Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

the radiation argument ? really ?

the best case the HB's have is to claim van allen lied when he said the apollo missions didn't spend enough time in the belt to be exposed to more than what, 2 chest x-rays worth of radiation ?


lol

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the radiation argument ? really ?
the best case the HB's have is to claim van allen lied when he said the apollo missions didn't spend enough time in the belt to be exposed to more than what, 2 chest x-rays worth of radiation ?
lol

I think we're seeing a different flavor of the "If we can't go to the Moon now, we couldn't have back then" gambit. It's just that the "can't now" is somehow trying to be inferred from a 2+ year mission ... vs Apollo's 2 week stint.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Tell me, based on the performance of Apollo, how long could those astronauts actually have stayed on the moon if radiation was the only issue? 2 more weeks? 2 more months? 2 years? When would they have gone over their yearly dose of radiation?

Why don't you look it up for a change, along with those solar flare/SPE numbers you have failed to produce?

The question wasnt directed towards you, so I dont know why you need to respond to my post. But since you did, why didnt you just provide the information I was asking:

Tell me, based on the performance of Apollo, how long could those astronauts actually have stayed on the moon if radiation was the only issue? 2 more weeks? 2 more months? 2 years? When would they have gone over their yearly dose of radiation?

edit on 21-7-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

Tell you what, I'll do my best look up the information you're asking for right after you produce the "killer" solar flare/SPE numbers to support your claim. I can't guarantee I'll find it, but I'll do my best.

And you were talking to me when you made the "killer" solar flare/SPE claim.

Originally posted by FoosM
I've been reading 000063's latest posts and he keeps trying to pigeon-hole all moon landing arguments by skeptics into "anomalies". Discovering that killer solar flares and SPE's occurred during Apollo, when NASA empathically stated that none occurred, is not an anomaly, its out right lying on NASA's part.

Why would they lie? Because quite simply, a solar flare occurring during transit to the moon, past the magnet fields, would at best make the astronauts sick, at worst would kill them.
We have shown in this thread several have occurred.

But 000063 does not want to deal with subjects he doesn't understand because it might mean he is wrong.
So yeah, focus on your anomalies if it makes you feel safe.

I also showed, not five pages ago, where you, personally, made the "anomalies" claim.

I mean, I looked up what evidence there was of solar flares presented in this thread, and I found you making a similar claim that "major" flares/SPEs occurred. When asked what was "major", you said you were using NASA's definition. When asked what that definition was, you asked the debunkers what NASA's definition was, and changed the subject in the usual fashion.

Originally posted by bansheegirl
reply to post by Denali

 

Evidence-wise the story is a bit weak to do any real lifting, but the point is relevant in as far as it demonstrates how the 'how could so many people keep a secret' is also too vague to do any lifting. That people sign secrecy wavers is clearly the case. This in itself is incentive to withhold potential evidence.

Unless discovering something that would make one break their oath. Such as discovering that the United States bilked the taxpayers out of billions of dollars. That would do it.

More to the point an individual doing their part in a production, which might seem questionable in a broader context ( i.e. providing fake video of a historical event ) may themselves be convinced of the veracity of the actual event ( either because it did happen or because they have been told it did happen and believe it ) if they are given a plausible reasoning behind the necessity of the deception ( such as guarding the public from exposure to the horror of an astronaut moon misadventure ).

NASA was always remarkably transparent about what they were doing with the landings, and still are today. Compare the Soviets, who, IIRC, were lying through their teeth about their successes.

Look, the bottom line is that most of the hoax movement is unlettered people who think that "anomalies" (IE: things they don't understand) are evidence or proof of a hoax. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists think it's real, they're convinced they're stumbled onto things that people with letters after their names missed for...forty-two years now. Real conspiracies don't involve thousands of people, real conspiracies usually involve less than a dozen, for the very simple reason that more people = more chances of leaks and failure.

