ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Scott on June 23, 2016, 01:33:24 PM
-
This article is off-line so I'm going to post the whole thing. Luckily, I'd copied it before it went off-line.
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
--------------------------------------------------------
Did NASA steal $30 Billion to Fake
The Apollo Moon Landings?
Home Paper Moon Page
ARTICLE IN MEDIA BYPASS MAGAZINE, SEPT. 1997
THE VAN ALLEN ENIGMA
By Phylis and James Collier
In the early 1950's, a 35-year-old State University of Iowa physics professor and some of his students were cruising the cold waters ofnorthern Canada and the Atlantic Ocean, sending a series ofrocket-carrying balloons- which they dubbed "rockoons" - 12 to 15 miles into space.
They were trying to measure the nature of low-energy cosmic raysswirling around the earth. The experiments continued for five more years. Then, in 1958,Professor James Van Allen discovered his monster. Suddenly, his instrumentation warned of a giant beast of a thing, spewing enough deadly radiation counts to kill any human who ventured into its domain unprotected.
Van Allen and his students weren't sure of the size, shape and texture of the monster, they just knew they had encountered an incredible phenomenon.
Then, in l958, as part of the International Geophysical Year (a year in which men like James A. Van Allen were praised for exploring the realms of time and space) the young professor asked the U.S. military to send his experiments deeper into space, this time using a Geiger Counter to measure the intensity of the radiation. He further requested the most sophisticated rockets that would penetrate l00,000 miles into space.
That's when the monster grew all encompassing. It appeared to surround the entire earth and extend out some 65,000 miles, maybe even 100,000 miles. The Geiger Counter confirmed that the region above the earth, and in the path of the rocket, was cooking with deadly radiation. That radiation was born from solar flares that would race through the universe and become trapped by the earth's magnetic field. A deadly mixture of protons and electrons.
It was then that Van Allen realized the Aurora Borealis, the northern lights, was actually a visual manifestation of that tremendous energy from the sun. You could actually see the radiation swirling in a magnificent and deadly dance. His eventual finding of two such lethal radiation belts, put his name in the history books as the man who discovered the Van Allen Radiation Belts. There was an inner belt and an outer belt. The inner belt went from 40 degrees north and south of the Equator and was basically a doughnut surrounding the earth. Scientific experiments conducted by Van Allen and the military proved that belt was so deadly that no human could survive in its orbit. The outer belt was equally as destructive, and separated from the inner belt by an area of lesser radiation.
Van Allen's conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959. He warned future space travelers they would have to race through these two zones on their way to outer planets.
"All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.
Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid. It was also in that year that President John F. Kennedy told an assembled group of students and dignitaries at Rice University in Houston, that it was America's destiny to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. With that statement, the space race become a political game, worth 30 billion in taxpayer dollars to the winners. National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), which is part of the Department of Defense and the CIA, became the caretaker of Kennedy's dream.
It was their job to build a spacecraft that would meet Van Allen's scientific requirements of safety through the radiation belts. Van Allen stated that the ship's skin, made of aluminum, would not be enough protection for the astronauts. Extra shielding of lead or another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed. That, of course, posed the problem of weight. More weight created a booster problem. In other words, they would need a bigger rocket to carry a ship that was properly lined against radiation penetration. One of the most interesting of Van Allen's findings was that once protons and electrons hit the aluminum skin of the spacecraft, they would turn into x-rays. The kind the average dentist protects patients against with two inch lead vests. Those rays would naturally penetrate the astronaut's bodies and create anything from nausea and vomiting to eventual death, depending on the length of the exposure.
All of this scientific data presented a big problem for NASA. How could they build a spacecraft that would meet radiation standards and yet get off the ground?
The National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) had established low "permissible doses" of radiation at levels that were consistent with living on earth. However, where the critical dosage on earth might be 5 rems of radiation in a year, the astronauts would receive that amount within minutes passing through the lower zone of the radiation belt.
In order to penetrate Van Allen's belt, in l965 NASA requested the two regulatory groups modify the existing standards for space flight. It was simply a matter of "risk over gain" and NASA convinced them to change the standards and allow them to take the risk. Whether or not future astronauts would be advised of these dramatically lowered standards and substantial risk is unknown at this time.
The next problem NASA faced was the shielding of the spacecraft. It was solved in a report NASA issued in Aerospace Medicine Magazine in 1965 and 1969. The report was written prior to the first Apollo mission to the moon.
NASA announced that a simple aluminum skin on the command module was enough to protect astronauts from lethal doses of radiation. This conclusion was based on studies NASA had conducted. Now NASA had ingeniously solved their two basic problems, protection and weight. They had eliminated the danger of radiation penetration, along with the problem of radiation shielding and spacecraft weight. We telephoned North American Rockwell, the builder of the Command Module which carried the astronauts to the moon and back. They verified that the craft was not protected by any additional shielding.
It was at this point in our research that we realized the Van Allen Report had been seriously compromised by NASA. Professor Van Allen had become an icon in the scientific community for warning of radiation dangers. One of his most important tenets was that even if you raced quickly through the 65,000 mile belt, which starts 400 miles above the earth's surface (thus allowing for inner space travel) you would still need considerable additional shielding. Were his findings now bogus? We had to speak to Van Allen.
Professor James A. Van Allen now 83, is Professor Emeritus in Geophysics at the University of Iowa. Our first question was why he did not speak up after NASA's claims and defend his original findings. Astonishingly, he told us that his seminal Scientific American article
in 1959 was merely "popular science."
"Are you refuting your findings?" we asked.
"Absolutely not," he answered, "I stand by them." In the next breath, Van Allen again acquiesced to NASA's point of view. He became positively mercurial in his answers. Basically he defended NASA's position that any material, even aluminum without shielding, was adequate to protect the astronauts from the radiation he once called deadly. When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said, "It must have been a sloppy statement." So there we were, down the rabbit hole, chasing Van Allen through halls of mirrors. Was he taking the line of least resistance to government pressure? Was he trashing his own report in order not to be labeled a whistle blower? Could this renowned scientist actually be capable of a "sloppy statement" and blatant hyperbole published in a scientific journal?
If you don't believe we went to the moon, then you will say that NASA created the perfect cover story. It allowed them to continue receiving funding for a spacecraft they could not build, to enter a region of space they could not penetrate. If you believe we went to the moon, then you have to disregard Van Allen's years of research and published findings. You would also have to believe that aluminum, and not lead, is adequate protection against radiation in the very heart of the Belt. . .exactly the spot where Apollo rocket ships entered from Cape Canaveral in Florida.
-
Here's some more stuff I've found on space radiation.
http://apollotruth.atspace.co.uk/
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.
Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
http://hugequestions.com/Eric/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9659&hl=apollo
(23 parts)
-
This article is off-line so I'm going to post the whole thing. Luckily, I'd copied it before it went off-line.
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
--------------------------------------------------------
Did NASA steal $30 Billion to Fake
The Apollo Moon Landings?
