Here it is in a nutshell! Maybe I will be booted from this forum for saying something like this, but I don't care.
Gamma ray bursts come at this planet from every direction in space every second of every day. A typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10-billion-year lifetime) and extremely rare (a few per galaxy per million years[1]). That's from Wikipedia.
Galactic cosmic rays come at this planet every second of every day from every direction in space. The health threat from cosmic rays is the danger posed by galactic cosmic rays and solar energetic particles to astronauts on interplanetary missions. Galactic cosmic rays consist of high energy protons and other nuclei with extrasolar origin. Solar energetic particles consist primarily of protons accelerated by the sun to high energies via proximity to solar flares and coronal mass ejections. They are one of the most important barriers standing in the way of plans for interplanetary travel by crewed spacecraft. That's from Wikipedia.
Solar flares happen about twice a week. There is a catalogue of LDE flares from 1969 to 1987. It's from NASA and it shows that there are about 2 solar flares a week. A solar flare is a sudden brightening observed over the Sun surface or the solar limb, which is interpreted as a large energy release of up to 6 × 1025 joules of energy[1] (about a sixth of the total energy output of the Sun each second). That's also from Wikipedia.
The solar winds. The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 1.5 and 10 keV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed over time. These particles can escape the Sun's gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the corona.
The solar wind creates the heliosphere, a vast bubble in the interstellar medium that surrounds the Solar System. Other phenomena include geomagnetic storms that can knock out power grids on Earth, the aurorae (northern and southern lights), and the plasma tails of comets that always point away from the Sun.
I believe that gamma ray bursts, galactic cosmic rays, solar flares and the solar winds would have made manned missions to the moon impossible given the technology at the time.
I know. How dare I? Because the information is out there for anyone with an IQ over 75 to understand the basic science of space. From what I gather, the energies in space are too lethal for the apollo spacecraft to have gone to the moon.
QUOTE
Because the information is out there for anyone with an IQ over 75 to understand the basic science of space.
Then find a friend with an IQ of over 75 and have them explain it to you.
Then tell me what Wikipedia got wrong. Educate me.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 23 2011, 03:24 PM)
Then find a friend with an IQ of over 75 and have them explain it to you.
I need you to point out what Wikipedia got wrong in their definitions of galactic cosmic rays, gamma ray bursts, solar flares and the solar winds. It seems to be a lot of energy in space. Too much for the apollo space craft shielding to handle.
So?
Astronauts (and people who live in Denver) suck it up and take that radiation hit.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/scien...2oct_cataracts/
Astronauts (and people who live in Denver) suck it up and take that radiation hit.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/scien...2oct_cataracts/
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Aug 23 2011, 11:27 AM)
I need you to point out what Wikipedia got wrong in their definitions of galactic cosmic rays, gamma ray bursts, solar flares and the solar winds. It seems to be a lot of energy in space. Too much for the apollo space craft shielding to handle.
The problem is not with Wiki, but with your conclusions.
I'm not going to try to educate you, there's too much foundation that you apparently don't have.
The problem is not with Wiki, but with your conclusions.
I'm not going to try to educate you, there's too much foundation that you apparently don't have.
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Aug 23 2011, 02:40 PM)
Here it is in a nutshell! Maybe I will be booted from this forum for saying something like this, but I don't care.
Gamma ray bursts come at this planet from every direction in space every second of every day. A typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10-billion-year lifetime) and extremely rare (a few per galaxy per million years[1]). That's from Wikipedia.
Galactic cosmic rays come at this planet every second of every day from every direction in space. The health threat from cosmic rays is the danger posed by galactic cosmic rays and solar energetic particles to astronauts on interplanetary missions. Galactic cosmic rays consist of high energy protons and other nuclei with extrasolar origin. Solar energetic particles consist primarily of protons accelerated by the sun to high energies via proximity to solar flares and coronal mass ejections. They are one of the most important barriers standing in the way of plans for interplanetary travel by crewed spacecraft. That's from Wikipedia.
Solar flares happen about twice a week. There is a catalogue of LDE flares from 1969 to 1987. It's from NASA and it shows that there are about 2 solar flares a week. A solar flare is a sudden brightening observed over the Sun surface or the solar limb, which is interpreted as a large energy release of up to 6 × 1025 joules of energy[1] (about a sixth of the total energy output of the Sun each second). That's also from Wikipedia.
The solar winds. The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 1.5 and 10 keV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed over time. These particles can escape the Sun's gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the corona.
The solar wind creates the heliosphere, a vast bubble in the interstellar medium that surrounds the Solar System. Other phenomena include geomagnetic storms that can knock out power grids on Earth, the aurorae (northern and southern lights), and the plasma tails of comets that always point away from the Sun.
I believe that gamma ray bursts, galactic cosmic rays, solar flares and the solar winds would have made manned missions to the moon impossible given the technology at the time.
I know. How dare I? Because the information is out there for anyone with an IQ over 75 to understand the basic science of space. From what I gather, the energies in space are too lethal for the apollo spacecraft to have gone to the moon.
What you believe is irrelevant. What you have to say about the Apollo flights is irrelevant. So it's really no big deal what you say.
Gamma ray bursts come at this planet from every direction in space every second of every day. A typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10-billion-year lifetime) and extremely rare (a few per galaxy per million years[1]). That's from Wikipedia.
Galactic cosmic rays come at this planet every second of every day from every direction in space. The health threat from cosmic rays is the danger posed by galactic cosmic rays and solar energetic particles to astronauts on interplanetary missions. Galactic cosmic rays consist of high energy protons and other nuclei with extrasolar origin. Solar energetic particles consist primarily of protons accelerated by the sun to high energies via proximity to solar flares and coronal mass ejections. They are one of the most important barriers standing in the way of plans for interplanetary travel by crewed spacecraft. That's from Wikipedia.
