Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM

We are all waiting for these discussions to happen.
Lets see how long this takes.

Takes? The discussion has been going here in this thread, your choosing to ignore near all of the questions asked of you.

The fact remains there is no logical argument to ANY of JW video claims, they are garbage.

And to support this are many independent sources researching and proving his claims to be FALSE.
These people are rocket scientists and engineers.

Also, many people within this thread pointing out the same conclusions.

reply to post by ppk55


Why don't you ask Dr. Blakely exactly what she thinks about the Apollo shielding? You've got a line of communication with an actual expert. Get her opinion, not our take on what her opinion might be.

reply to post by ppk55

I think this is extremely important to the Apollo shielding question as it casts serious doubts on the role of aluminium in protecting the astronauts. In fact, it seems the aluminium had the potential to make the radiation environment MORE hazardous.

Hmm that is is an interesting one. Let me think about this.

There is radiation around all the time and we use aluminum pretty much in everything these days, yet no harmful effect from the more hazardous environment have been noted, as you stated right?

Now also why would the aluminum be of any consequence anyway to the radiation that would be encountered? The radiation is NOT going to react with the aluminum now is it? NO its not. In fact aluminum is used in xray shields.

The range of photonic energies emitted by the system can be adjusted by changing the applied voltage, and installing aluminum filters of varying thicknesses. Aluminum filters are installed in the path of the X-ray beam to remove "soft" (non-penetrating) radiation. The number of emitted X-ray photons, or dose, are adjusted by controlling the current flow and exposure time.

Source

Your argument is illogical that the aluminum is of anything but an ASSET to shielding the craft from radiation effects.

So unless you think you're smarter than Dr. Blakely, I think this pretty much proves the aluminium shielding was not the most appropriate material to use.

It does not require a Ph.d to do thorough research ppk55.

Like people have said many times over, the most common reason for people misunderstanding is that they haven't studied enough about things.

reply to post by FoosM


Okay, now we've all got that out of our systems, let's return to the only question of interest: if the Apollo missions stayed behind in near Earth orbit, where are the photographs to prove or? As we true skeptics are fond of saying: "No photos or or it never happened,"

Van Allen and his Belts:

Rough approximations of some values announced by Van Allen show that an unshielded man would receive a dose of millions of rads
per hour in either of the belts. Fatal dose for a man is 500 rads per hour...
A projected shielding of 10 grams per centimeter would protect a man from... the outer belt's lighter particles.
Protection from the heavier, more energetic particles of the inner belt would probably require more shielding.

from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists March 1961

fast forward and we have the following:

Source Component Unshielded Spacesuit Spacecraft
Van Allen Positive ions 60 rem/hr 30 rem/hr 0.3 rem/hr
Electrons 105 rem/hr 10 rem/hr 1 rem/hr

Now that is a dramatic change.
What missions forced them to revise their numbers?


books.google.com...=onepage&q=van%20allen%20belt%20rad&f=false
www.ips.gov.au...

Though the events were in the minority, this is what they had to contend with in 1967:

The energy of those particles is so high that no reasonable amount of shielding reduces the dose significantly because of the enormous number of secondary particles generated in the shield

www.jstor.org...

Be nice if somebody could find the entire document

But there it is, "bremsstrahlung"

This meant that sending men to the moon with the current shielding they had planned to use would not be able to protect those astronauts.

Did NASA take the risk?
They still had to find a way to get passed a million rads produced per belt.

reply to post by FoosM


I repeat: now that we all agree that the knowledge now exceeds that of 1961: why are there no pictures of the Apollo missions loitering in near Earth orbit?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

I repeat: now that we all agree that the knowledge now exceeds that of 1961: why are there no pictures of the Apollo missions loitering in near Earth orbit?

No one was looking for them.
Or dont you know some of the basics principles of magic?
That said, how many photos do we have of Apollo craft circling the Earth prior to TLI?
Please post them. If we dont have them or only for a couple of missions, explain why.