Home Paper Moon Page
ARTICLE IN MEDIA BYPASS MAGAZINE, SEPT. 1997
THE VAN ALLEN ENIGMA
By Phylis and James Collier
In the early 1950's, a 35-year-old State University of Iowa physics professor and some of his students were cruising the cold waters ofnorthern Canada and the Atlantic Ocean, sending a series ofrocket-carrying balloons- which they dubbed "rockoons" - 12 to 15 miles into space.
They were trying to measure the nature of low-energy cosmic raysswirling around the earth. The experiments continued for five more years. Then, in 1958,Professor James Van Allen discovered his monster. Suddenly, his instrumentation warned of a giant beast of a thing, spewing enough deadly radiation counts to kill any human who ventured into its domain unprotected.
Van Allen and his students weren't sure of the size, shape and texture of the monster, they just knew they had encountered an incredible phenomenon.
Then, in l958, as part of the International Geophysical Year (a year in which men like James A. Van Allen were praised for exploring the realms of time and space) the young professor asked the U.S. military to send his experiments deeper into space, this time using a Geiger Counter to measure the intensity of the radiation. He further requested the most sophisticated rockets that would penetrate l00,000 miles into space.
That's when the monster grew all encompassing. It appeared to surround the entire earth and extend out some 65,000 miles, maybe even 100,000 miles. The Geiger Counter confirmed that the region above the earth, and in the path of the rocket, was cooking with deadly radiation. That radiation was born from solar flares that would race through the universe and become trapped by the earth's magnetic field. A deadly mixture of protons and electrons.
It was then that Van Allen realized the Aurora Borealis, the northern lights, was actually a visual manifestation of that tremendous energy from the sun. You could actually see the radiation swirling in a magnificent and deadly dance. His eventual finding of two such lethal radiation belts, put his name in the history books as the man who discovered the Van Allen Radiation Belts. There was an inner belt and an outer belt. The inner belt went from 40 degrees north and south of the Equator and was basically a doughnut surrounding the earth. Scientific experiments conducted by Van Allen and the military proved that belt was so deadly that no human could survive in its orbit. The outer belt was equally as destructive, and separated from the inner belt by an area of lesser radiation.
Van Allen's conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959. He warned future space travelers they would have to race through these two zones on their way to outer planets.
"All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.
Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid. It was also in that year that President John F. Kennedy told an assembled group of students and dignitaries at Rice University in Houston, that it was America's destiny to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. With that statement, the space race become a political game, worth 30 billion in taxpayer dollars to the winners. National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), which is part of the Department of Defense and the CIA, became the caretaker of Kennedy's dream.
It was their job to build a spacecraft that would meet Van Allen's scientific requirements of safety through the radiation belts. Van Allen stated that the ship's skin, made of aluminum, would not be enough protection for the astronauts. Extra shielding of lead or another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed. That, of course, posed the problem of weight. More weight created a booster problem. In other words, they would need a bigger rocket to carry a ship that was properly lined against radiation penetration. One of the most interesting of Van Allen's findings was that once protons and electrons hit the aluminum skin of the spacecraft, they would turn into x-rays. The kind the average dentist protects patients against with two inch lead vests. Those rays would naturally penetrate the astronaut's bodies and create anything from nausea and vomiting to eventual death, depending on the length of the exposure.
All of this scientific data presented a big problem for NASA. How could they build a spacecraft that would meet radiation standards and yet get off the ground?
The National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) had established low "permissible doses" of radiation at levels that were consistent with living on earth. However, where the critical dosage on earth might be 5 rems of radiation in a year, the astronauts would receive that amount within minutes passing through the lower zone of the radiation belt.
In order to penetrate Van Allen's belt, in l965 NASA requested the two regulatory groups modify the existing standards for space flight. It was simply a matter of "risk over gain" and NASA convinced them to change the standards and allow them to take the risk. Whether or not future astronauts would be advised of these dramatically lowered standards and substantial risk is unknown at this time.
The next problem NASA faced was the shielding of the spacecraft. It was solved in a report NASA issued in Aerospace Medicine Magazine in 1965 and 1969. The report was written prior to the first Apollo mission to the moon.
NASA announced that a simple aluminum skin on the command module was enough to protect astronauts from lethal doses of radiation. This conclusion was based on studies NASA had conducted. Now NASA had ingeniously solved their two basic problems, protection and weight. They had eliminated the danger of radiation penetration, along with the problem of radiation shielding and spacecraft weight. We telephoned North American Rockwell, the builder of the Command Module which carried the astronauts to the moon and back. They verified that the craft was not protected by any additional shielding.
It was at this point in our research that we realized the Van Allen Report had been seriously compromised by NASA. Professor Van Allen had become an icon in the scientific community for warning of radiation dangers. One of his most important tenets was that even if you raced quickly through the 65,000 mile belt, which starts 400 miles above the earth's surface (thus allowing for inner space travel) you would still need considerable additional shielding. Were his findings now bogus? We had to speak to Van Allen.
Professor James A. Van Allen now 83, is Professor Emeritus in Geophysics at the University of Iowa. Our first question was why he did not speak up after NASA's claims and defend his original findings. Astonishingly, he told us that his seminal Scientific American article
in 1959 was merely "popular science."
"Are you refuting your findings?" we asked.
"Absolutely not," he answered, "I stand by them." In the next breath, Van Allen again acquiesced to NASA's point of view. He became positively mercurial in his answers. Basically he defended NASA's position that any material, even aluminum without shielding, was adequate to protect the astronauts from the radiation he once called deadly. When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said, "It must have been a sloppy statement." So there we were, down the rabbit hole, chasing Van Allen through halls of mirrors. Was he taking the line of least resistance to government pressure? Was he trashing his own report in order not to be labeled a whistle blower? Could this renowned scientist actually be capable of a "sloppy statement" and blatant hyperbole published in a scientific journal?
If you don't believe we went to the moon, then you will say that NASA created the perfect cover story. It allowed them to continue receiving funding for a spacecraft they could not build, to enter a region of space they could not penetrate. If you believe we went to the moon, then you have to disregard Van Allen's years of research and published findings. You would also have to believe that aluminum, and not lead, is adequate protection against radiation in the very heart of the Belt. . .exactly the spot where Apollo rocket ships entered from Cape Canaveral in Florida.
To quote a number of pages that debunk your allegations:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=van-allen-letter.gif
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-3885.html
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Space_Math_III.pdf
Calculate the amount of radiation crews received during trips through the lesser dense regions of the VARB.
Your research is poorly lacking in depth.
-
Here's some more stuff I've found on space radiation.
A complicated subject. What are your academic and/or professional qualifications to speak intelligently on the subject? What were Collier's?
-
A complicated subject. What are your academic and/or professional qualifications to speak intelligently on the subject? What were Collier's?
I don't have any but that's no reason for me not to post it so other people can talk about it. I want to see what other people say. Hopefully, a hoax-believer with qualifications will see it and register and comment on it.
Also, we have to remember that the best sophists have qualifications and they use their knowledge to obfuscate.
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
http://cultureofawareness.com/2012/09/26/disinformation-campaign-exposure-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/
I'm mainly going to watch this one. I'll add something if I think I can. A lot of it may just require common sense.
-
...
two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
...
Your link goes nowhere, perhaps you may enlighten us on where your supposed information resides?