Solar flares happen about twice a week. There is a catalogue of LDE flares from 1969 to 1987. It's from NASA and it shows that there are about 2 solar flares a week. A solar flare is a sudden brightening observed over the Sun surface or the solar limb, which is interpreted as a large energy release of up to 6 × 1025 joules of energy[1] (about a sixth of the total energy output of the Sun each second). That's also from Wikipedia.
The solar winds. The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 1.5 and 10 keV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed over time. These particles can escape the Sun's gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the corona.
The solar wind creates the heliosphere, a vast bubble in the interstellar medium that surrounds the Solar System. Other phenomena include geomagnetic storms that can knock out power grids on Earth, the aurorae (northern and southern lights), and the plasma tails of comets that always point away from the Sun.
I believe that gamma ray bursts, galactic cosmic rays, solar flares and the solar winds would have made manned missions to the moon impossible given the technology at the time.
I know. How dare I? Because the information is out there for anyone with an IQ over 75 to understand the basic science of space. From what I gather, the energies in space are too lethal for the apollo spacecraft to have gone to the moon.
What you believe is irrelevant. What you have to say about the Apollo flights is irrelevant. So it's really no big deal what you say.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 23 2011, 05:19 PM)
The problem is not with Wiki, but with your conclusions.
I'm not going to try to educate you, there's too much foundation that you apparently don't have.
Then please explain. I will listen. If what you say makes sense that it is what it is.
I'm not going to try to educate you, there's too much foundation that you apparently don't have.
Then please explain. I will listen. If what you say makes sense that it is what it is.
Am I somehow to believe that the amount of energy from the sun and the solar system in general would not penetrate the shields of the apollo spacecraft?
Just saying that something happened does not necessarily mean that it happened.
Is anyone willing to discuss the numbers?
Just saying that something happened does not necessarily mean that it happened.
Is anyone willing to discuss the numbers?
What the hell do you mean "shields" ?
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 24 2011, 12:19 AM)
What the hell do you mean "shields" ?
The ones generated by the anti-matter warp engines.
The ones generated by the anti-matter warp engines.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 24 2011, 12:19 AM)
What the hell do you mean "shields" ?
Ignorance is a choice. Nowadays it's the choice of preference. The Dumb Badge of Courage.
Ignorance is a choice. Nowadays it's the choice of preference. The Dumb Badge of Courage.
QUOTE (brucep+Aug 24 2011, 03:45 AM)
Ignorance is a choice. Nowadays it's the choice of preference. The Dumb Badge of Courage.
You can tell by the title because its not in the form of a question but a conclusion.
You can tell by the title because its not in the form of a question but a conclusion.
QUOTE (brucep+Aug 23 2011, 09:29 PM)
What you believe is irrelevant. What you have to say about the Apollo flights is irrelevant. So it's really no big deal what you say.
Would you care to explain or is your intellect too superior for you to lower yourself by explaining something so obvious?
According to Wikipedia, a typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10-billion-year lifetime. Does that sound like something astronauts might want to worry about?
Would you care to explain or is your intellect too superior for you to lower yourself by explaining something so obvious?
According to Wikipedia, a typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10-billion-year lifetime. Does that sound like something astronauts might want to worry about?
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 24 2011, 12:19 AM)
What the hell do you mean "shields" ?
Anyone can look up the apollo spacecraft specs. I don't think the apollo craft was designed to shield against gamma ray bursts, galactic cosmic rays, solar flares and the solar winds. Were that the case, apollo should have been much bigger probably making it too heavy for liftoff.
Anyone can look up the apollo spacecraft specs. I don't think the apollo craft was designed to shield against gamma ray bursts, galactic cosmic rays, solar flares and the solar winds. Were that the case, apollo should have been much bigger probably making it too heavy for liftoff.
Daddyo930
Play with this interactive map of the known universe...it will give you a perspective regarding distance, focus, dissipation, distribution, etc. etc.
http://www.natgeomaps.com/universe.html
The energies you inquire about in your efforts to refute the moon exploration "might" become more clear to you.
Take note of our extreme microcosmic existence.
Play with this interactive map of the known universe...it will give you a perspective regarding distance, focus, dissipation, distribution, etc. etc.
http://www.natgeomaps.com/universe.html
The energies you inquire about in your efforts to refute the moon exploration "might" become more clear to you.
Take note of our extreme microcosmic existence.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 24 2011, 12:19 AM)
What the hell do you mean "shields" ?
The apollo space craft specs are readily available on Wikipedia or NASA. I don't think the apollo craft was shielded to protect against galactic cosmic rays, gamma ray bursts, solar flares and the solar winds. I am familiar with the numbers regarding these cosmic phenomena and I would like someone here to explain how the numbers have been taken out of context.
I am ready to learn.
The apollo space craft specs are readily available on Wikipedia or NASA. I don't think the apollo craft was shielded to protect against galactic cosmic rays, gamma ray bursts, solar flares and the solar winds. I am familiar with the numbers regarding these cosmic phenomena and I would like someone here to explain how the numbers have been taken out of context.
I am ready to learn.
QUOTE (Bloy+Aug 24 2011, 03:01 PM)
Daddyo930
Play with this interactive map of the known universe...it will give you a perspective regarding distance, focus, dissipation, distribution, etc. etc.
http://www.natgeomaps.com/universe.html
The energies you inquire about in your efforts to refute the moon exploration "might" become more clear to you.
Take note of our extreme microcosmic existence.
What I have come to understand is that numbers don't lie, people do. History is replete with stunning examples of individuals willing to lie, cheat, steal and murder for money. It's a primary motivating factor.
Here's another fact from Wikipedia, Magnetar: March 5, 1979, a few months after the successful dropping of satellites into the atmosphere of Venus, the two Soviet spacecraft that were then drifting through the solar system were hit by a blast of gamma ray radiation at approximately 10:51 EST. This contact raised the radiation readings on both the probes from a normal 100 counts per second to over 200,000 counts a second, in only a fraction of a millisecond.