As to what they could gain by it were there real moon-explorers who were killed or in peril, it seems to me that the ability to reflect on a specific tragedy and control the manner in which news of it is released, is itself a tangible advantage in a case where the whole world is watching.

It would also go against their previous habit of transparency, as well as provide video inconsistent with an actual moon landing and, again, be revealed or found out sooner or later. If they did shoot fake footage in a studio, why not just show the real footage, and cut to the fake footage if something goes wrong? Like how singers can lip-sync if they have a sore throat.

I only watched the clip where he 'debunked' the mythbusters as i am a fan of the show....
The problem i have with most debunkers is they tend to skew facts to fit the argument, my point being he used facts that are true about the reflectivity of 3 types of pavement. Problem is, those readings are taken once the product is mixed and cured! NOT when they are in powdered form before the reaction has taken place.


Just my 2 cents worth of observation...

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM

 

the apollo sheilding did not block all radiation - it simply reduced the dose to an accepted level

No one has stated that all radiation was blocked. Why would you say that? How could astronauts have radiation exposure readings if all radiation was blocked? The question is, if the shielding was adequately stopping the radiation, then it makes sense the missions could have gone on for much longer. So the excuse for radiation being an issue for interstellar space travel to mars, or longer stay periods on the moon, is false.


MacTheKnife

What lies ? Who has said that "mars mission is impossible until they solve the radiation issue" ? Last I heard the risk is somewhat uncertain.

Ram Tripathi
(NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA)


Exposure from the hazards of severe space radiation in deep space/ long duration missions is `the show stopper' for NASA's vision of missions to Moon, Mars and beyond. The key to the success of human exploration and development of space is protecting astronauts, habitat and electronics against the hazards of severe space radiation environment. Accurate risk assessments critically depend on the accuracy of the input information about the interaction of ions with materials, electronics and tissues. This is further augmented by nonexistence of in vivo or in vitro data or studies about continuous long duration exposure of radiation to tissues. Due to paucity of the huge amount of needed experimental input data about the interaction of radiation, it is imperative to develop reliable accurate models of nuclear reactions and structures that form the basic input ingredients. State-of-the-art nuclear cross sections models have been developed at the NASA Langley Research center. The vital role and importance of nuclear physics for space missions would be discussed and a few examples would be presented for space missions.

However, then you have this:

NY Times Misrepresents Mars Missions Radiation Danger

In an article appearing on page 1 of the science section of the New York Times December 9, Times reporter Mathew Wald grossly misrepresented the danger posed by cosmic radiation to astronauts on a human Mars mission.

Wald states: "…the astronauts who went to the Moon on Apollo 14 accumulated about 1,140 millirem, equivalent of about three years on Earth in their nine-day mission. The astronauts on the Skylab 4, who spent 87 days in low Earth orbit, received a dose of about 17,800 millirem (equivalent to a 50-year background dose on Earth).

The Times report is very misleading, as it compares the Mars mission to Skylab, and then on that basis, claims that to the Mars radiation dose is unprecedented. In reality, astronauts have already spent much longer times aloft than Skylab, and taken doses fully comparable to those of the Mars mission.

Another comparison of dose rates in interplanetary space with ISS doses is provided by data has been provided by data measured by the Lawrence Berkeley Lab (LBL) MARIE instrument on Mars Odyssey, currently in orbit around Mars.

When normalized for free space (i.e. MARIE actual data doubled to undo the blocking effect of Mars), this data, published recently by MARIE Principal Investigator Dr. Cary Zeitlin, shows that interplanetary dose rates are about a 0.1 Rads per day, which is a factor of two higher than those 0.05 Rads/day encountered on ISS.

Mars surface doses would be somewhat less than ISS- even without sandbag shielding or other recourses. With a modicum of these measures, Mars surface doses could be expected to be less than half ISS levels.

Based on MARIE data, a Mars mission using an UNSHIELDED spacecraft for a mission consisting of a 6 month transfer to Mars, 18 months on the Martian surface, followed by a 6 month transfer from Mars to Earth could expect to receive 18 Rads each way plus 27 Rads on Mars, for a total mission dose of 63 Rads, (0.63 Sieverts) or 120 Rem.

