed to mean.