Gamma ray bursts travel through this solar system and every other part of this galaxy it seems. The apollo space craft was not designed to protect against something like that. You would think that NASA took every contingency in mind when designing the craft so they would have to shield apollo in case they ran into something like that. The fact that we detected this in 1979 does not preclude the possablilty that this has not happened in the past.
Play with this interactive map of the known universe...it will give you a perspective regarding distance, focus, dissipation, distribution, etc. etc.
http://www.natgeomaps.com/universe.html
The energies you inquire about in your efforts to refute the moon exploration "might" become more clear to you.
Take note of our extreme microcosmic existence.
What I have come to understand is that numbers don't lie, people do. History is replete with stunning examples of individuals willing to lie, cheat, steal and murder for money. It's a primary motivating factor.
Here's another fact from Wikipedia, Magnetar: March 5, 1979, a few months after the successful dropping of satellites into the atmosphere of Venus, the two Soviet spacecraft that were then drifting through the solar system were hit by a blast of gamma ray radiation at approximately 10:51 EST. This contact raised the radiation readings on both the probes from a normal 100 counts per second to over 200,000 counts a second, in only a fraction of a millisecond.
Gamma ray bursts travel through this solar system and every other part of this galaxy it seems. The apollo space craft was not designed to protect against something like that. You would think that NASA took every contingency in mind when designing the craft so they would have to shield apollo in case they ran into something like that. The fact that we detected this in 1979 does not preclude the possablilty that this has not happened in the past.
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Aug 24 2011, 01:57 PM)
Anyone can look up the apollo spacecraft specs. I don't think the apollo craft was designed to shield against gamma ray bursts, galactic cosmic rays, solar flares and the solar winds. Were that the case, apollo should have been much bigger probably making it too heavy for liftoff.
By your argument, people don't cross streets because they don't have shields to protect them from
1) being hit by cars,
2) being attacked by rabid animals
3) being shot by the LAPD
4) being hit in the head by meteors
5) being exposed to the noxious gases released by diesel and gasoline engines
6) being hit by flying glass and loose bricks shaken loose by earthquakes
7) having their privacy compromised by the Google Streetview car
etc
But in fact these are real risks partially mitigated by time, distance, and planning. And some real danger remains. None are them are evidence against people actually crossing the street, actually taking those risks and some of them going to the hospital or morgue.
Likewise, it is anti-scientific pseudo-skepticism to hold the belief that humans did not go to the moon when the moon landings were well-documented, left physical artifacts on the lunar surface, brought back hundreds of pounds of rocks, and brought back astronauts who show signs of radiation exposure.
Also, gamma ray bursts are rare and to date have all happened very far away.
Real scientific skepticism starts with all the evidence and finds the most parsimonious explanation consistent with that. Decades-old conspiracy theories involving hundreds of thousands of co-conspirators and complete incompetence of all truth-seeking individuals at the time (including the Soviets) seems like a non-starter, especially when you pick one issue and don't even bother to construct a biophysical model of time and radiation exposure.
This guy did: http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html
These guys did: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm (see table 2 for their results)
Or here's a preview of the 1969 radiation plan for Apollo. http://www.braeunig.us/space/69-19.htm
By your argument, people don't cross streets because they don't have shields to protect them from
1) being hit by cars,
2) being attacked by rabid animals
3) being shot by the LAPD
4) being hit in the head by meteors
5) being exposed to the noxious gases released by diesel and gasoline engines
6) being hit by flying glass and loose bricks shaken loose by earthquakes
7) having their privacy compromised by the Google Streetview car
etc
But in fact these are real risks partially mitigated by time, distance, and planning. And some real danger remains. None are them are evidence against people actually crossing the street, actually taking those risks and some of them going to the hospital or morgue.
Likewise, it is anti-scientific pseudo-skepticism to hold the belief that humans did not go to the moon when the moon landings were well-documented, left physical artifacts on the lunar surface, brought back hundreds of pounds of rocks, and brought back astronauts who show signs of radiation exposure.
Also, gamma ray bursts are rare and to date have all happened very far away.
Real scientific skepticism starts with all the evidence and finds the most parsimonious explanation consistent with that. Decades-old conspiracy theories involving hundreds of thousands of co-conspirators and complete incompetence of all truth-seeking individuals at the time (including the Soviets) seems like a non-starter, especially when you pick one issue and don't even bother to construct a biophysical model of time and radiation exposure.
This guy did: http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html
These guys did: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm (see table 2 for their results)
Or here's a preview of the 1969 radiation plan for Apollo. http://www.braeunig.us/space/69-19.htm
QUOTE (brucep+Aug 24 2011, 03:45 AM)
Ignorance is a choice. Nowadays it's the choice of preference. The Dumb Badge of Courage.
I agree. Cognitive dissonance can be socially engineered. German concentration camps and everyone in Germany says they didn't know what was going on. Amusing.
I agree. Cognitive dissonance can be socially engineered. German concentration camps and everyone in Germany says they didn't know what was going on. Amusing.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 24 2011, 04:06 PM)
By your argument, people don't cross streets because they don't have shields to protect them from
1) being hit by cars,
2) being attacked by rabid animals
3) being shot by the LAPD
4) being hit in the head by meteors
5) being exposed to the noxious gases released by diesel and gasoline engines
6) being hit by flying glass and loose bricks shaken loose by earthquakes
7) having their privacy compromised by the Google Streetview car
etc
But in fact these are real risks partially mitigated by time, distance, and planning. And some real danger remains. None are them are evidence against people actually crossing the street, actually taking those risks and some of them going to the hospital or morgue.
Likewise, it is anti-scientific pseudo-skepticism to hold the belief that humans did not go to the moon when the moon landings were well-documented, left physical artifacts on the lunar surface, brought back hundreds of pounds of rocks, and brought back astronauts who show signs of radiation exposure.