With easily manageable shielding techniques requiring no additional mission mass, such as proper placing of crew supplies within the spacecraft for shielding purposes, and the placement of sand bags on the roof of the hab during the stay on Mars, this dose could be readily cut in half. Such a 63 Rem (0.315 Sievert) dose would represent about a 1 percent incremental risk of future cancer to each member of the crew, roughly half the threat posed by sustaining a smoking habit over the same 2.5 year period.

VS

NORFOLK—Among the gravest risks of a manned flight to Mars ranks the possibility that massive amounts of solar and cosmic radiation will decimate the brains of astronauts, leaving them in a vegetative state, if they survive at all.

Dubbed "Risk 29" by NASA's Mars scientists, the cosmic radiation risk remains a show-stopper because shielding a spacecraft from all radiation could make it too heavy to reach Mars, which, at its closest, is 38 million miles from Earth.

Now, medical scientists at EVMS have been tasked with determining the human brain's maximum safe cosmic radiation dose and to decipher precisely how radiation causes cognitive impairment — part of a quest for biological countermeasures to reduce radiation-related cognitive impairment.

The NASA-funded $1.2 million research project could not only help eliminate the risks to astronauts, but it could unravel the biomechanics of brain damage, potentially benefiting patients with degenerative neurological conditions like Alzheimer's disease.

MacTheKnife

It'll depend on who you ask. The long term effects of long exposures to GCR is not known. I've seen estimates that with Apollo capsule levels of shielding, it would be 3 years before a lifetime limit would be reached due to GCR alone. Of course that's not the whole story. I'd have to look up LM vs CSM shielding effectiveness to give you a better idea.

After the amount time spent in LEO, and the number flights to the moon and back, this information should be known. Are companies making the radiation issue sound worse than it is to get EXTRA funding for studies? Is this all a greedy scam?




meetings.aps.org...
www.spacedaily.com...
www.evms.edu...

Originally posted by 000063
Tell you what, I'll do my best look up the information you're asking for right after you produce the "killer" solar flare/SPE numbers to support your claim. I can't guarantee I'll find it, but I'll do my best.

I mean, I looked up what evidence there was of solar flares presented in this thread, and I found you making a similar claim that "major" flares/SPEs occurred. When asked what was "major", you said you were using NASA's definition. When asked what that definition was, you asked the debunkers what NASA's definition was, and changed the subject in the usual fashion.

edit on 2011/7/22 by 000063 because: /

Well whats the point? If Apollo could withstand major solar flares, then it really doesnt matter which flares I mention.

"A large sunspot appeared on August 2, 1972, and for the next 10 days it erupted again and again," recalls Hathaway. The spate of explosions caused, "a proton storm much worse than the one we've just experienced," adds Cucinotta. Researchers have been studying it ever since.
Cucinotta estimates that a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Deadly? "Not necessarily," he says. A quick trip back to Earth for medical care could have saved the hypothetical astronaut's life...

Surely, though, no astronaut is going to walk around on the Moon when there's a giant sunspot threatening to explode. "They're going to stay inside their spaceship (or habitat)," says Cucinotta. An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant … or just a headache pill.
Modern spaceships are even safer. "We measure the shielding of our ships in units of areal density--or grams per centimeter-squared," says Cucinotta. Big numbers, which represent thick hulls, are better:
The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2.

So its quite clear that Apollo's aluminum hull, would have sufficiently protected the astronauts from even a massive "killer" flare. And obviously they dont have to go to the moon during Solar Max, they can go during Solar Min. What is the excuse for NASA not returning to the moon for longer missions or Mars? Why are they saying the issue is radiation?



www.evms.edu...

reply to post by FoosM

I think they are worried about the galactic cosmic ray exposure, not exposure to solar flare.