I have emailed with [email protected] concerning the aforementioned solar flare data and it is on this site
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/
There are no duplications as Mr Rene suggests.
You do need to do a better job of research, before making such outrages posts.
-
two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is hilarious every time you post it. the far more likely scenario is that they gave him the right data and he ASSUMED it was wrong because it didn't fit the worldview he concocted for himself. There is no evidence otherwise. You've been told this before yet you still copy/past this whole thing everywhere you go. It is stuff like this that makes many people think that you're just a bot.
Are you a real person?
-
Also, we have to remember that the best sophists have qualifications and they use their knowledge to obfuscate.
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
It has been pointed out to you before that YOU fit many of these supposed 25 ways yourself. What do you have to say to that? How do you KNOW they describe a disinformationist and not just any random person on the internet?
http://cultureofawareness.com/2012/09/26/disinformation-campaign-exposure-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/
How do you KNOW this person and their story are real? What have you done to verify any of it?
-
the far more likely scenario is that they gave him the right data and he ASSUMED it was wrong because it didn't fit the worldview he concocted for himself. There is no evidence otherwise.
I'm not posting as proof. It's just something to think about. The proof is in the anomalies such as the flag's moving without having been touched in a way that's perfectly consistent with movement in atmosphere.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=993.0
-
...
two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
...
Your link goes nowhere,
That is because it is the same long copy/pasta that he spams on every forum he goes to and has done so for years. That's why I think he's just a bot. A real poster would have checked the links years ago when it died.
-
...
two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
...
Your link goes nowhere,
That is because it is the same long copy/pasta that he spams on every forum he goes to and has done so for years. That's why I think he's just a bot. A real poster would have checked the links years ago when it died.
Good point.
-
the far more likely scenario is that they gave him the right data and he ASSUMED it was wrong because it didn't fit the worldview he concocted for himself. There is no evidence otherwise.
I'm not posting as proof. It's just something to think about. The proof is in the anomalies such as the flag's moving without having been touched in a way that's perfectly consistent with movement in atmosphere.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=993.0
Just something to think about? It makes me think Rene put as much though into it as you did, None.
and predictably you ignored this
"You've been told this before yet you still copy/past this whole thing everywhere you go. It is stuff like this that makes many people think that you're just a bot.
Are you a real person?"
-
I don't have any...
Then how do you know you're fairly representing your sources and that they're fairly representing the science?
but that's no reason for me not to post it so other people can talk about it.
It's a very good reason. People who say there's something wrong with complex scientific evidence and purport to explain that in farfetched terms of someone else's malfeasance have the duty to show they know what they're talking about. if they cannot, then the first and best explanation is that the evidence was interpreted wrong.
Hopefully, a hoax-believer with qualifications will see it and register and comment on it.
Name someone who has the appropriate qualifications and who believes Apollo is a hoax.
Also, we have to remember that the best sophists have qualifications and they use their knowledge to obfuscate.
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
http://cultureofawareness.com/2012/09/26/disinformation-campaign-exposure-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/
It's a little early to be accusing your critics of being paid disinformationists.
I'm mainly going to watch this one. I'll add something if I think I can.
You're not qualified to contribute to a discussion of space radiation. As the radiation issue is not an issue except among ignorant conspiracy theorists, the matter is essentially closed unless you're willing to participate and defend your sources.
A lot of it may just require common sense.
Or a lot of it could require appropriate knowledge of the applicable sciences, which you don't have.
-
Also, we have to remember that the best sophists have qualifications and they use their knowledge to obfuscate.
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
http://cultureofawareness.com/2012/09/26/disinformation-campaign-exposure-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/
It's a little early to be accusing your critics of being paid disinformationists.
He's just continuing the accusation from the last time he was here and banned.
-
How do you KNOW this person and their story are real? What have you done to verify any of it?
I'm not sure but I want the viewers to know the possibility is there.
It has been pointed out to you before that YOU fit many of these supposed 25 ways yourself. What do you have to say to that?
Go into some detail and we can talk about it.
How do you KNOW they describe a disinformationist and not just any random person on the internet?
Intuition and common sense. I see tactics that only a sophist would use such as trying to bury the part of a debate in which he's checkmanted to reduce the number of viewers who see it instead of simply modifying his or her position.
-
He's just continuing the accusation from the last time he was here and banned.
And will surely be banned again, as LunarOrbit does not tolerate sock puppets for banned posters.
-
I'm not sure...
So you're not above spreading information whose truth you have not investigated?
-
Name someone who has the appropriate qualifications and who believes Apollo is a hoax.
How about this guy?
Lunar rover on the moon. Was it a RC model? (Extended Edition)
-
How do you KNOW this person and their story are real? What have you done to verify any of it?
I'm not sure but I want the viewers to know the possibility is there.
You're not sure yet you copy/paste it as fact any way. Tell me another tall tale.
It has been pointed out to you before that YOU fit many of these supposed 25 ways yourself. What do you have to say to that?
Go into some detail and we can talk about it.
You've been given detail on other forums multiple times and ignored it multiple times. Not worth wasting my time on someone I think is a bot.
How do you KNOW they describe a disinformationist and not just any random person on the internet?
Intuition and common sense. I see tactics that only a sophist would use such as trying to bury the part of a debate in which he's checkmanted to reduce the number of viewers who see it instead of simply modifying his or her position.
So when others use the tactics they are sophists (or rather when they disagree with you) but when you use them (and you do) then you aren't. Hypocrite.
-
How about this guy?
No qualification in space science or astrophysics. No, he's not qualified to discuss radiation.
-
Scott, do you really understand what is written in this article? Do you believe it?
One of the most interesting of Van Allen's findings was that once protons and electrons hit the aluminum skin of the spacecraft, they would turn into x-rays. The kind the average dentist protects patients against with two inch lead vests. Those rays would naturally penetrate the astronaut's bodies and create anything from nausea and vomiting to eventual death, depending on the length of the exposure.
Do you know what dose is required to cause nausea, vomiting and death?
The National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) had established low "permissible doses" of radiation at levels that were consistent with living on earth. However, where the critical dosage on earth might be 5 rems of radiation in a year, the astronauts would receive that amount within minutes passing through the lower zone of the radiation belt.
What is a critical dosage? As a radiation worker employed by a Naval Shipyard I'm permitted to receive up to 5 rem per year of ionizing radiation to my whole body. I normally receive less than a tenth of the legal limit even though I've had to purposely expose myself to up to 9 rem per hour of gamma radiation during the course of my work on nuclear propulsion plants. Time reduction is the key to keeping my exposure low.
In order to penetrate Van Allen's belt, in l965 NASA requested the two regulatory groups modify the existing standards for space flight. It was simply a matter of "risk over gain" and NASA convinced them to change the standards and allow them to take the risk. Whether or not future astronauts would be advised of these dramatically lowered standards and substantial risk is unknown at this time.
Seeing as how dosimeters were carried on the spacecraft, it is very likely the astronauts knew what exposure they were receiving
So exactly what are the radiation levels outside of LEO? How did you determine what they are?