Also, gamma ray bursts are rare and to date have all happened very far away.
Real scientific skepticism starts with all the evidence and finds the most parsimonious explanation consistent with that. Decades-old conspiracy theories involving hundreds of thousands of co-conspirators and complete incompetence of all truth-seeking individuals at the time (including the Soviets) seems like a non-starter, especially when you pick one issue and don't even bother to construct a biophysical model of time and radiation exposure.
This guy did: http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html
These guys did: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm (see table 2 for their results)
Or here's a preview of the 1969 radiation plan for Apollo. http://www.braeunig.us/space/69-19.htm
Also, gamma ray bursts are rare and to date have all happened very far away.
I respectfully disagree.
March 5, 1979, a few months after the successful dropping of satellites into the atmosphere of Venus, the two Soviet spacecraft that were then drifting through the solar system were hit by a blast of gamma ray radiation at approximately 10:51 EST. This contact raised the radiation readings on both the probes from a normal 100 counts per second to over 200,000 counts a second, in only a fraction of a millisecond. From Wikipedia, Magnetar.
Over five years and 500 bursts, Swift has fulfilled every significant promise of its mission and, in addition, brought a wealth of surprises," noted Derek Fox, a Swift team member at Penn State in University Park, Pa. From NASA.
2704 BATSE Gamma Ray Burst satellite in 8 years. 338 a year detected by this satellite for 8 years.
1) being hit by cars,
2) being attacked by rabid animals
3) being shot by the LAPD
4) being hit in the head by meteors
5) being exposed to the noxious gases released by diesel and gasoline engines
6) being hit by flying glass and loose bricks shaken loose by earthquakes
7) having their privacy compromised by the Google Streetview car
etc
But in fact these are real risks partially mitigated by time, distance, and planning. And some real danger remains. None are them are evidence against people actually crossing the street, actually taking those risks and some of them going to the hospital or morgue.
Likewise, it is anti-scientific pseudo-skepticism to hold the belief that humans did not go to the moon when the moon landings were well-documented, left physical artifacts on the lunar surface, brought back hundreds of pounds of rocks, and brought back astronauts who show signs of radiation exposure.
Also, gamma ray bursts are rare and to date have all happened very far away.
Real scientific skepticism starts with all the evidence and finds the most parsimonious explanation consistent with that. Decades-old conspiracy theories involving hundreds of thousands of co-conspirators and complete incompetence of all truth-seeking individuals at the time (including the Soviets) seems like a non-starter, especially when you pick one issue and don't even bother to construct a biophysical model of time and radiation exposure.
This guy did: http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html
These guys did: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm (see table 2 for their results)
Or here's a preview of the 1969 radiation plan for Apollo. http://www.braeunig.us/space/69-19.htm
Also, gamma ray bursts are rare and to date have all happened very far away.
I respectfully disagree.
March 5, 1979, a few months after the successful dropping of satellites into the atmosphere of Venus, the two Soviet spacecraft that were then drifting through the solar system were hit by a blast of gamma ray radiation at approximately 10:51 EST. This contact raised the radiation readings on both the probes from a normal 100 counts per second to over 200,000 counts a second, in only a fraction of a millisecond. From Wikipedia, Magnetar.
Over five years and 500 bursts, Swift has fulfilled every significant promise of its mission and, in addition, brought a wealth of surprises," noted Derek Fox, a Swift team member at Penn State in University Park, Pa. From NASA.
2704 BATSE Gamma Ray Burst satellite in 8 years. 338 a year detected by this satellite for 8 years.
Have you read the three links provided by rpenner? They deal with your questions in detail.
200,000 counts is an insignificant additional hazard, since by your own figures that's < 40 minutes of normal gamma exposure on a mission lasting days. And you are cherry picking data of misleading vividness without talking about the issue of time and exposure important to biophysics.
And 1979 data is hardly going to influence the decision making in 1969-1972.
Gamma ray bursts are observed at a rate of about one per day, but that's with modern equipment capable resolving both short and long types and their intensities vary over orders of magnitude. All of the gamma ray sources are far away, typically billions of light-years, and typically have the brightness of mere starlight -- although in gammas and not typically much in visible light. Gamma ray bursts of significance to human health in space are rare, which explains why Skylab and the current space station have had such long human occupations with next to no gamma ray shielding. (Gamma rays, being uncharged, are not deflected by the Earth's magnetic field, and typically many inches of concrete or equally dense material is needed for significant shielding.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
Also, you seem to have ignored the bulk of my previous post to concentrate on a quibble of no significant to human health with data not available to NASA. Are you being intellectually honest?
// Edit: Hah..
Not only was the 1979 event of misleading vividness, the article Wikipedia cites describing it says "Astronomers had never seen anything like this." and "The pulse of highly energetic, or “hard,” gamma rays was 100 times as intense as any previous burst of gamma rays detected from beyond the solar system, and it lasted just two tenths of a second."
200,000 counts per second times 0.2 second = 40,000 counts = 400 seconds times 100 counts/second = less than 7 minutes of normal space exposure
http://solomon.as.utexas.edu/~duncan/sciam.pdf
Soviet spacecraft was the first to be hit by the moving spotlight of gamma and the Soviets did not seek to debunk the moon landings with it, because it was not significant to what happened in 1969-1972 and the moon landings really happened.
And 1979 data is hardly going to influence the decision making in 1969-1972.
Gamma ray bursts are observed at a rate of about one per day, but that's with modern equipment capable resolving both short and long types and their intensities vary over orders of magnitude. All of the gamma ray sources are far away, typically billions of light-years, and typically have the brightness of mere starlight -- although in gammas and not typically much in visible light. Gamma ray bursts of significance to human health in space are rare, which explains why Skylab and the current space station have had such long human occupations with next to no gamma ray shielding. (Gamma rays, being uncharged, are not deflected by the Earth's magnetic field, and typically many inches of concrete or equally dense material is needed for significant shielding.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
Also, you seem to have ignored the bulk of my previous post to concentrate on a quibble of no significant to human health with data not available to NASA. Are you being intellectually honest?