By the way, did you watch JW's videos or not?

presence in space



compare Gemini & Apollo to Skylab & Apollo/Suyuz
and
compare Gemini & Apollo to the Shuttle & ISS

And ask yourselves, why we dont have motels on the moon by now.

reply to post by FoosM

Did NASA take the risk?
They still had to find a way to get passed a million rads produced per belt.

Here you about your incorrect numbers:

The radiation plan for the Apollo lunar mission calls for low-altitude earth orbits and rapid transit to the moon to keep the Van Allen belt radiation dose below 1 rad.

Source

Plus this also said about detection capability:

The Solar Particle Alert Network (SPAN) (Fig. 5) monitors solar flares and associated radio emissions
on a 24-hour basis.

Below one rad, no problem whatso ever.

Next Let us talk about the shield they had on Apollo Missions it was called the Service Module.

As noted here:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4c8c97c8cb09.jpg[/atsimg]

How many more feet of shielding do you need. I'd imagine 40,000lbs of liquid gases would suffice in the absence of water now right?

Feet of cryogenic fluids, aluminum, radiator fluid. Wow I don't think there would be an issue with adsorbing all that energy now would there? I mean 30 feet plus of material is way more than enough.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by FoosM

 

Did NASA take the risk?
They still had to find a way to get passed a million rads produced per belt.

Here you about your incorrect numbers:

The radiation plan for the Apollo lunar mission calls for low-altitude earth orbits and rapid transit to the moon to keep the Van Allen belt radiation dose below 1 rad.

Source

Plus this also said about detection capability:

The Solar Particle Alert Network (SPAN) (Fig. 5) monitors solar flares and associated radio emissions
on a 24-hour basis.

Below one rad, no problem whatso ever.

Next Let us talk about the shield they had on Apollo Missions it was called the Service Module.

As noted here:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4c8c97c8cb09.jpg[/atsimg]

How many more feet of shielding do you need. I'd imagine 40,000lbs of liquid gases would suffice in the absence of water now right?

Feet of cryogenic fluids, aluminum, radiator fluid. Wow I don't think there would be an issue with adsorbing all that energy now would there? I mean 30 feet plus of material is way more than enough.

Without even arguing the radiation apspect..
What percentage of the trip had the ship at that attitude.??

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

I repeat: now that we all agree that the knowledge now exceeds that of 1961: why are there no pictures of the Apollo missions loitering in near Earth orbit?

Foosm had a good point..
Many missions were in orbit for a while..
Where's the pics.??
Every mission please.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by FoosM

 

Did NASA take the risk?
They still had to find a way to get passed a million rads produced per belt.

Here you about your incorrect numbers:

The radiation plan for the Apollo lunar mission calls for low-altitude earth orbits and rapid transit to the moon to keep the Van Allen belt radiation dose below 1 rad.

Source

Plus this also said about detection capability:

The Solar Particle Alert Network (SPAN) (Fig. 5) monitors solar flares and associated radio emissions
on a 24-hour basis.

Below one rad, no problem whatso ever.

Excellent. Something we can discuss.
Let me get this clear.
Their plan was a rapid transit and to stay below the belts during orbits.

Now tell me, does that confirm the hazard of the belts to life onboard the spacecraft?

On to my next question:
Their plan for going rapidly through the belts. How fast was that?

NASA has published the average passive rad dose to each Apollo astronaut on each Apollo flight. The rad doses suggest that Apollo missions never exceeded LEO. e.g. Apollo 7, .16 rad. Apollo 8, .16 rad. They are exactly the same. The debate does not allow us to refute what NASA has published. We must accept those figures as EXACT, PERFECT and TRUE. It is the same as how a religious cult operates. One must either be a believer or a heretic. I choose 'heretic' because it allows at least some modes of skepticism.

As one gently comes closer to the understanding that NASA can never be wrong about human space travel it is very easy then to accept these scriptures as absolute truth. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Warren Commission Report. I give you the 911 Commission Report. I give you the Thompson Board report. All of which contain truth and nothing but the truth. This is why it is futile to question the resolution of NASA photos!