Ranb
-
Scott has been banned as a sock puppet. And I doubt he would have read your post anyway. He has only ever been concerned with people agreeing with him, hence the "credibility tests" where if you don't exactly agree with him then you must be a shill and can be disregarded.
-
Seeing as how dosimeters were carried on the spacecraft, it is very likely the astronauts knew what exposure they were receiving
As part of the crew status report, dosimeter readings were read down a couple times a day.
-
As part of the crew status report, dosimeter readings were read down a couple times a day.
And they're published. The Apollo Experience Report on Protection from Radiation gives numbers up to Apollo 15. They're skin doses in rads:
7 - 0.16
8 - 0.16
9 - 0.20
10 - 0.48
11 - 0.18
12 - 0.58
13 - 0.24
14 - 1.14
15 - 0.30
The numbers for 16 and 17 are probably in their mission reports, or some other document written after this one.
-
16 - 0.51
17 - 0.55
-
I take one week off to go to Glastonbury and I miss some fun!
I have resorted to asking, repeatedly, and so far without any kind of response:
At what point would the astronauts have died? Where in space? What time into the mission?
The hoaxnuts, for all their expertise and depth of knowledge in this topic, don't seem to have an answer.
-
I take one week off to go to Glastonbury and I miss some fun!
I have resorted to asking, repeatedly, and so far without any kind of response:
At what point would the astronauts have died? Where in space? What time into the mission?
The hoaxnuts, for all their expertise and depth of lack of knowledge in this topic, don't seem to have an answer.
FTFY :)
-
The proof is in the anomalies such as the flag's moving without having been touched in a way that's perfectly consistent with movement in atmosphere.
But the proof is also in the host of still photos and videos of the EVAs, none of which show ANY other sign of atmosphere - no dust, airborne particulates, nothing blowing in front of the lens, no weather, no wind, etc.
-
You're wasting your time. Scott is banned; he was a sock-puppet of Ricky/DavidC/FatFreddy88/etc.
By his own criteria, he is a disinformation agent anyway (sometime I'll post a summary laying out all the reasons why) as well as a big fat hypocrite. He's also a self-demonstrated liar, since he deliberately agreed to the forum rules in order to break them to register his latest sock-puppet.
Just in case he's reading this:
Don't whine about it, rocky; those are your criteria. It's your own fault, and no one else's, that you have demonstrated yourself to be a liar, hypocrite, and disinformation agent.
By the way, since you said you live in Madrid, why don't you go over to the Madrid Tracking Station, or see some of those Spanish researchers whose work on the Van Allen belts I cited for you? Oh, that's right: you're not only a liar and a hypocrite, you're a coward as well.
-
I realize that Scott is long gone, but I's still like to respond to the James Collier article in the opening post.
Van Allen's conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959. He warned future space travelers they would have to race through these two zones on their way to outer planets.
And racing through these two zones was exactly what Apollo did.
"All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said.
And that is exactly what happened, they steered clear of the belts until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts had been developed. Furthermore, Dr. Van Allen's quote is taken out of context. He was not referring to a rapid transit through the radiation belts. Dr. Van Allen was specifically discussing two missions (Vanguard I and Sputnik III) that each spend two years orbiting through this region of space. His warning was in reference to the integrated radiation exposure from these long duration missions. Nothing in his statements preclude the possibility of an Apollo-style mission.
Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself.
Dr. Van Allen's writings cite exposure levels behind shielding meeting "minimum structural considerations for space vehicles." Apollo was shielded well beyond the minimum structural considerations to which Dr. Allen was referring.
National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), which is part of the Department of Defense and the CIA
False.
It was their job to build a spacecraft that would meet Van Allen's scientific requirements of safety through the radiation belts. Van Allen stated that the ship's skin, made of aluminum, would not be enough protection for the astronauts.
Yes, Apollo's aluminum skin would not be enough.
Extra shielding of lead or another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed.
To my knowledge, neither Dr. Van Allen nor anyone else proposed the use of lead. The extra shielding was provided by the spacecraft's thermal protection system. This consisted off a stainless steel structural hull, to which was adhered an ablative phenolic resin. Although the primary function of this material was to protect the spacecraft and astronauts against reentry heat, it also doubled as radiation shielding. Between the aluminum hull, the stainless steel hull, and the ablative heat shield, it was found that enough radiation shielding was present that nothing more had to be added.
That, of course, posed the problem of weight. More weight created a booster problem. In other words, they would need a bigger rocket to carry a ship that was properly lined against radiation penetration.
But not an insurmountable problem. The final weight of the shielded spacecraft was within the launch capacity of the Saturn V booster.
One of the most interesting of Van Allen's findings was that once protons and electrons hit the aluminum skin of the spacecraft, they would turn into x-rays.
Actually, the overwhelming majority of protons and electrons were be stopped by the ablative heat shield, with most of the remainder being stopped by the stainless steel hull. The aluminum hull provided a good shield for the x-rays that were produced in the outer layers of the hull.
The kind the average dentist protects patients against with two inch lead vests.
First, not the kind that the average dentist protects against. Medical x-rays are of higher energy and are more penetrating than the x-rays produced in the spacecraft hull. Second, two inches? Seriously? A dental x-ray apron has the standard protection of 0.3 mm lead equivalency. Furthermore, the lead apron that a dentist uses is as much about covering the dentist's arse as it is about covering the patient. Since the dentist does not know what other x-rays or radiation exposure the patient made have recently had, the vest is a safeguard against accumulative exposure.
Those rays would naturally penetrate the astronaut's bodies and create anything from nausea and vomiting to eventual death, depending on the length of the exposure.
No, the secondary x-rays produced were predominately soft x-rays, which would not penetrate deeply and cause the type of illness described. More importantly, the multi-layered hull provided enough shielding that an insignificant number of x-rays would even penetrate it.
All of this scientific data presented a big problem for NASA. How could they build a spacecraft that would meet radiation standards and yet get off the ground?
Just look at Apollo and you have your answer.
However, where the critical dosage on earth might be 5 rems of radiation in a year, the astronauts would receive that amount within minutes passing through the lower zone of the radiation belt.
Nope. For all but one mission, the astronauts received less than 1 rem for the entirety of a mission.
NASA announced that a simple aluminum skin on the command module was enough to protect astronauts from lethal doses of radiation.
Nope. The complete spacecraft hull was enough to protect the astronauts from lethal doses of radiation. The aluminum skin is only one small component of a thick multi-layered construction.
They verified that the craft was not protected by any additional shielding.
It wasn't protected by any specialized radiation shielding beyond the hull, but it was most definitely protected well beyond just the aluminum skin that formed part of the inner pressure hull.
It was at this point in our research that we realized the Van Allen Report had been seriously compromised by NASA.
That's your perception because you are an uninformed ignoramus. All the safeguards employed by NASA were completely consistent with the recommendations made by Dr. Van Allen.
One of his most important tenets was that even if you raced quickly through the 65,000 mile belt, which starts 400 miles above the earth's surface (thus allowing for inner space travel) you would still need considerable additional shielding. Were his findings now bogus?
Dr. Van Allen's finding were not at all bogus. The spacecraft was adequately shielded as Dr. Van Allen said it would have to be.