// Edit: Hah..
Not only was the 1979 event of misleading vividness, the article Wikipedia cites describing it says "Astronomers had never seen anything like this." and "The pulse of highly energetic, or “hard,” gamma rays was 100 times as intense as any previous burst of gamma rays detected from beyond the solar system, and it lasted just two tenths of a second."
200,000 counts per second times 0.2 second = 40,000 counts = 400 seconds times 100 counts/second = less than 7 minutes of normal space exposure
http://solomon.as.utexas.edu/~duncan/sciam.pdf
Soviet spacecraft was the first to be hit by the moving spotlight of gamma and the Soviets did not seek to debunk the moon landings with it, because it was not significant to what happened in 1969-1972 and the moon landings really happened.
A magnetar is a type of neutron star with an extremely powerful magnetic field, the decay of which powers the emission of copious amounts of high-energy electromagnetic radiation, particularly X-rays and gamma rays.[1] The theory regarding these objects was proposed by Robert Duncan and Christopher Thompson in 1992, but the first recorded burst of gamma rays thought to have been from a magnetar was detected on March 5, 1979.[2] During the following decade, the magnetar hypothesis has become widely accepted as a likely explanation for soft gamma repeaters (SGRs) and anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs).
On March 5, 1979, a few months after the successful dropping of satellites into the atmosphere of Venus, the two Soviet spacecraft that were then drifting through the solar system were hit by a blast of gamma ray radiation at approximately 10:51 EST. This contact raised the radiation readings on both the probes from a normal 100 counts per second to over 200,000 counts a second, in only a fraction of a millisecond.[2]
This burst of gamma rays quickly continued to spread. Eleven seconds later, Helios 2, a NASA probe, which was in orbit around the Sun, was saturated by the blast of radiation. It soon hit Venus, and the Pioneer Venus Orbiter's detectors were overcome by the wave. Seconds later, Earth received the wave of radiation, where the powerful output of gamma rays inundated the detectors of three U.S. Department of Defense Vela satellites, the Soviet Prognoz 7 satellite, and the Einstein Observatory
Is it possible that this type of thing happened before 1979? I think so.
On March 5, 1979, a few months after the successful dropping of satellites into the atmosphere of Venus, the two Soviet spacecraft that were then drifting through the solar system were hit by a blast of gamma ray radiation at approximately 10:51 EST. This contact raised the radiation readings on both the probes from a normal 100 counts per second to over 200,000 counts a second, in only a fraction of a millisecond.[2]
This burst of gamma rays quickly continued to spread. Eleven seconds later, Helios 2, a NASA probe, which was in orbit around the Sun, was saturated by the blast of radiation. It soon hit Venus, and the Pioneer Venus Orbiter's detectors were overcome by the wave. Seconds later, Earth received the wave of radiation, where the powerful output of gamma rays inundated the detectors of three U.S. Department of Defense Vela satellites, the Soviet Prognoz 7 satellite, and the Einstein Observatory
Is it possible that this type of thing happened before 1979? I think so.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 24 2011, 05:19 PM)
200,000 counts is an insignificant additional hazard, since by your own figures that's < 40 minutes of normal gamma exposure on a mission lasting days. And you are cherry picking data of misleading vividness without talking about the issue of time and exposure important to biophysics.
And 1979 data is hardly going to influence the decision making in 1969-1972.
Gamma ray bursts are observed at a rate of about one per day, but that's with modern equipment capable resolving both short and long types and their intensities vary over orders of magnitude. All of the gamma ray sources are far away, typically billions of light-years, and typically have the brightness of mere starlight -- although in gammas and not typically much in visible light. Gamma ray bursts of significance to human health in space are rare, which explains why Skylab and the current space station have had such long human occupations with next to no gamma ray shielding. (Gamma rays, being uncharged, are not deflected by the Earth's magnetic field, and typically many inches of concrete or equally dense material is needed for significant shielding.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
Also, you seem to have ignored the bulk of my previous post to concentrate on a quibble of no significant to human health with data not available to NASA. Are you being intellectually honest?
// Edit: Hah..
Not only was the 1979 event of misleading vividness, the article Wikipedia cites describing it says "Astronomers had never seen anything like this." and "The pulse of highly energetic, or “hard,” gamma rays was 100 times as intense as any previous burst of gamma rays detected from beyond the solar system, and it lasted just two tenths of a second."
200,000 counts per second times 0.2 second = 40,000 counts = 400 seconds times 100 counts/second = less than 7 minutes of normal space exposure
http://solomon.as.utexas.edu/~duncan/sciam.pdf
Soviet spacecraft was the first to be hit by the moving spotlight of gamma and the Soviets did not seek to debunk the moon landings with it, because it was not significant to what happened in 1969-1972 and the moon landings really happened.
You should then factor in the solar flares that happen about twice a week. This data comes from the catalogue of LDE flares 1969 - 1987. Study done by NASA and some Chzeck observatory. This data shows that during this period, there were about 2 solar flares a week.
I don't think apollo 12 could be in space when M3 and X5 class solar flares were happening. According to the catalog of solar flares, they were. Page 82 for explanation of the chart. Page 87 for November 17,18 and 19th Apollo 12 mission.
Apollo 12 took off on November 14. The 17,18 and 19th of November there were solar flares in the M3 and X5 class. Total time for solar flare exposure 12+ hours.
I don't think so.
And 1979 data is hardly going to influence the decision making in 1969-1972.
