Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Rob48

What better way of demonstrating the shielding effect than putting a dozen radiation detectors (not to mention three biological ones!) inside the damn thing?

The problem is that the scientists in the papers I've cited don't even acknowledge the data from Apollo.

Why not?

Because any educated reader can work out for themselves that if safety limits are only going to be reached with missions lasting a year or more, a 12-day mission is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.

This has been explained to you over and over and over again, and you keep coming back and repeating the same nonsense. Doesn't being wrong repeatedly embarrass you?

Look, one last time. Let me try to explain it with numbers. This table shows the REID (risk of exposure-induced death) for a ONE-YEAR mission in deep space, with various shield types. The safety limit is considered to be 3%.



Aluminium is the least effective of all these shields. Hence the researchers talking about it being not a very good shield for future long missions.

But even at 5g/cm² the REID is only 2.7% for one year: within the safety margin.

The hull of the Apollo CSM was rated at 7-8g/cm². The crew could have stayed in it for a year without breaching safety limits.

Source: three.usra.edu...

We flew humans into deep space, and measured all the radiation...such as GCR, for example.

They ignore it completely, and make ballpark estimates with LEO data, instead!!

originally posted by: turbonium1
We flew humans into deep space, and measured all the radiation...such as GCR, for example.

They ignore it completely, and make ballpark estimates with LEO data, instead!!

Total lies. Read the paper. Tell me what GCR flux model they used and how it was derived.

a reply to: turbonium1

If it's so "ball park" then perhaps you ought not to be relying on it so heavily

Those 'ball park' estimates are based on a wide range of measurements from a 25 year period to produce a model, which was then compared with Space Shuttle data. The focus of that model is specifically aimed at long term exposure, not short term. When you are producing models you need the longest time span available to ensure you have the entire range of data you need. Short term measurements collected on imprecise equipment are not as useful here.

Apollo never flew humans into deep space.

That is the only possible reason the scientists would ever choose to ignore it completely, over and over again.

Any manned mission in the deep space environment would be chosen over LEO guesstimates, and you know it.


Live in denial, if you want. Sad.

.

a reply to: turbonium1

"LEO guesstimates"? Once again, read the paper, tell me where the GCR flux model comes from.

Why do you keep repeating the same rubbish? It's like you are proud of not being able to read.

Look, this paper sums up the situation in the very first paragraph, in language even a school child could understand:

High-energy heavy ions in galactic cosmic rays (GCR) contribute substantially to the dose and dose equivalent in deep space [1]. Because the dose rate from GCR is low, on the order of a few hundred microGray per day, the GCR are not a major concern for short missions such as those undertaken in the Apollo era. However, when future missions take astronauts to the lunar surface for extended periods of time, and possibly to more distant destinations for even longer periods, radiation exposure will be a major concern.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

If it's so "ball park" then perhaps you ought not to be relying on it so heavily

Those 'ball park' estimates are based on a wide range of measurements from a 25 year period to produce a model, which was then compared with Space Shuttle data. The focus of that model is specifically aimed at long term exposure, not short term. When you are producing models you need the longest time span available to ensure you have the entire range of data you need. Short term measurements collected on imprecise equipment are not as useful here.

They don't want the genuine data measured in the actual environment, and extrapolate it over a time span!

No, it's useless.

It's much better to ignore it, and use an entirely different environment, to make estimates for the actual environment we are studying! The one we went in, measured, with humans, and have ignored in our study of that same exact environment!!

Sheesh...

a reply to: turbonium1

I've showed you the Apollo data, and it fits in perfectly with the other data.

Even the highest Apollo radiation readings came in 400 times lower than the mission limit.

As I have just shown, even in a massive SPE event, the Apollo CSM would have kept radiation levels below the safety limits for over one year.

You appear to have been spouting Apollo rubbish on the internet for more than nine years now. Have you really not learnt anything in that time? What a waste.

originally posted by: turbonium1
They don't want the genuine data measured in the actual environment, and extrapolate it over a time span!