If you believe we went to the moon, then you have to disregard Van Allen's years of research and published findings.
Nope. NASA's solutions to the radiation problem were entirely consistent with Dr. Van Allen's research and published findings.
You would also have to believe that aluminum, and not lead, is adequate protection against radiation in the very heart of the Belt.
You're right about the lead part, that is not a proper material to shield against particle radiation. As for what is adequate protection, a multi-layered construction consisting of an aluminum honeycomb bonded between two aluminum face sheets, a stainless steel honeycomb bonded between two stainless steel face sheets, and a layer of phenolic epoxy resin ranging from 1/2" and 2 1/2" thick would do the job. Furthermore, Apollo didn't get anywhere near "the very heart of the Belt." The radiation exposure along the trajectories flown by Apollo were <5% of what they would be had they flown through the heart of the belts.
-
I realize that Scott is long gone, but I's still like to respond to the James Collier article in the opening post.
And that is exactly what happened, they steered clear of the belts until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts had been developed. Furthermore, Dr. Van Allen's quote is taken out of context. He was not referring to a rapid transit through the radiation belts. Dr. Van Allen was specifically discussing two missions (Vanguard I and Sputnik III) that each spend two years orbiting through this region of space. His warning was in reference to the integrated radiation exposure from these long duration missions. Nothing in his statements preclude the possibility of an Apollo-style mission.
In addition there was a proposed space station that orbited at 1000 miles from Dr. Von Braun.
-
Whenever anybody says you need lead to shield against radiation in space, they immediately reveal that they know very little about radiation in space.
-
Whenever anybody says you need lead to shield against radiation in space, they immediately reveal that they know very little about radiation in space.
Yeah, one word: Bremsstrahlung. A very big word, but even I know lead is not the right stuff for the particle radiation Apollo would face going through the dose.
-
Whenever anybody says you need lead to shield against radiation in space, they immediately reveal that they know very little about radiation in space.
One of the most exasperating aspects of the 'lead shielding' argument is how the CTs choose and pick their argument and demonstrate how little they know about radiation full stop. One issue that has arisen in the ISS is the trade off between using polymers and aluminium to offer structural integrity while ensuring astronauts are kept within their exposure limits.
Aluminium shielding makes the shielding of GCR more problematic than polymers as GCR interact with the aluminium nuclei of greater charge more easily than those in polymer based. This interaction causes GCR to fragment which leads to greater exposed dose (if I recall this is due to exotic matter being formed, which has a greater equivalent dose). The thicker the aluminium shileding, the more fragmentation of GCR. The CTs use this an argument against the use of aluminium in Apollo, citing that aluminium presents a greater problem. Lead, with a much greater atomic number, makes the fragmentation problem much greater so is an even poorer choice of material.
Of course, there is the small issue that GCR on a short mission to the moon are not as problematic as a shock driven CME event. The aluminium/lead argument in this case is moot as comparing the shielding regimes for Apollo and the ISS are apples and pears. Fragmentation of GCR, while I wouldoccur, is simply no an issue when one considers exposure over 14 days.
The other real issue for Apollo was X-ray bremsstrahlung in the van Allen belts, not fragmentation of high energy nuclei, so using a material with a low Z is the obvious option. But we know this.
-
I had to look up GCR, new one for me. More of a problem for Orion, then?
-
GCR is a potential problem for any long space trip. It could be ignored during Apollo because the missions were so short, but the accumulated dose over time could be a problem. It's continuous at a low level but cannot be practically shielded.
The bigger problem is probably still CMEs -- coronal mass ejections. These are rare and only somewhat predictable, but a severe one can give you acute radiation sickness if it hits you. Some sort of "storm cellar" seems appropriate here. On a surface, like Mars or the Moon, some sort of underground shelter seems like your best bet. In space, you have limited mass for shielding so you have to do the best with what you have, especially water, fuels and plastics, all of which have lots of hydrogen.
-
CME's occur approximately 6 times per year still? Or has the Sun's activity increased the average rate?
-
I realize that Scott is long gone, but I's still like to respond to the James Collier article in the opening post.
And that is exactly what happened, they steered clear of the belts until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts had been developed. Furthermore, Dr. Van Allen's quote is taken out of context. He was not referring to a rapid transit through the radiation belts. Dr. Van Allen was specifically discussing two missions (Vanguard I and Sputnik III) that each spend two years orbiting through this region of space. His warning was in reference to the integrated radiation exposure from these long duration missions. Nothing in his statements preclude the possibility of an Apollo-style mission.
In addition there was a proposed space station that orbited at 1000 miles from Dr. Von Braun.
I was unaware he had such gravity.
-
The bigger problem is probably still CMEs -- coronal mass ejections. These are rare and only somewhat predictable, but a severe one can give you acute radiation sickness if it hits you.
Be a bit careful when talking about CMEs as being rare. CMEs are not rare and occur quite frequently. A large proportion of CMEs produce protons with speeds that are comparable to the solar wind, so from a radiation protection point of view, while huge quantities of matter are produced, the energies involved pose little problem from a shielding point of view.
Shock driven CMEs, the type that cause solar proton events are rarer events, many of these are known as partial-halo events, where Earth-CME alignment means we catch the edge of a shock driven event and an SPE is registered at Earth.
CMEs that cause the massive solar storms, such at the type observed in August 1972 or the Halloween storm, are caused by halo-CMEs, these are indeed rare.
To claim that CMEs are rare leaves a door open to the CTs, and the inevitable 'we can't get a story straight' accusations.
-
...GCR...
I, too, had to look up GCR. Please, could we always give the definitions of the less-common abbreviations we use – at least for the first time in a thread or perhaps after a long gap? Not doing so has often been criticised by opponents of forums like ours as elitist, thoughtless and pompous.
GCR =
Galactic Cosmic Ray/Radiation
Galactic Cosmic Rays
Gas Cost Rate
Gas Cost Recovery
Gas-Cooled Reactor
Gateway for Cancer Research (Illinois)
General Cargo Rates (shipping)
General College Requirements (various locations)
General Competition Rules
General Conformity Rule
General Counsel Roundtable (Corporate Executive Board)
Generalized Cambridge Ring (semiconductors)
Generalized Conjugate Residual
Geological Characterization Report
Geological Conservation Review (UK)
Geometric Constraints and Reasoning (various schools)
Gérald Construction Rénovation (French: Gerald Building Construction)
Gestion Comptabilité Révision (French: Accounting Management Review)
Ghost Cancelling Reference
Gibbons Creek Reservoir (College Station, TX)
Global Call Register
Global Competition Review (website)
Global Competitiveness Report
Global Confidence Region
Global Corruption Report
Global Currency Reset
Glucocorticoid Receptor (molecular biology)
Godvicienne Carreleurs Réunis (French flooring company)
Good Charamel Records (record label)
Good Conduct Ribbon (military award)
Graduate Common Room (Christ Church; UK)
Graduate Council Representative (various schools)
Grand Calumet River
Grand Canyon Railway
Grand Circuit du Roussillon (French: Grand Tour of Roussillon; Roussillon, France)
Gravity Condensate Return
Gray Component Replacement (printing inks)
Great Canadian Rebates (Canada)
Great Central Railway (UK)
Greater China Region
Greedy Column Re-Routing
Gregory C. Rigamer & Associates, Inc (New Orleans, LA)
Gripo Colaboradores de Revisión (Spanish)
Ground Controlled Radar
Ground Cover Ratio (photovoltaic system)
Group Call Register
Group Code Recording
Group Coded Recording
Groupement des Concessionnaires Renault (French: Renault Dealers Grouping)
Gruson Construction Rénovation (French: Gruson Building Construction)
Guaranteed Capacity Rate (air cargo industry)
Guitar Center Radio
Gulf Coast Region
Gulf Coast Repository
-
The bigger problem is probably still CMEs -- coronal mass ejections. These are rare and only somewhat predictable, but a severe one can give you acute radiation sickness if it hits you.