Gamma ray bursts are observed at a rate of about one per day, but that's with modern equipment capable resolving both short and long types and their intensities vary over orders of magnitude. All of the gamma ray sources are far away, typically billions of light-years, and typically have the brightness of mere starlight -- although in gammas and not typically much in visible light. Gamma ray bursts of significance to human health in space are rare, which explains why Skylab and the current space station have had such long human occupations with next to no gamma ray shielding. (Gamma rays, being uncharged, are not deflected by the Earth's magnetic field, and typically many inches of concrete or equally dense material is needed for significant shielding.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
Also, you seem to have ignored the bulk of my previous post to concentrate on a quibble of no significant to human health with data not available to NASA. Are you being intellectually honest?
// Edit: Hah..
Not only was the 1979 event of misleading vividness, the article Wikipedia cites describing it says "Astronomers had never seen anything like this." and "The pulse of highly energetic, or “hard,” gamma rays was 100 times as intense as any previous burst of gamma rays detected from beyond the solar system, and it lasted just two tenths of a second."
200,000 counts per second times 0.2 second = 40,000 counts = 400 seconds times 100 counts/second = less than 7 minutes of normal space exposure
http://solomon.as.utexas.edu/~duncan/sciam.pdf
Soviet spacecraft was the first to be hit by the moving spotlight of gamma and the Soviets did not seek to debunk the moon landings with it, because it was not significant to what happened in 1969-1972 and the moon landings really happened.
You should then factor in the solar flares that happen about twice a week. This data comes from the catalogue of LDE flares 1969 - 1987. Study done by NASA and some Chzeck observatory. This data shows that during this period, there were about 2 solar flares a week.
I don't think apollo 12 could be in space when M3 and X5 class solar flares were happening. According to the catalog of solar flares, they were. Page 82 for explanation of the chart. Page 87 for November 17,18 and 19th Apollo 12 mission.
Apollo 12 took off on November 14. The 17,18 and 19th of November there were solar flares in the M3 and X5 class. Total time for solar flare exposure 12+ hours.
I don't think so.
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Aug 24 2011, 06:19 PM)
A magnetar is a type of neutron star with an extremely powerful magnetic field, the decay of which powers the emission of copious amounts of high-energy electromagnetic radiation, particularly X-rays and gamma rays.[1] The theory regarding these objects was proposed by Robert Duncan and Christopher Thompson in 1992, but the first recorded burst of gamma rays thought to have been from a magnetar was detected on March 5, 1979.[2] During the following decade, the magnetar hypothesis has become widely accepted as a likely explanation for soft gamma repeaters (SGRs) and anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs).
On March 5, 1979, a few months after the successful dropping of satellites into the atmosphere of Venus, the two Soviet spacecraft that were then drifting through the solar system were hit by a blast of gamma ray radiation at approximately 10:51 EST. This contact raised the radiation readings on both the probes from a normal 100 counts per second to over 200,000 counts a second, in only a fraction of a millisecond.[2]
This burst of gamma rays quickly continued to spread. Eleven seconds later, Helios 2, a NASA probe, which was in orbit around the Sun, was saturated by the blast of radiation. It soon hit Venus, and the Pioneer Venus Orbiter's detectors were overcome by the wave. Seconds later, Earth received the wave of radiation, where the powerful output of gamma rays inundated the detectors of three U.S. Department of Defense Vela satellites, the Soviet Prognoz 7 satellite, and the Einstein Observatory
Is it possible that this type of thing happened before 1979? I think so.
What you think is irrelevant because you're clueless and obviously didn't read rpenner post.
On March 5, 1979, a few months after the successful dropping of satellites into the atmosphere of Venus, the two Soviet spacecraft that were then drifting through the solar system were hit by a blast of gamma ray radiation at approximately 10:51 EST. This contact raised the radiation readings on both the probes from a normal 100 counts per second to over 200,000 counts a second, in only a fraction of a millisecond.[2]
This burst of gamma rays quickly continued to spread. Eleven seconds later, Helios 2, a NASA probe, which was in orbit around the Sun, was saturated by the blast of radiation. It soon hit Venus, and the Pioneer Venus Orbiter's detectors were overcome by the wave. Seconds later, Earth received the wave of radiation, where the powerful output of gamma rays inundated the detectors of three U.S. Department of Defense Vela satellites, the Soviet Prognoz 7 satellite, and the Einstein Observatory
Is it possible that this type of thing happened before 1979? I think so.
What you think is irrelevant because you're clueless and obviously didn't read rpenner post.
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Aug 24 2011, 12:19 PM)
On March 5, 1979, a few months after the successful dropping of satellites into the atmosphere of Venus, the two Soviet spacecraft that were then drifting through the solar system were hit by a blast of gamma ray radiation at approximately 10:51 EST. This contact raised the radiation readings on both the probes from a normal 100 counts per second to over 200,000 counts a second, in only a fraction of a millisecond.[2]
Of course, you realize that this never happened.
Those recordings were fabricated. 
In fact, there were no spacecrafts that dropped satellites. How can you believe this stuff?
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 24 2011, 04:50 PM)
Have you read the three links provided by rpenner? They deal with your questions in detail.
No. They don't. Numbers, numbers. Not quotes and assurances from reputable scientist.
If you want to lower yourself to explaining how the numbers would fall off at one astronomical unit to a degree that they would harmless, I would be willing to listen. Before you do though, consider this.
On March 5, 1979, a few months after the successful dropping of satellites into the atmosphere of Venus, the two Soviet spacecraft that were then drifting through the solar system were hit by a blast of gamma ray radiation at approximately 10:51 EST. This contact raised the radiation readings on both the probes from a normal 100 counts per second to over 200,000 counts a second, in only a fraction of a millisecond.[2]
This burst of gamma rays quickly continued to spread. Eleven seconds later, Helios 2, a NASA probe, which was in orbit around the Sun, was saturated by the blast of radiation. It soon hit Venus, and the Pioneer Venus Orbiter's detectors were overcome by the wave. Seconds later, Earth received the wave of radiation, where the powerful output of gamma rays inundated the detectors of three U.S. Department of Defense Vela satellites, the Soviet Prognoz 7 satellite, and the Einstein Observatory.