Several instances of popular etymology are attested from ancient authors. Thus, the Greeks most often associated Apollo's name with the Greek verb απολλυμι (apollymi), "to destroy".[4] Plato in Cratylus connects the name with ἀπόλυσις (apolysis), "redeem", with ἀπόλουσις (apolousis), "purification", and with ἁπλοῦν (aploun), "simple",[5] in particular in reference to the Thessalian form of the name, Ἄπλουν, and finally with Ἀει-βάλλων (aeiballon), "ever-shooting". Hesychius connects the name Apollo with the Doric απέλλα (apella), which means "assembly", so that Apollo would be the god of political life, and he also gives the explanation σηκος (sekos), "fold", in which case Apollo would be the god of flocks and herds.
Source en.wikipedia.org...

Pray now for your salvation~! We need to get this message out~! Your small donation will help us bring the Ministry of Apollo to all nations~! [/sarcasm]

reply to post by FoosM

Their plan for going rapidly through the belts.
How fast was that?

This has been answered many times foosm the speed and trajectories discussion has been made already.

Another circular argument once again. Your behavior is sad Foosm it really is...

Originally posted by FoosM
books.google.com...=onepage&q=van%20allen%20belt%20rad&f=false

I just want to point out that you reject actual data from spacecraft as irrelevant, but seem to unquestioningly accept the "rough approximations" in a portion of a summary of an article.

If you go look at the actual article that summary was written about, you'd find this:

Limitations on Space Flight due to Cosmic Radiations

These conclusions (10) may be summarized as follows:

1) Flight below the Van Allen belts seems reasonably safe without radiation shielding.

2) It is probably impractical to shield a rocket sufficiently to permit a man to remain in the inner Van Allen belt for more than about an hour, but it should be possible for him to go through it without serious harm.

3) Shielding for the outer Van Allen belt is possible but would have to be quite heavy if a stay of more than a few hours were contemplated.

4) The primary cosmic radiation is not intense enough to deliver a serious radiation dose, even for exposures of a few weeks, and the heavy cosmic ray primaries do not seem to present an unusual hazard.

Since you accept the "rough approximations" in that article, can we also assume you accept the conclusions of the article that it's possible to traverse both belts "without serious harm?"

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
books.google.com...=onepage&q=van%20allen%20belt%20rad&f=false

I just want to point out that you reject actual data from spacecraft as irrelevant, but seem to unquestioningly accept the "rough approximations" in a portion of a summary of an article.

If you go look at the actual article that summary was written about, you'd find this:

Limitations on Space Flight due to Cosmic Radiations

These conclusions (10) may be summarized as follows:

1) Flight below the Van Allen belts seems reasonably safe without radiation shielding.

2) It is probably impractical to shield a rocket sufficiently to permit a man to remain in the inner Van Allen belt for more than about an hour, but it should be possible for him to go through it without serious harm.

3) Shielding for the outer Van Allen belt is possible but would have to be quite heavy if a stay of more than a few hours were contemplated.

4) The primary cosmic radiation is not intense enough to deliver a serious radiation dose, even for exposures of a few weeks, and the heavy cosmic ray primaries do not seem to present an unusual hazard.

Since you accept the "rough approximations" in that article, can we also assume you accept the conclusions of the article that it's possible to traverse both belts "without serious harm?"

Limitations on Space Flight due to Cosmic Radiations
Curtis
Science 3 February 1961: 312-316.
DOI:10.1126/science.133.3449.312

Subscribe/Join AAAS or Buy Access to This Article to View Full Text. The content you requested requires a AAAS member subscription to this site or Science Pay per Article purchase. If you already have a user name and password, please sign in below.

Since when did a science journal abstract become considered as evidence or proof of anything? I believe (there.. is.. that.. word.. again..) that a source material should be held open for fullest scrutiny - even amongst the brutally repressed peasantry who have no possibility of ever comprehending it. It's only 4 pages. Did any one here purchased that article and read it? Screw that, I'm not paying for science that's 50 years old

These are not the words one would use if one had gained full certainty in their scientific findings: "seems reasonably", "probably", "is possible but", "should be possible"?

Where is the scientific certainty to be found in those words? Those words don't exactly give me the strongeest confidence in the findings of the abstract. Turtles in space is the real science.

Click here for more information.