Be a bit careful when talking about CMEs as being rare.
Point taken. I meant the really powerful, shock-driven ones that actually hit you and cause problems. The earth-moon system is pretty big, but it occupies a tiny fraction of the sphere surrounding the sun. Most will miss.
It's hard to fathom the energies involved here, especially when you consider that the "surface" gravity on the sun is 28 g!
-
I realize that Scott is long gone, but I's still like to respond to the James Collier article in the opening post.
And that is exactly what happened, they steered clear of the belts until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts had been developed. Furthermore, Dr. Van Allen's quote is taken out of context. He was not referring to a rapid transit through the radiation belts. Dr. Van Allen was specifically discussing two missions (Vanguard I and Sputnik III) that each spend two years orbiting through this region of space. His warning was in reference to the integrated radiation exposure from these long duration missions. Nothing in his statements preclude the possibility of an Apollo-style mission.
In addition there was a proposed space station that orbited at 1000 miles from Dr. Von Braun.
I was unaware he had such gravity.
Tongue in cheek, LOL as he proposed a space station at 1000 miles. :) IIRC it was on a Disney program, concerning space exploration.
-
Point taken. I meant the really powerful, shock-driven ones that actually hit you and cause problems.
That's what I usually mean too, without forgetting that lesser-magnitude events occur. The engineering mentality, I guess, are that those are the ones that you worry about; the rest is just weather.
-
This discussion reminds me of the question which Luke answered
720802 72075 0316-0451 13 -35 1B 11976 32322 12
720802 72075 0505-0800 14 -34 SN 11976 32322 12
720802 72076 1838-1859 14 -26 1B 11976 21200 5?
720802 72077 1958-2355 13 -27 2B 11976 22333 13
The flares occurred during the 1972 solar storm, but these data describe the duration of H-alpha prominences, areas of the sun where filament heating occurs. The coding 1B, SN, and 2B describe the 'magnitude' of the prominence. I'd have to go digging in the loft for a text, but if I recall the number pertains to the brightness of the prominence and the letter pertains to the area of the prominence. It is quite a subjective classification. SN, I'm fairly sure, means it is too minor to classify. The number goes up as far as 4, which is the brightest prominence. The third set of numbers describe the duration of the prominence. This time does not represent the time of a solar flare, it represents the duration of the flare developing from initial heating to the final connection of the magnetic field. The final connection period is where the flare produces soft x-rays over a duration, typically measured in seconds.
The solar storm that occurred at the same time was created by a shock driven CME, and such events are accompanied by active regions of the sun showing H-alpha prominences. However, an H-alpha prominence does not always correlate with a shock driven CME. In other words, shock driven CMEs are usually a result of rearrangement of the solar magnetic field and ejection of plasma, where regions of the sun become H-alpha active. Regions of the sun can also become H-alpha active, but there is no large scale rearrangement of the magnetic field.
Ok if this is the H-alpha data, where in the data would I find the shock driven CM's?
Here is the link to the data I initially queried. I assume that shock driven CME's would be in a relative similar location.
-
This discussion reminds me of the question which Luke answered
720802 72075 0316-0451 13 -35 1B 11976 32322 12
720802 72075 0505-0800 14 -34 SN 11976 32322 12
720802 72076 1838-1859 14 -26 1B 11976 21200 5?
720802 72077 1958-2355 13 -27 2B 11976 22333 13
The flares occurred during the 1972 solar storm, but these data describe the duration of H-alpha prominences, areas of the sun where filament heating occurs. The coding 1B, SN, and 2B describe the 'magnitude' of the prominence. I'd have to go digging in the loft for a text, but if I recall the number pertains to the brightness of the prominence and the letter pertains to the area of the prominence. It is quite a subjective classification. SN, I'm fairly sure, means it is too minor to classify. The number goes up as far as 4, which is the brightest prominence. The third set of numbers describe the duration of the prominence. This time does not represent the time of a solar flare, it represents the duration of the flare developing from initial heating to the final connection of the magnetic field. The final connection period is where the flare produces soft x-rays over a duration, typically measured in seconds.
The solar storm that occurred at the same time was created by a shock driven CME, and such events are accompanied by active regions of the sun showing H-alpha prominences. However, an H-alpha prominence does not always correlate with a shock driven CME. In other words, shock driven CMEs are usually a result of rearrangement of the solar magnetic field and ejection of plasma, where regions of the sun become H-alpha active. Regions of the sun can also become H-alpha active, but there is no large scale rearrangement of the magnetic field.
Ok if this is the H-alpha data, where in the data would I find the shock driven CME's?
Here is the link to the data I initially queried. I assume that shock driven CME's would be in a relative similar location. ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_FLARES/FLARES_IN?DEX/McMath/CFI55_80.TXT
-
Ok if this is the H-alpha data, where in the data would I find the shock driven CM's?
You don't, there's nothing in the data to point to SPE events as the data does not describe proton data, it describes the prominence of the H-alpha line and radio wave characteristics during a solar flare (a localised event). Entrance stage left - Jay and the great IMDb debate.
There is research that correlates the significance of H-alpha with an SPE, and shows that a greater H-alpha prominence means a higher probability of an SPE. However, an SPE is no indicative of a shock driven halo-CME. SPE is simply a definition that relates to a higher proton flux. In other words, not all SPEs are halo-CMEs. In fact some SPEs are quite minor, and simply weather.
-
It's hard to fathom the energies involved here, especially when you consider that the "surface" gravity on the sun is 28 g!
Which I always think is quite small for something that size. Why do numbers in physics just never seem to add up to expectations?
-
Ok if this is the H-alpha data, where in the data would I find the shock driven CM's?
You don't, there's nothing in the data to point to SPE events as the data does not describe proton data, it describes the prominence of the H-alpha line and radio wave characteristics during a solar flare (a localised event). Entrance stage left - Jay and the great IMDb debate.
There is research that correlates the significance of H-alpha with an SPE, and shows that a greater H-alpha prominence means a higher probability of an SPE. However, an SPE is no indicative of a shock driven halo-CME. SPE is simply a definition that relates to a higher proton flux. In other words, not all SPEs are halo-CMEs. In fact some SPEs are quite minor, and simply weather.