It is completely within the realm of possability that this type of event happened before 1979. Probably many times before they detected it.
No. They don't. Numbers, numbers. Not quotes and assurances from reputable scientist.
If you want to lower yourself to explaining how the numbers would fall off at one astronomical unit to a degree that they would harmless, I would be willing to listen. Before you do though, consider this.
On March 5, 1979, a few months after the successful dropping of satellites into the atmosphere of Venus, the two Soviet spacecraft that were then drifting through the solar system were hit by a blast of gamma ray radiation at approximately 10:51 EST. This contact raised the radiation readings on both the probes from a normal 100 counts per second to over 200,000 counts a second, in only a fraction of a millisecond.[2]
This burst of gamma rays quickly continued to spread. Eleven seconds later, Helios 2, a NASA probe, which was in orbit around the Sun, was saturated by the blast of radiation. It soon hit Venus, and the Pioneer Venus Orbiter's detectors were overcome by the wave. Seconds later, Earth received the wave of radiation, where the powerful output of gamma rays inundated the detectors of three U.S. Department of Defense Vela satellites, the Soviet Prognoz 7 satellite, and the Einstein Observatory.
It is completely within the realm of possability that this type of event happened before 1979. Probably many times before they detected it.
As much as I hate the idea of giving this guy what he obviously wants, I do believe we've officially entered the realm of spam.
CODE
No. They don't. Numbers, numbers. Not quotes and assurances from reputable scientist
The numbers are what it's all about kid. What you're looking for is called 'argument from authority'. You'll find someone who says what you want to hear and latch on to that like a baby duckling fixating on the nearest large moving thing.
QUOTE
On March 5, 1979, a few months after the successful dropping of satellites into the atmosphere of Venus, the two Soviet spacecraft that were then drifting through the solar system... blah blah blah...
This has already been addressed by rpenner. In fact, you quoted his entire post and had no response. So how many more time are you going to repeat this?
One thing your logic has in common with Vulcan, they're both fictions.
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Aug 24 2011, 12:42 PM)
Eleven seconds later, Helios 2, a NASA probe, which was in orbit around the Sun, was saturated by the blast of radiation. It soon hit Venus, and the Pioneer Venus Orbiter's detectors were overcome by the wave. Seconds later, Earth received the wave of radiation, where the powerful output of gamma rays inundated the detectors of three U.S. Department of Defense Vela satellites, the Soviet Prognoz 7 satellite, and the Einstein Observatory.
Where are you getting this information? It is all fabricated. It never happened.
So how can you use this bogus information to refute a manned landing on the moon? sheeesh!
In fact, there is no space program. We've actually never been able to get beyond the atmosphere. All this GPS stuff is just a cover. There is no space station.
Where are you getting this information? It is all fabricated. It never happened.
So how can you use this bogus information to refute a manned landing on the moon? sheeesh!
In fact, there is no space program. We've actually never been able to get beyond the atmosphere. All this GPS stuff is just a cover. There is no space station.
He's quote mining Wiki.
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Aug 24 2011, 06:27 PM)
You should then factor in the solar flares that happen about twice a week.
Wrong.
About 1400 detectable solar flares happened during the Apollo mission. Only the Apollo 12 space craft detected one of these actually raising radiation levels outside of the space craft and the radiation levels inside the command module did not rise.
Also, solar flares are quite directional. Also, major solar events are forecastable quite a few days into the future and indeed NASA set up monitoring (described in earlier links) just for that purpose.
http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/envsun.html
The misleading vividness of the 2/week or 1400 number doesn't begin to address the human health issue, which requires a discussion of intensity, types of particles, duration, shielding and ultimately a probabilistic model of biological exposure. The above link gives the actual measured intensities of exposure and compares that to averages of workers in the radiation industry and people who live in areas with naturally high background radiation.
Wrong.
About 1400 detectable solar flares happened during the Apollo mission. Only the Apollo 12 space craft detected one of these actually raising radiation levels outside of the space craft and the radiation levels inside the command module did not rise.
Also, solar flares are quite directional. Also, major solar events are forecastable quite a few days into the future and indeed NASA set up monitoring (described in earlier links) just for that purpose.
http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/envsun.html
The misleading vividness of the 2/week or 1400 number doesn't begin to address the human health issue, which requires a discussion of intensity, types of particles, duration, shielding and ultimately a probabilistic model of biological exposure. The above link gives the actual measured intensities of exposure and compares that to averages of workers in the radiation industry and people who live in areas with naturally high background radiation.
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Aug 24 2011, 04:14 PM)
I agree. Cognitive dissonance can be socially engineered. German concentration camps and everyone in Germany says they didn't know what was going on. Amusing.
That has nothing to do with your brain cramp. For you stupid is the choice.
That has nothing to do with your brain cramp. For you stupid is the choice.
Let's not be too harsh. I'd guess we're dealing with a home-schooled teenager. He can't help being stupid. He was raised that way.
Pythagorus was right. Numbers don't lie. People do. To themselves and others. Will any one of you be willing to discuss the numbers associated with cosmic phenomena? Or are the numbers just too far over my head that I couldn't possible understand?
Cmon! I thought science was about numbers, facts and the scientific method? Are we now to believe someone just because they say it's so? Are those who make such assertions obligated to prove their claim with numbers and facts or should we just take their word for it because they're an expert in the field?
I disagree. Pythagorus does too.
Cmon! I thought science was about numbers, facts and the scientific method? Are we now to believe someone just because they say it's so? Are those who make such assertions obligated to prove their claim with numbers and facts or should we just take their word for it because they're an expert in the field?
I disagree. Pythagorus does too.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Aug 24 2011, 11:11 PM)
.
Hi Daddyo930.