No, it's useless.

It's much better to ignore it, and use an entirely different environment, to make estimates for the actual environment we are studying! The one we went in, measured, with humans, and have ignored in our study of that same exact environment!!

Sheesh...

So we've now gone from citing a paper to try and make a point to saying "well I just don't believe it" again.

A model of research data used to predict the behaviour of one shielding material compared with another is not proof that Apollo didn't happen.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

So we've now gone from citing a paper to try and make a point to saying "well I just don't believe it" again.

A model of research data used to predict the behaviour of one shielding material compared with another is not proof that Apollo didn't happen.

But when they ignore Apollo completely, it doesn't exactly boost one's confidence it's real!

Any human mission in that environment would be of great importance in such studies, since we actually did it. No matter how short a stay we did, nothing else compares - to have humans actually be within that environment.

a reply to: turbonium1
Apollo data is not ignored. Have you read the biomedical results data?

And, seeing as you can't exactly cut astronauts up to examine the effects, they also took mice along to examine the effects of cosmic ray exposure. And they found very few significant effects, because the mission was so short! Which is exactly what we have been explaining, over and over again.

a reply to: turbonium1

If you bother to use this amazing thing called 'Google' you'll find lots of papers examining the Apollo radiation data, where it is relevant to do so.

You've cherry picked one that doesn't use it and failed to understand why not.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

If you bother to use this amazing thing called 'Google' you'll find lots of papers examining the Apollo radiation data, where it is relevant to do so.

You've cherry picked one that doesn't use it and failed to understand why not.

I've cited several papers that don't mention the Apollo data. Some of these papers don't even mention Apollo, period! They almost seem to act like Apollo never existed, or completely worthless to even bring it up.

Please cite these papers where Apollo is used, if you could..

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

If you bother to use this amazing thing called 'Google' you'll find lots of papers examining the Apollo radiation data, where it is relevant to do so.

You've cherry picked one that doesn't use it and failed to understand why not.

I've cited several papers that don't mention the Apollo data. Some of these papers don't even mention Apollo, period! They almost seem to act like Apollo never existed, or completely worthless to even bring it up.

Please cite these papers where Apollo is used, if you could..

please explain how studying spending 12 days in space is relevant to studying long term effects in space??

all your own reports are suggesting that 12 days in space has neglible amounts of GCR accumulation.. even if scientists were to cut up a live astronaut (which you seem you want to do) the affected parts would be unnoticeable or inconclusive.

its like trying to study the long term effects of sun-bathing by spending 10mins in the sun.

a reply to: turbonium1

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.webmedcentral.com...

emmrem.unh.edu...

Find any evidence on them that they didn't go to the moon.

ya know its really getting bad , ,,, whenever ya read about any article about space radiation,,,they always mention why it was safe for apollo for such & such reason,,,, whether it has any bearing on that particular article or not ....

originally posted by: Misinformation
ya know its really getting bad , ,,, whenever ya read about any article about space radiation,,,they always mention why it was safe for apollo for such & such reason,,,, whether it has any bearing on that particular article or not ....

So there aren't any articles that say the radiation levels were too high for Apollo astronauts?

Excellent.

btw you need to look at your keyboard - the punctuation keys appear to be sticky.

originally posted by: Misinformation
ya know its really getting bad , ,,, whenever ya read about any article about space radiation,,,they always mention why it was safe for apollo for such & such reason,,,, whether it has any bearing on that particular article or not ....

Whereas turbonium just said:

Some of these papers don't even mention Apollo, period! They almost seem to act like Apollo never existed, or completely worthless to even bring it up.

So, if they don't mention Apollo, it's suspicious, but if they do mention Apollo, it's suspicious?

Your lot really need to get their story straight.

a reply to: Rob48
You really need to get your story straight.

My story is straight ,,, it just moves in curved space....

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: Rob48
You really need to get your story straight.

My story is straight ,,, it just moves in curved space....

and oh boy do your stories move fast. so fast you cant even keep up with them..