Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

The charged particles in the Van Allen belts are omni-directional, so all external spacecraft surfaces are equally irradiated.

books.google.com.au...,+so+all+exter nal+spacecraft+surfaces+are+equally+irradiated.&source=bl&ots=Lk88aZ3e9L&sig=2rBq6XeEH0NPNmUasHWKtnI2ze8&hl=en&ei=mDtGTvaTBYTxrQfByujRAw&sa=X&oi=book_ result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Is this true??

reply to post by backinblack

Solar protons spiral around magnetic fields, which include the
interplanetary fields and also self-generated magnetic fields. Since
they're not all the same energy, they end up coming from different
directions. It's been ages since I've looked at any of the data (which is
all in old papers, not in easily accessable electronic form), but as I
recall, the flux is about 50% isotropic, with a wide directional peak in one direction (not necessarily directly toward the sun-- the trajectories are curved). So, while it's omnidirection in the sense radiation of coming from all directions, it's not uniform intensity in all directions.

The highest energy (and hence the most damaging) particles curve the least, though.

There's undoubtably better data around now-- what I had was pretty old, and is probably superceded by better information (and better models).


(Private correspondence)

As I suspected, most of the energy of a CME comes from sun-ward. The particles impinging from other angles would be of lower energy. Mr. Landis also points out in his e-mail that there were no CMEs during the Apollo missions... but we all already knew that, right FoosM?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since FoosM seems to be intent on repeating his previous mistakes in the hopes they will turn out differently this time, I thought I'd reach into the vault and bring this one up. The charged particles in the ERBs spiral around lines of magnetic force. That is why they're "omnidirectional." The SM and LM effectively shield any of the particles that are spiraling in from fore and aft, which leaves those which are spiraling in from right angles to pose a hazard to the CM.

reply to post by FoosM

If the powdery surface of the moon clumped on and stuck to the astronauts boots, how where they still able to make such defined bootprints? Wouldnt their boots be clogged with regolith?

Remember, they regolith stuck so well to the boots that it made Buzz Aldrin's boots go from blue into a gray in color.

Which part of the boot did it stick to? The sole ore the upper? Please do your own research for once.

reply to post by FoosM

Sir Roger Moore says JFK Murdered by Conspiracy


In previous posts I made drew several lines between James Bond movies, Howard Hughes, Special effects, etc, to the moon hoax.

After all, Sir Roger Moore should know. He and JFK were close friends growing up in South Africa. As for your attempts to weave your James Bond fixation into this thread, I can't say it's a very wise move. What's next? Hidden messages in Ranma?

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by FoosM

 

bah~! why doesn't the USA just call it what it was/is and chalk it up to a time where the country formerly known as the USSR as our enemy and we just could loose..........no matter what the ......cost..

Ah, yes, so NASA faked going to the moon, because of the Russians, and then Russia didn't expose them because--

Hm. That's odd. There's not a single credible theory. Even the usual "wheat deal" HBs like to throw out before changing the subject as quickly as possible doesn't explain why the USSR didn't just expose the US anyway and use the wheat as proof, or blackmail them for, oh, the entire duration of the Cold War.

We have been through this a thousand times. If you cant figure out by now why it was worthless for the Russians to expose the scam if they knew about it, then thats your problem.

Its all about Saturn. Saturn worked. This is where the USSR failed.

reply to post by FoosM

We have been through this a thousand times. If you cant figure out by now why it was worthless for the Russians to expose the scam if they knew about it, then thats your problem.

You have never adequately explained it, so it remains your problem.

Its all about Saturn. Saturn worked. This is where the USSR failed.

Would you care to elaborate on this comment? Besides, I thought Dr. No had a jamming ray to prevent it from working.

Originally posted by FoosM

We have been through this a thousand times. If you cant figure out by now why it was worthless for the Russians to expose the scam if they knew about it, then thats your problem.

The opponent is probably attempting to drive you in a circle to monopolize your time.