OK, I re-read the whole tread after posting, and you indicated that no space pre 1976 data was recorded, so the Aug 1972 event was measured here on Earth somewhere. I think the last two sentences sum up an answer to my initial intent.
-
It's hard to fathom the energies involved here, especially when you consider that the "surface" gravity on the sun is 28 g!
Which I always think is quite small for something that size. Why do numbers in physics just never seem to add up to expectations?
Well, it's size or, rather, density, has something to do with it. Saturn's "surface" gravity is only 0.633 m/s² more than Earth's despite having 95 times the mass.
-
It's hard to fathom the energies involved here, especially when you consider that the "surface" gravity on the sun is 28 g!
Which I always think is quite small for something that size. Why do numbers in physics just never seem to add up to expectations?
Well, it's size or, rather, density, has something to do with it. Saturn's "surface" gravity is only 0.633 m/s² more than Earth's despite having 95 times the mass.
I understand how to calculate g :). It's the dependence of g with mass and radius. Physics is sometimes counterintuitive, Saturn is another good example.
-
Saturn will also float in the sea.
-
Saturn will also float in the sea.
Very big and deep sea!
-
Saturn will also float in the sea.
Great fact.
-
Don't use the bathtub, tho ....it will leave a ring.
-
Don't use the bathtub, tho ....it will leave a ring.
Very cute. :)
-
The real question is, what would Uranus leave?
-
Saturn will also float in the sea.
Very big and deep sea!
A sea that big would have so much gravity that Saturn would be doooooomed! :o
-
You could do it on Ringworld. ;)
-
The interesting thing about planetary gravities in the solar system is how there are only two discrete values, plus Jupiter as an outlier.
Venus, Earth, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are all about 1g, +/- 15% or so. Mars and Mercury are around 1/3 g. Jupiter is the outlier at 2.5g.
-
Erm, yeah, but how arbitrary is that "surface" definition for the gas giants? Do any of them have a distinct edge or is it more the zone where the average of material in one particular phase is larger (by mass? by volume?) than the other?
-
Was Jupiter a "solar twin" that didn't get enough hydrogen to start fusion?
-
Was Jupiter a "solar twin" that didn't get enough hydrogen to start fusion?
Not by a very long way, even a brown dwarf is something like ten times Jupiter's mass
-
The "surface" of a gas (actually fluid) giant is variously considered to be at the cloud tops, the 1-bar pressure level, or the level where the optical depth reaches unity. These aren't the same, but it doesn't really matter much for our purposes since the "surface" gravity is probably very close to the maximum gravity you'd experience as you descend into a planet. Remember that inside a spherically symmetric planet the gravity of the shell of material above you cancels out so you only see that gravity exerted by all the material closer to the planet's center than you are.
It can still increase somewhat with depth (as it does on earth) when the center of the planet is much more massive than the outer layers.
-
There was a comment at CosmoQuest considering what the core will be, if any.
-
And if I recall correctly, the density/pressure profile is not your friend. By the time you "floated" on a liquid surface, atmospheric pressure will have crushed you.
That nice relationship of mass versus distance from (putative) center of mass also leads to the paradox of small planets (like Mars) having a higher surface gravity than one might intuit.
-
Well, being a terrestrial planet Mars is a lot denser than your typical gas giant. 3.9 vs 1.3 for Jupiter, and (famously) 0.687 for Saturn.
Given such a low average density, you'd have to sink pretty far into Jupiter's atmosphere before you'd float. And that's assuming your own density doesn't increase as well, which it almost certainly would.
A while ago I got curious about whether a gas balloon (as opposed to a hot-air balloon) could work on Jupiter. Although most of its atmosphere is hydrogen, a substantial fraction (24%) of its mass is helium, so a balloon containing pure hydrogen could still float. I found that for reasonable balloons and payloads you'd have to operate well below the cloud decks at the 5-6 bar level (IIRC), and that wouldn't be very scientifically interesting. It would also be pretty dark.
The hot air balloons that have been proposed could operate above the clouds in the <1 bar region.
-
With no significant free oxygen as far as combustion is concerned, you could have a hot hydrogen balloon on Jupiter and other gas giants as well as on Venus, an absolutely terrifying concept on Earth but practical there.
-
A little late now but still worthy of note, a very early article in "Time" magazine about the Van Allen Belts (12 May 1958) which has a final comment that some hoax-believers seem to have missed:
"The crew of an outbound spaceship need not worry about the radiation belt. If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes."
Time, Monday 12 May 1958
Science: Radiation Belt
Space near the earth is not as beset with micrometeorites as some space pessimists have feared. During last week's Washington meeting of the American Physical Society, Drs. Edward Manring and Maurice Dubin of the Air Force Cambridge Research Center told about the experiences of the Army's satellite Explorer I, which carries two meteorite detectors. One of them, a microphone that picks up the slight vibrations in the satellite's shell that are caused by the smallest dust particles, registered only seven hits during the 120 minutes that the transmitter could be heard. The other detector, a set of delicate coils designed to be damaged electrically by meteorites at least 10 microns (1/2500 in.) in diameter, showed no more than one hit (possibly none) in 32 days. The satellite was not damaged, and Manring and Dubin conclude that only long exposure to this concentration of micrometeorites would do it any harm.
Choked Tubes
Less reassuring news came from a team of cosmic ray experts at the State University of Iowa headed by Dr. James A. Van Allen. Both Explorer I and Explorer III, said Van Allen, ran into a belt of intense radiation at about 600 miles elevation. Each of the satellites carries a single Geiger tube to count cosmic rays. The radio transmitter of Explorer I sends a signal whenever the tube has made 128 counts. Explorer III has a magnetic tape that records the tube's counts during each circuit of the earth and reports to a ground station.
When the Explorers' orbits were carrying them near the earth, they both reported reasonable numbers of cosmic rays, around 30 per second, but as they climbed up toward their apogees the count came faster. At 1,100 kilometers (684 miles) the tubes registered as high as 140 counts per second. Then a strange thing happened. As the satellites climbed even higher, the transmitters reported no rays at all. During orbit after orbit the counter of Explorer III was silent for 15 minutes. When the satellites swung down again to lower levels, they resumed reporting reasonable numbers of cosmic rays.
Van Allen was sure that no ray-free belt could exist between the earth and space. The only reasonable explanation, he decided, was that the silenced Geiger tubes had been knocked out temporarily by radiation too intense for them to handle. So he subjected a spare tube to X-ray bombardment in the laboratory. After studying its behavior, he decided that the tubes carried by the satellites must have passed through radiation equivalent to 35,000 counts per second, but were so choked up that they could not report their experience.
Plasma from the Sun
The radiation belt, Van Allen conjectured, is probably a "plasma" made of disassociated hydrogen atoms (protons and electrons) that came originally from the sun and are held high above the earth by the earth's magnetic field. The belt may extend outward for two earth radii (8,000) miles before it disappears. Van Allen suspects that the supply of plasma fluctuates a good deal; the particles tend to leak down to the earth's atmosphere and are replenished from time to time by fresh particles shot into space by disturbances on the sun.