Originally posted by FoosM
What is the excuse for NASA not returning to the moon for longer missions or Mars? Why are they saying the issue is radiation?

Oh dear Foos, I haven't bothered writing anything in here for months and you're still confused about long term, accumulative exposure. How many times have you been told? Must be dozens now.. Perhaps if you had spent the same amount of time on studying instead of reiterating you same tired old arguments your brain wouldn't have shrunk to a singularity of infinite denseness.

If the US didn't get round to replacing the shuttle for another 10 - 20 years, I wonder how many pimply high school dropouts with the IQ of the common garden snail would try and say that because the US don't have LEO human launch capability now, they didn't have it then - ergo the Shuttle was fake! Perhaps Michael Bay could be the new Stanley Kubrick....

My god Foos, I find it hard reading your posts because I can feel my stomach churning - but it almost looks like you've done a 180 on your previous arguments about the radiation and you're somehow trying to twist it now that the radiation isn't as bad as you made out (well done!) yet this supports your arguments somehow..

Are you sure you aren't religious? You're definitely not a scientist.
A scientist takes all available information and uses it to form an opinion, in contrast a religious nut takes their opinion and tries to interpret and twist it to support their point of view.
This is what you do Foos, is the Apollo Hoax belief like a religion to you? Perhaps we could mimic the recent experiment with Apple products and see if the same neurons in your brain (haha see, I do have a sense of humor) fire when being shown pictures of Bart Sibrel as in a Christian's brain when being shown pictures of Jesus.

Apologies if I misunderstood what you had written, like I said reading your words and just seeing your name make me feel kind of queasy.. I may not reply for some time as it's going to take a while to recover!

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by FoosM
What is the excuse for NASA not returning to the moon for longer missions or Mars? Why are they saying the issue is radiation?

Oh dear Foos, I haven't bothered writing anything in here for months and you're still confused about long term, accumulative exposure. How many times have you been told? Must be dozens now.. Perhaps if you had spent the same amount of time on studying instead of reiterating you same tired old arguments your brain wouldn't have shrunk to a singularity of infinite denseness.

You need to come up with something better than that AGENT

Thus, based on Curtis' findings, the above 0.315 Sievert dose round trip Mars mission would incur a cancer risk of 1.2%, in good agreement with standard BEIR-derived Rem-based methods of radiation risk analysis.

It should be noted that the 6 month outbound, 18 month on Mars, 6 month return Conjunction Class mission plan assumed in the above analysis is entirely feasible using current chemical propulsion technology. In 2001, Mars Odyssey took 6 months to fly from Earth to Mars. We do not need to wait for any futuristic propulsion systems to reduce flight times to make radiation doses acceptable.

Radiation is not a show-stopper for a human Mars mission.

How do you explain such statements? I mean, I have no idea where some of you stand on space flight.
You do everything to prove that its possible, and when evidence is there that nothing is stopping us from continuing our programs, you are looking for excuses to say that its not possible. You guys sound like hoax believers. I dont get it.

Based on Apollo's shielding, and their exposure results, how long could they have actually stayed on the moon?

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by FoosM

 

I think they are worried about the galactic cosmic ray exposure, not exposure to solar flare.

Well which one is it, because Im seeing reports for either or.
I dont understand why after 40 years, including the success of Apollo, this is not clearly
agreed upon in the scientific community. There must be a scam going on.
Corporations using scientists to milk unnecessary research money from the Government.

Originally posted by FoosM

Corporations using scientists to milk unnecessary research money from the Government.

Speaking of which:

www.tethers.com/News.html

Look at the 11 January 2011 announcement. They got a contract to see if space tethers can generate electricity.

The Space Shuttle did that experiment twice in 1992. It's been done and done and done even more since then.

But here's the big secret...it's not about generating electricity. It's Remediation of the Radiation around the planet from man...and the sun. They've been taking the radioactive/ charged particles.....which they just call electrons in the multiple radiation belts around Earth.....and they have been speeding up the process of dumping them onto Earth to thin out the radiation belts..

