It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!
page: 542share:
I'm seriously not going to read through 500+ threads so if this has been posted before oh well. If we would have faked the moon landings (all seven
of them) the Soviets would have called BS and exposed it.
The Soviet Union did have a plan to make a manned moon landing but the rocket they used failed because it had a whopping 30 rocket engines on it! The Soviet space agency wasn't centralized like ours and they had competing groups. They chose the wrong idea and it cost them.
The N1 Rocket link it failed on all four test launches and all four of the rockets were destroyed during the testings due to explosions.
Soviet Manned Lunar Program
Another article covering how the Soviet Union hid it's manned lunar landing program because it was a failure.
The Soviet Union did have a plan to make a manned moon landing but the rocket they used failed because it had a whopping 30 rocket engines on it! The Soviet space agency wasn't centralized like ours and they had competing groups. They chose the wrong idea and it cost them.
The N1 Rocket link it failed on all four test launches and all four of the rockets were destroyed during the testings due to explosions.
Soviet Manned Lunar Program
Another article covering how the Soviet Union hid it's manned lunar landing program because it was a failure.
reply to post by Komodo
Oh next time you speak about a picture say "picture" and not "film" cause those are not even close to the same thing. Wheter or not that picture is still there and ID'able as such I won't comment cause I don't know the details.
Oh next time you speak about a picture say "picture" and not "film" cause those are not even close to the same thing. Wheter or not that picture is still there and ID'able as such I won't comment cause I don't know the details.
edit on 17/8/2011 by PsykoOps because: typo
Originally posted by SigilOfLux
I'm seriously not going to read through 500+ threads so if this has been posted before oh well. If we would have faked the moon landings (all seven of them) the Soviets would have called BS and exposed it.
That is true.
In regards to the youtube fella: Has he ever been to the moon?
Seriously because how does he know what happened up there? No government is going to tell us everything.
For example: They will come back and tell the general public "humans can't live on so and so planet" meanwhile people who have been there are like "yeah...sure".
Originally posted by Malcher
Originally posted by SigilOfLux
I'm seriously not going to read through 500+ threads so if this has been posted before oh well. If we would have faked the moon landings (all seven of them) the Soviets would have called BS and exposed it.
That is true.
In regards to the youtube fella: Has he ever been to the moon?
Seriously because how does he know what happened up there? No government is going to tell us everything.
For example: They will come back and tell the general public "humans can't live on so and so planet" meanwhile people who have been there are like "yeah...sure".
It's kind of like telling someone a stop sign is red and they say prove it so you show them color swaths, crayons, paints, and art books showing that it is indeed the color red. So they say all of it is disinfo. Conspiracy theorist can't be reasoned with if they are irrational.
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by Komodo
pretty funny huh.. leaving 'plastic-encased' family photo in case someone might pass by and realize someone has travel this way already.. ........................hmmm.. ok .. puz:
What's funny or confusing about leaving a personal item on the Moon?
but, so.................after 30 years, in 212*F there shouldn't be any fading or complete burning up of the plastic around it.. if it's not ash by then...
By now the photo would be most likely long gone. However the photo would not have melted right away. It would take time.
Did you read the link supplied to you by MacTheKnife? Do you understand the method of heat transfer and how it would work in a vacuum? And did you also come to realize that your example of putting a photo in an oven, is in no way comparable to leaving a photo on the Lunar surface?
no i missed the link
Originally posted by MacTheKnife
I'm wondering how a photo left on the Moon says anything about the supposed hoax.
I think Komodo simply believes that it should have melted/burnt up instantly or near instantly because he/she read that the temperature on the Moon can go up to 120C, but didn't understand that's the surface temperature. Komodo seemed to believe that it would be just like being in an oven.
Komodo, here's that link for you again: Apollo temperature variation claims
Hopefully you'll read that and learn why convection isn't applicable to the Space/Lunar environment.
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by MacTheKnife
I'm wondering how a photo left on the Moon says anything about the supposed hoax.
I think Komodo simply believes that it should have melted/burnt up instantly or near instantly because he/she read that the temperature on the Moon can go up to 120C, but didn't understand that's the surface temperature. Komodo seemed to believe that it would be just like being in an oven.