The radiation zone is by no means a "death belt" that will keep humans from reaching space, but it might do some damage to men who live for a long time in a satellite. Van Allen figured that the radiation level inside the satellite might reach about 0.06 roentgens per hour. At this rate a man would receive in five hours his maximum weekly permissible dose of 0.3 roentgens. A small amount of lead shielding would reduce the dose to a supportable level. The crew of an outbound spaceship need not worry about the radiation belt. If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes.
-
A little late now but still worthy of note, a very early article in "Time" magazine about the Van Allen Belts (12 May 1958) which has a final comment that some hoax-believers seem to have missed:
"The crew of an outbound spaceship need not worry about the radiation belt. If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes."
Time, Monday 12 May 1958
Science: Radiation Belt
...
Plasma from the Sun
The radiation belt, Van Allen conjectured, is probably a "plasma" made of disassociated hydrogen atoms (protons and electrons) that came originally from the sun and are held high above the earth by the earth's magnetic field. The belt may extend outward for two earth radii (8,000) miles before it disappears. Van Allen suspects that the supply of plasma fluctuates a good deal; the particles tend to leak down to the earth's atmosphere and are replenished from time to time by fresh particles shot into space by disturbances on the sun.
The radiation zone is by no means a "death belt" that will keep humans from reaching space, but it might do some damage to men who live for a long time in a satellite. Van Allen figured that the radiation level inside the satellite might reach about 0.06 roentgens per hour. At this rate a man would receive in five hours his maximum weekly permissible dose of 0.3 roentgens. A small amount of lead shielding would reduce the dose to a supportable level. The crew of an outbound spaceship need not worry about the radiation belt. If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes.
Which as you know that Apollo traveled these trajectories. :) Too bad the hoaxers don't really study their claims very well. Very nice information. It is never too late for good information.
-
Ah, so "they" simply "got to" Van Allen even earlier than we thought!
-
With no significant free oxygen as far as combustion is concerned, you could have a hot hydrogen balloon on Jupiter and other gas giants as well as on Venus, an absolutely terrifying concept on Earth but practical there.
The problem with a pure hydrogen balloon on Jupiter is that you'd either have to carry the hydrogen all the way from earth, which would be expensive when you consider how hard it is to contain in a small volume for long periods of time, or you'd have to figure out how to extract it from the helium and other things it's mixed with in the Jovian atmosphere.
There's nothing wrong with even hot hydrogen in balloons on Earth as long as you keep it from mixing with (much) oxygen. We use hydrogen to fly high altitude balloon payloads, and I've never heard of anybody having an accident with it. It's even mixed with oxygen in some deep sea diving work, below depths where the O2 fraction can be kept below about 4% without suffocating the diver. That's the explosive limit.
-
Ah, so "they" simply "got to" Van Allen even earlier than we thought!
The long arm of NASA's money and power wins again. Everyone is a shill.
-
Ah, so "they" simply "got to" Van Allen even earlier than we thought!
The long arm of NASA's money and power wins again. Everyone is a shill.
NASA must have time travel, that piece pre-dates them.
-
All scientists "lie" concerning NASA, from fear of losing money, reputation, job, accreditation, and life, or so many hoaxers respond when asked to cite any that have written a report that would cast dispersions on the Apollo program.
-
Ah, so "they" simply "got to" Van Allen even earlier than we thought!
The long arm of NASA's money and power wins again. Everyone is a shill.
NASA must have time travel, that piece pre-dates them.
Of course. Remember, NASA can do ANYTHING.
Except put a man on the moon.
-
Of course. Remember, NASA can do ANYTHING.
Except put a man on the moon.
An elegant point made about the fantastical story that the CTs want us to believe.
-
Of course. Remember, NASA can do ANYTHING.
Except put a man on the moon.
An elegant point made about the fantastical story that the CTs want us to believe.
You know it might be nice for NASA to include some higher resolution cameras on the EM-2 mission, taking some better images of the landing sites. That may stop a few of the nonsense views.
-
Not when they will claim that the equipment seen was flown to the moon decades later.
-
Not when they will claim that the equipment seen was flown to the moon decades later.
I think most of them would just reject the photographs. There are well over ten thousand outstanding quality photographs of just about every single piece of equipment left on the moon taken from mere feet away from right there on the surface. Thousands of pictures. There will very likely never be a better quality photograph taken of any of the Apollo remnants than any one of the thousands that already exist, and these photographs are dismissed as fakes on no basis other than it contradicts their conclusions that the missions were faked. Their axiom is their conclusion that it was faked. Any and all information is compared against that, and if it contradicts it, then it necessarily must be fake. There is no reason to expect them to not use the same logic to dismiss a few more pictures that will be inferior to the thousands that already exist.
-
Not when they will claim that the equipment seen was flown to the moon decades later.
When was not the issue I referred, but where what. The LRO images proved the missions were accomplished, yet the hoaxers claimed Photoshop, starting with hunchbacked IIRC. These images broadcast live would be harder to claim fakery, not ruling the claim out completely.
-
The only proof they will accept is if one of their own fly to moon, survive the deadly sea of radiation and affirm the presence of the hardware. We know that, as one of them is trying to raise money to fly themselves to the moon to provide the definitive and final proof of the landings' authenticity.
Even then, there will be those that claim the arbitrators of truth have been bought by NASA, as everyone has their price.
-
The only proof they will accept is if one of their own fly to moon, survive the deadly sea of radiation and affirm the presence of the hardware. We know that, as one of them is trying to raise money to fly themselves to the moon to provide the definitive and final proof of the landings' authenticity.
Even then, there will be those that claim the arbitrators of truth have been bought by NASA, as everyone has their price.
Like he is going to get sufficient funds to ride a rocket. He has the personality skills of a slug.
-
Not when they will claim that the equipment seen was flown to the moon decades later.
Apollo hardware was spotted from orbit during the missions, as well as of activity over the duration of the missions, but obviously NASA, evil bad guys, etc etc..
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/pancam/pancam.html
-
obm, you are absolutely amazing, I visited your web page and looked at the panoramic images and I can't find the LM(s) except where you have zoomed in quite tight.
-
The only proof they will accept is if one of their own fly to moon, survive the deadly sea of radiation and affirm the presence of the hardware.
I doubt any of the leftover Hoaxpreachers would ever admit that they were wrong for years.
Pick one or more of the following
[ ] the one who made the trip was bribed or threatened to lie (as you already noted)
[ ] the one who made the trip was hypnotized or fooled in some other way (can even be used by the one who made the trip)
[ ] it works now but not then
[ ] the relics were brought were later
[ ] the NASA was using secret technology (Area51 ... UFO....)
-
The only proof they will accept is if one of their own fly to moon, survive the deadly sea of radiation and affirm the presence of the hardware.
I doubt any of the leftover Hoaxpreachers would ever admit that they were wrong for years.
Pick one or more of the following
[ ] the one who made the trip was bribed or threatened to lie (as you already noted)
[ ] the one who made the trip was hypnotized or fooled in some other way (can even be used by the one who made the trip)
[ ] it works now but not then
[ ] the relics were brought were later
[ ] the NASA was using secret technology (Area51 ... UFO....)
All of the above. ::)