Anyhow,

At the time I wouldn't believe some sore loser commie if he said we didn't go to the moon.

The Soviets wouldn't even be able to produce pictures of empty landing sites. And even if they did I would have said they took them before the Apollo missions got there.

Obviously the soviet union cannot be trusted.

Originally posted by DJW001

Since FoosM seems to be intent on repeating his previous mistakes in the hopes they will turn out differently this time, I thought I'd reach into the vault and bring this one up. The charged particles in the ERBs spiral around lines of magnetic force. That is why they're "omnidirectional." The SM and LM effectively shield any of the particles that are spiraling in from fore and aft, which leaves those which are spiraling in from right angles to pose a hazard to the CM.

So we can either believe you, or believe the scientists and engineers who wrote a book stating:

The charged particles in the Van Allen belts are omni-directional, so all external spacecraft surfaces are equally irradiated.

Now if you want to claim that these people are wrong, please provide a source for your rebuttal.
So we can see why they are wrong.

Until then, considering the Apollo walls were rated at 3gm/cm2

and to get through the outer belt one would need:

The projected shielding of 10 grams per cm would protect a man from virtually all the effects of the outer belts lighter particles.

We have a problem. Well NASA does.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by FoosM

We have been through this a thousand times. If you cant figure out by now why it was worthless for the Russians to expose the scam if they knew about it, then thats your problem.

The opponent is probably attempting to drive you in a circle to monopolize your time.

Yes indeed, as well as move the thread along so that people dont have a chance to read material that is posted.
I mean, who but a guilty person, and/or a person with an agenda, or something to hide, would do such things?

reply to post by FoosM

The charged particles in the Van Allen belts are omni-directional, so all external spacecraft surfaces are equally irradiated.

Now if you want to claim that these people are wrong, please provide a source for your rebuttal.
So we can see why they are wrong.

Until then, considering the Apollo walls were rated at 3gm/cm2

and to get through the outer belt one would need:

The projected shielding of 10 grams per cm would protect a man from virtually all the effects of the outer belts lighter particles.

As usual, it's a reading comprehension issue again. Let me help:

"The charged particles in the Van Allen belts are omni-directional, so all external spacecraft surfaces are equally irradiated."

The book is talking about the degradation of paint when exposed to the space environment. The authors are making a distinction between the UV radiation from the Sun, which comes only from sunward, and the effects of the "omnidirectional" radiation of the ERBs, which affects all of the satellites surfaces equally. In the case of the Apollo stack, the LM and SM are two of the "external surfaces" relative to the astronauts.

"]The projected shielding of 10 grams per cm would protect a man from virtually all the effects of the outer belts lighter particles"

Where did NASA ever say that their goal was to shield for "all" the radiation in the ERBs? As with everything in the Apollo Project, they shot for the optimal balance between weight, safety, efficiency and expediency. They only need to mollify some of the radiation.

[quote[As usual, it's a reading comprehension issue again. Let me help:


I haven't seen a link posted yet that disproves Foosm's post that they're omnidirectional..

reply to post by backinblack

I haven't seen a link posted yet that disproves Foosm's post that they're omnidirectional..

Technically, they are anisotropic, but "omnidirectional" will do. I'm not saying that they're not. I'm just pointing out that the particles coming from in front would be shielded by the LM, and the ones coming from behind would be shielded by the SM. No problem.

reply to post by DJW001


Exposure wise, that's NOT a large percentage being protected then..

I wonder why no one mentioned this when it was discussed that they changed attitude to protect them??
Seems attitude is irrelevant apart from protecting from solar rays..

reply to post by backinblack

Exposure wise, that's NOT a large percentage being protected then..

Actually, it is. It reduces their exposure by two thirds. Visualize a sphere surrounding the CM. This represents all the possible angles that particles can approach the CM from. Now draw two parallel planes tangent to the fore and aft of the CM. These are the paths blocked by the LM and SM. Got it?