Aaaah now I see. The most salient paragraph from that link would then be :
NASA knew that the moon’s surface went through these temperature swings. But, that doesn’t mean that as soon as a square meter of lunar surface rotates into the Sun’s light that it suddenly, immediately goes from -200 °F to +200 °F. It takes time to absorb the radiation and heat up! And that is why all of the lunar missions were planned for “dawn” on the moon, before the surface had heated up to the +200 °F temperatures, but after it had warmed a little from the -200 °F temperatures. So even while the lunar surface does experience wide temperature swings throughout it’s nearly 700-hr day, the astronauts did not experience those extremes!
I think the bigger mystery is... Why some people loath their own government so much, that they will actually try and prove something as significant as
going to the moon, didn't happen. Especially when it did, and saying it didn't is beyond ridiculous.
Originally posted by dpd11
I think the bigger mystery is... Why some people loath their own government so much, that they will actually try and prove something as significant as going to the moon, didn't happen. Especially when it did, and saying it didn't is beyond ridiculous.
No that is no mystery at all. Its not unusual, nor uncommon. To even come here and ask that question, which has been asked several times before on this same thread, makes it sound like some people posting here work for the government and maybe are paid to defend the government.
Originally posted by MacTheKnife
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by MacTheKnife
I'm wondering how a photo left on the Moon says anything about the supposed hoax.
I think Komodo simply believes that it should have melted/burnt up instantly or near instantly because he/she read that the temperature on the Moon can go up to 120C, but didn't understand that's the surface temperature. Komodo seemed to believe that it would be just like being in an oven.
Aaaah now I see. The most salient paragraph from that link would then be :
NASA knew that the moon’s surface went through these temperature swings. But, that doesn’t mean that as soon as a square meter of lunar surface rotates into the Sun’s light that it suddenly, immediately goes from -200 °F to +200 °F. It takes time to absorb the radiation and heat up! And that is why all of the lunar missions were planned for “dawn” on the moon, before the surface had heated up to the +200 °F temperatures, but after it had warmed a little from the -200 °F temperatures. So even while the lunar surface does experience wide temperature swings throughout it’s nearly 700-hr day, the astronauts did not experience those extremes!
Of course, now they want us to believe that solar radiation is slow, stupid and harmless. That moon mornings are just like cool autumn mornings on Earth. LOL. They wont say how long it takes for any surface to reach temperatures of +200 °F degrees or -200 °F though.
Sneaky sneaky.
But they are implying that such temperatures should be damaging.
edit on 18-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MacTheKnife
Let's start with this to get an idea of what's needed ...
www.wwheaton.com...
For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.
.
Five minutes based on what?
Originally posted by MacTheKnife
This animation (orignially posted by JRA) of the Apollo 11 trajectory is the one I think best shows the path in relation to the VABs and how the orbital inclination and the eliptical post-TLI burn orbit worked. I believe it to be an depiction of Braeunig's work.
edit on 16/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: trying to fix Youtube linkedit on 16/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: (no reason given)
Cripes, how many times must this be said.
Those belts are TOO SMALL!
Its not to scale, so its misleading.
Stop using misleading material.
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by MacTheKnife
I'm wondering how a photo left on the Moon says anything about the supposed hoax.
I think Komodo simply believes that it should have melted/burnt up instantly or near instantly because he/she read that the temperature on the Moon can go up to 120C, but didn't understand that's the surface temperature. Komodo seemed to believe that it would be just like being in an oven.
Komodo, here's that link for you again: Apollo temperature variation claims
Hopefully you'll read that and learn why convection isn't applicable to the Space/Lunar environment.
Komodo was simply trying to convey what high temperatures can do to plastic and photo-paper.
Considering that the paper and plastic was sitting on the surface of the moon, the heated surface should have already started to melt the plastic.
With no atmosphere and a surface made up almost entirely of rocky materials with low thermal conductivity and relatively low heat capacity, during the lunar day the surface temperature quickly reaches equilibrium with incoming solar radiation.
Considering the photo and plastic was in direct sunlight, it should have started to at least warp and curl.
(Apollo 15)
The sun was now quite high at 41° and its heat was beginning to be felt within the suits, outside the soil temperature rising to 70°C (158 °F).
Though I believe the photo was placed during the A16's EVA3.
www.honeysucklecreek.net...
www.lunarpedia.org...
reply to post by FoosM
Really? Who are we supposed to believe? You? Or Professor Van Allen?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/29fcbefb8250.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a11eef6b8798.jpg[/atsimg]
image.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Looks about right to me. Might I suggest you follow your own advice?
Those belts are TOO SMALL!
Its not to scale, so its misleading.
Stop using misleading material.