.....to get rid of the Radiation around the planet. Why?

Lots of Radiation around the planet would reflect like a mirror any big solar flares.........The radiation is killing our satellites.

They have been doing this to save our satellites......

Now tell me again how some men in a tin can passed thru the belt on the way to the moon......yet our satellites can't even survive around the planet? How many satellites have died this year alone?

Originally posted by Pervius

Originally posted by FoosM

Corporations using scientists to milk unnecessary research money from the Government.

Speaking of which:

www.tethers.com/News.html

Look at the 11 January 2011 announcement. They got a contract to see if space tethers can generate electricity.

The Space Shuttle did that experiment twice in 1992. It's been done and done and done even more since then.

But here's the big secret...it's not about generating electricity. It's Remediation of the Radiation around the planet from man...and the sun. They've been taking the radioactive/ charged particles.....which they just call electrons in the multiple radiation belts around Earth.....and they have been speeding up the process of dumping them onto Earth to thin out the radiation belts..

.....to get rid of the Radiation around the planet. Why?

Lots of Radiation around the planet would reflect like a mirror any big solar flares.........The radiation is killing our satellites.

They have been doing this to save our satellites......

Now tell me again how some men in a tin can passed thru the belt on the way to the moon......yet our satellites can't even survive around the planet? How many satellites have died this year alone?

It's a long thread, but if you want the answer to your question I advise you to search previous posts, the subject of radioactivity, LEO, VA belts etc has been discussed and debunked repeatedly here.

A word of warning, if you are a 'believer' in the moon hoax theory you'll either have to eat your hat and accept that you've been lead up the garden path, or like some others on here, just run around in circles with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears yelling LALALALALALALALALLALALALALALLALALALALALALA........LALLALALALALALALLALLALA.

Originally posted by Pervius

.....to get rid of the Radiation around the planet. Why?

Lots of Radiation around the planet would reflect like a mirror any big solar flares.........The radiation is killing our satellites.

They have been doing this to save our satellites......

Now tell me again how some men in a tin can passed thru the belt on the way to the moon......yet our satellites can't even survive around the planet? How many satellites have died this year alone?

Lets talk about the CM.
Either the CM was far enough capable of blocking radiation, or the radiation of the belts and space is not as threatening as some make them out to be. Which one is it?

Alright, lets get to the basics.

Humans can withstand a single exposure of 25 rads of (Hard Xrays or Gamma Rays)

20 rads may cause Nausea.
100 will induce vomiting.
200 your temporarily sterile.
500 your sterile and you will die in a few months.
1000 and above, your dead.

Cosmic Rays - 10 mrads a day
Inner Belt - 100 rads an hour
Outer Belt - 10,000 rads an hour


To survive the Inner Belt.
Speed, location of exit, plus shielding of at least 5 gm per square inch to get through that.

The inner belts is composed of two types of energetic protons and electrons.

Now what about the protons in the belt? They consist of several hundred MeV. Which is equivalent to low energy solar flares. You need about 1.5 inches of aluminum to bring them down to 4 rads an hour. You need 3 inches of aluminum to reduce it to 2.2 rads an hour.

The Apollo CM.
The craft NASA states have carried astros to the moon and back.
The thickness of the outer wall, made from stainless steel brazed honeycomb between steel alloy face sheets, varied from 0.5-inch (1.27cm) to 2.5-inch (6.35cm). Now mind you, this is for thermal radiation. Not shielding for ionized radiation. Though anything between you and radiation is a good thing.

So at its thinnest point we have so far
0.5

It did have a cabin (here is where the aluminum came in), it was made up of a honeycomb structure of aluminum mated with an aluminum alloy. This “tin can” varied from 0.25-inch (6.35mm) to 1.5-inch (3.81cm). "Tin Can" is not my description, but I do agree with it.

So at its thinnest point we have
0.25 inches... and we needed what? 1.5 inches of aluminum to bring protons down to 4 rads an hour in the belt.