I wonder why no one mentioned this when it was discussed that they changed attitude to protect them??
Seems attitude is irrelevant apart from protecting from solar rays..

Solar radiation is a different matter. Solar flares are only partially anisotropic, direction does matter. We covered that here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by DJW001

Actually, it is. It reduces their exposure by two thirds. Visualize a sphere surrounding the CM. This represents all the possible angles that particles can approach the CM from. Now draw two parallel planes tangent to the fore and aft of the CM. These are the paths blocked by the LM and SM. Got it?

No, I ain't got it...

I think you either know little about math or are being a bit simplistic with your 2/3 statement..

Talk "surface area" and get back to me..
Remember the body of the CM is 360 degrees..
Basically a big tin can with only the top and bottom protected...

reply to post by backinblack

I think you either know little about math or are being a bit simplistic with your 2/3 statement..

I am being simplistic. The shielded areas would be conical, of course... and the issue isn't important enough to do any actual spherical trig. Let's just say they represent shielding, which FoosM, like Jarrah, refuses to acknowledge.

reply to post by DJW001


True, but I can still remember seeing many here saying they changed the attitude of the LM/CM to protect them from the worst of the Belts..

Now we clearly see that's BS, it would make no difference at all...

Originally posted by backinblack
True, but I can still remember seeing many here saying they changed the attitude of the LM/CM to protect them from the worst of the Belts..

I thought others mentioned changing attitude to protect ones self from CME's, which are directional.

Originally posted by 000063

Trying to bridge intuition and fact is often difficult, and I'm glad that you've noticed the discrepancy and are seeking answers instead of just assuming intuition is right.

Thanks. And thank you all for indulging me,even though this topic has come up before. I learned a lot from all the replies to my posts.

In order to firm up a lesson plan I have started to look at the topic systematically ( using the information on this thread ). As a starting opoint I have compiled information from one of the earlier discussions on stars ( page 305 of this thread ) with information from the most recent ( page 539 ). Replies fall into three broad categories ... Star Viewing Conditions (SVC), Astronaut Accounts of Stars (AAS), and Human Visual Acuity and Cameras (HVA/C).

Most relevant HVA/C info bites are as follows :

Eye, like a camera, has an adjustable lens to focus at different distances, and an adjustable diaphragm to limit the amount of light let in. Both project the image onto a photo-sensitive medium. ( nataylor , 0305-O )

Information received from the brain ( by way of the eyes ) is continually up-dated, and combines information from both eyes. The eyes actively search the scene in order to acquire as much information as possible. This improves the resolution and information extraction possible of/from the image on the photo-sensitive medium (retina ).( FoosM , 0305-D )

The eye is specialized for detecting contrast. The eye can resolve the full moon and magnitude 3 stars in the same view, demonstarting a dynamic range of 1 x 10^6 or more. ( FoosM , 0305-D ).

In order to view the lunar landscape and the brightest star in the lunar sky ( Sirius ) at the same time would require a dynamic range of 1 x 10^9. ( nataylor , 0305-O )

Under low light conditions the iris expands ( diaphragm adjusting to maximize light let in ) and under bright light conditions the iris constricts ( to minimize light let in ). ( MacTheKnife, 0539-G )

Eyes need a few seconds to adjust between varying light conditions, and may require as much as thirty minutes to fully adjust in certain situations. ( FoosM , 0305-P )


HVA/C info bits are found on page 0305 at D and P (... FoosM ) at O (... nataylor ) and at S(...PsykoOps ).

HVA/C info bits are found on page 0539 at G and H (... MacTheKnife ) and N (... PsykoOps ).

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by backinblack
True, but I can still remember seeing many here saying they changed the attitude of the LM/CM to protect them from the worst of the Belts..

I thought others mentioned changing attitude to protect ones self from CME's, which are directional.

What CME's ??

No, go back and Weedwhacker etc were stating they altered the attitude to protect from the belts...

Now I see that is BS yet no one, even you, mentioned that...