Really? Who are we supposed to believe? You? Or Professor Van Allen?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/29fcbefb8250.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a11eef6b8798.jpg[/atsimg]
image.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Looks about right to me. Might I suggest you follow your own advice?
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by MacTheKnife
Let's start with this to get an idea of what's needed ...
www.wwheaton.com...
For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.
Five minutes based on what?
Well you'd have to ask Mr Wheaton but I'd say it's based upon the speed of the spacecraft, it's flightpath and the width of the proton belt from the AP-8 data. What's your estimate for the time in question ?
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
Those belts are TOO SMALL!
Its not to scale, so its misleading.
Stop using misleading material.
Really? Who are we supposed to believe? You? Or Professor Van Allen?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/29fcbefb8250.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a11eef6b8798.jpg[/atsimg]
image.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Looks about right to me. Might I suggest you follow your own advice?
Do they match this?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/755fced0a264.gif[/atsimg]
Secondly, why dont you post Van Allen's drawing of the correct scale of the VABs?
Cause I doubt those examples you gave are his.
edit on 18-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MacTheKnife
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by MacTheKnife
Let's start with this to get an idea of what's needed ...
www.wwheaton.com...
For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.
Five minutes based on what?
Well you'd have to ask Mr Wheaton but I'd say it's based upon the speed of the spacecraft, it's flightpath and the width of the proton belt from the AP-8 data. What's your estimate for the time in question ?
If you dont know what he means, and if you cant verify if what he says is correct, then why are you posting his info? I gave numbers based on the transcripts, whats backing his numbers?
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by MacTheKnife
This animation (orignially posted by JRA) of the Apollo 11 trajectory is the one I think best shows the path in relation to the VABs and how the orbital inclination and the eliptical post-TLI burn orbit worked. I believe it to be an depiction of Braeunig's work. edit on 16/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: trying to fix Youtube link
edit on 16/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: (no reason given)
Cripes, how many times must this be said.
Those belts are TOO SMALL!
Its not to scale, so its misleading.
Stop using misleading material.
First: the point I was trying to make was to show how an Apollo trajectory missed the portions of the VABs that a circular orbit, as used in Kovalev's analyses, would have intersected. Thus JWs analysis, and your modifications to it, are not using the proper input. You can't extrapolate Kovalev's data to shoehorn into a predicted Apollo dose. The graphical depiction does a better job of showing why this is true than my words do.
Second: I don't know that the VABs size, as shown, is wrong. It's obvious what's shown is a first order approximation; the VABs are prefectly symmetric, etc ... but that doesn't invalidate it's use for what was intended. Perhaps at lunch I can investigate your claim.
Third : As I said earlier my issue with the VABs as shown, and Braeunigs page, is that I can't "square" the rad/sec numbers with those from Kovalev's report in the spots where I can make a valid comparison (ie 0deg inclination, mid-proton belt). No doubt something I'm overlooking but it bothers me. Thus I've made no specific claims as to what the rad dose should be. When I've resolved that I'll let you know.
reply to post by FoosM
No, because the drawing you copied from that Nazi website is intentionally misleading. What, exactly, do they mean by the "extent of the Van Allen Belts?" They show no indication of the intensity in various regions, so it is difficult to tell what the drawing means.
Here is Van Allen's original data plot:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/66712000a90a.jpg[/atsimg]
www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...
(Sorry it's so illegible.)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2f5db82eec84.jpg[/atsimg]
image.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Do they match this?
No, because the drawing you copied from that Nazi website is intentionally misleading. What, exactly, do they mean by the "extent of the Van Allen Belts?" They show no indication of the intensity in various regions, so it is difficult to tell what the drawing means.
Here is Van Allen's original data plot:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/66712000a90a.jpg[/atsimg]
www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...
(Sorry it's so illegible.)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2f5db82eec84.jpg[/atsimg]
This is Van Allen's sketch of the inner and outer zones of the radiation belt made after Pioneer 1 and 3 data returns, as the sketch was presented in a paper by J. A. Van Allen and L. A. Frank, in the science journal Nature in 1959. The two lines that go from the upper left to the lower right are the paths of the satellite
image.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Originally posted by DJW001
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2f5db82eec84.jpg[/atsimg]
This is Van Allen's sketch of the inner and outer zones of the radiation belt made after Pioneer 1 and 3 data returns, as the sketch was presented in a paper by J. A. Van Allen and L. A. Frank, in the science journal Nature in 1959. The two lines that go from the upper left to the lower right are the paths of the satellite
image.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Pioneer 1 and 3? Are you sure?