Taking 0.5 and 0.25 we get only 0.75 of hull thickness.

Now do you see where Jarrah White does not consider the CM as being shielded?

Now granted, between the inner cabin and outer-wall there was some insulating fiber. But I doubt that carries any significant shielding value. And lets add the phenolic resin, which is also serves as a heat shield. This coating added 0.5 inches to the hull.

0.75 + 0.5 = 1.25 cm worth of various material. Which is not the same as 1.5 inches of pure aluminum, because a lot of it is HONEYCOMBED. It had air inside! Thats the so called shielding of the CM. Now either thats sounds like they planned to cross the atlantic with a small fisherman's boat. Or the ocean was actually a small lake.

So this ship would be getting for sure its dose of at least 4 rads an hour of energetic protons via the thinnest section of the hull. Conservative estimates the trip to be 90 minutes to and 90 fro. Thats three hours (3 x 4 = 12 rads). Other estimates vary from 3 hours to and 3 hours fro (3 x 9 = 27 rads). I've even seen estimates of the trip taking seven hours (3 x 14 = 42 rads).

The highest dose received from the missions was like 1 rad and change. Does this make sense?

reply to post by FoosM


Why do you keep going on about the CM? The CM was sandwiched between the SM (11 meters of aluminum and volatile chemicals, this later being particularly good at shielding GCR) and the LM (5.5 meters of aluminum and volatile chemicals). Try re-working your numbers again using the correct information. I'm positive we've been down this road before.

reply to post by FoosM


I do agree with the radiation being the main reason, or fear for further out exploration.

It is just that I have a hard time believing that we could'nt send up 60,000 pounds of lead in one shot. I know the shuttle is retired and it would be expensive, but to say we cannot is absurd.
( I am adding this in here. I am not saying that you said it was absurd. I am talking in general about the costs)

One shuttle packed with lead plates to be installed in orbit. Expensive and inefficient but do-able....One billion for the launch is a drop in the bucket when talking radiation shielding.....The most worrysome of the risks....

This is just my opinion here. If we really wanted it, we could do it....How much money have we wasted in the wars again?

(I know the shuttle is gone. They could use the rockets to lift the lead into orbit.) It just seems like the normal excuses to me, thats all.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Why do you keep going on about the CM? The CM was sandwiched between the SM (11 meters of aluminum and volatile chemicals, this later being particularly good at shielding GCR) and the LM (5.5 meters of aluminum and volatile chemicals). Try re-working your numbers again using the correct information. I'm positive we've been down this road before.

Wasn't the LM attached to the front of the CM??

If so, you can't use the "aluminum and volatile chemicals" of both for shielding regardless of attitude because the astronauts were between them..
Also, do we know the CM was in a position to shield while passing through the belt?
Does radiation from the belt come from a single direction to allow you to shield in this manner?

reply to post by backinblack

Wasn't the LM attached to the front of the CM??

If so, you can't use the "aluminum and volatile chemicals" of both for shielding regardless of attitude because the astronauts were between them..
Also, do we know the CM was in a position to shield while passing through the belt?

Correct, the CM was sandwiched between the LM and the SM. This means that the LM was shielding the CM from any particles approaching from the front and the SM was protecting the astronauts from behind. This means that only particles approaching from the sides would need to be shielded by the CM alone. In addition to the hull of the spacecraft, the cabin was filled with control panels, computers, couches, equipment, etc, all of which would provide additional shielding from radiation. FoosM knows all this perfectly well, yet continues to focus on the skin of the spacecraft because he can make it appear that the astronauts did not have as much shielding as they actually did.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Why do you keep going on about the CM? The CM was sandwiched between the SM (11 meters of aluminum and volatile chemicals, this later being particularly good at shielding GCR) and the LM (5.5 meters of aluminum and volatile chemicals). Try re-working your numbers again using the correct information. I'm positive we've been down this road before.

I find it strange that you are including the SM & LM as shielding.
It has no impact for the astronauts.