As in everything, it is a question of tradeoffs' between safety and success. Any shielding afforded to the electronic contents and human occupants is perforce of weight considerations aimed at REDUCING any such exposure to 'survivable' levels. So you are wrong to assume that there must be some sort of TOTAL 'shielding'.
The fact that astronauts inside capsule AND suit helmet STILL reported seeing 'flashes' when they closed their eyes means that the shielding was not total. See? You are using a 'strawman' argument of your own devising which ignores the reality.
Also, the fact that solar flares etc have been respnsible for some spectacular effects down here on earth, and people survive it all, it is again a question of 'survivable doses' rather than total protection. Note also that the concentration of ionising particles/radiation down at the poles mean that South polar scientists in Antarctica and North polar innuit communities experience such radiation wthout any immediate problems to 'completing the mission' IN THE SHORT TERM (which was after all the MAIN imperative for the 'space race' to the Moon in competition with the Soviets at the time (who would have more effectively used such arguments THEN to falsify US moon landings IF the arguments were sustainable given the well known effects on astronauts since the very first 'sub-orbital' and 'orbital' flights of Russian and American astronaut pioneers).
My advice to you, mate, is: Find another 'conspiracy theory' to have fun with, as this one is quite 'radioactively stupid' by any measure! Good luck.
.
Really? All that and not one swipe at the numbers or the facts? Why don't you try refuting some of the facts I posted first before you go galavanting off on some tangent?
If those facts are correct I posted from Wikipedia then the amount of energy in space would make it impossible for apollo to have withstood. Explain how apollo was able to protect against galactic cosmic rays, magnetars, solar flares that happen about twice a week, gamma ray bursts and the solar winds.
Wikipedia has a nice section on radiation shielding. So does a free online source, Radpro. From what I gather from them, the apollo spacecraft was not properly shielded to protect against gamma ray bursts, galactic cosmic rays, magnetars, solar flares and the solar winds.
Your obligation is to prove with numbers that man went to the moon. Quotes from intellectual prostitutes take no prescedent over numbers so I'm waiting.
Hi Daddyo930.
As in everything, it is a question of tradeoffs' between safety and success. Any shielding afforded to the electronic contents and human occupants is perforce of weight considerations aimed at REDUCING any such exposure to 'survivable' levels. So you are wrong to assume that there must be some sort of TOTAL 'shielding'.
The fact that astronauts inside capsule AND suit helmet STILL reported seeing 'flashes' when they closed their eyes means that the shielding was not total. See? You are using a 'strawman' argument of your own devising which ignores the reality.
Also, the fact that solar flares etc have been respnsible for some spectacular effects down here on earth, and people survive it all, it is again a question of 'survivable doses' rather than total protection. Note also that the concentration of ionising particles/radiation down at the poles mean that South polar scientists in Antarctica and North polar innuit communities experience such radiation wthout any immediate problems to 'completing the mission' IN THE SHORT TERM (which was after all the MAIN imperative for the 'space race' to the Moon in competition with the Soviets at the time (who would have more effectively used such arguments THEN to falsify US moon landings IF the arguments were sustainable given the well known effects on astronauts since the very first 'sub-orbital' and 'orbital' flights of Russian and American astronaut pioneers).
My advice to you, mate, is: Find another 'conspiracy theory' to have fun with, as this one is quite 'radioactively stupid' by any measure! Good luck.
.
Really? All that and not one swipe at the numbers or the facts? Why don't you try refuting some of the facts I posted first before you go galavanting off on some tangent?
If those facts are correct I posted from Wikipedia then the amount of energy in space would make it impossible for apollo to have withstood. Explain how apollo was able to protect against galactic cosmic rays, magnetars, solar flares that happen about twice a week, gamma ray bursts and the solar winds.
Wikipedia has a nice section on radiation shielding. So does a free online source, Radpro. From what I gather from them, the apollo spacecraft was not properly shielded to protect against gamma ray bursts, galactic cosmic rays, magnetars, solar flares and the solar winds.
Your obligation is to prove with numbers that man went to the moon. Quotes from intellectual prostitutes take no prescedent over numbers so I'm waiting.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 24 2011, 07:33 PM)
Wrong.
About 1400 detectable solar flares happened during the Apollo mission. Only the Apollo 12 space craft detected one of these actually raising radiation levels outside of the space craft and the radiation levels inside the command module did not rise.
Also, solar flares are quite directional. Also, major solar events are forecastable quite a few days into the future and indeed NASA set up monitoring (described in earlier links) just for that purpose.
http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/envsun.html
The misleading vividness of the 2/week or 1400 number doesn't begin to address the human health issue, which requires a discussion of intensity, types of particles, duration, shielding and ultimately a probabilistic model of biological exposure. The above link gives the actual measured intensities of exposure and compares that to averages of workers in the radiation industry and people who live in areas with naturally high background radiation.
The records also show that no major solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions, but the conspiracists don't care to look that closely. That was a quote from the article.
Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. Page 82 for the explanation of the chart. Page 87 for November 17,18 and 19th 1969.
According to that data provided by Harvard and NASA in that there chart sonny, apollo 12 flew through 12+ hours of M3 and X5 class solar flares.
Unless I'm totally mistaken and don't understand what the chart really is saying? I studied page 82 for 3 hours and finally figured it out so you can't tell me I don't know how to read the chart.
If the data is correct then the article is wrong. Pythagorus wins again.
About 1400 detectable solar flares happened during the Apollo mission. Only the Apollo 12 space craft detected one of these actually raising radiation levels outside of the space craft and the radiation levels inside the command module did not rise.
Also, solar flares are quite directional. Also, major solar events are forecastable quite a few days into the future and indeed NASA set up monitoring (described in earlier links) just for that purpose.
http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/envsun.html
The misleading vividness of the 2/week or 1400 number doesn't begin to address the human health issue, which requires a discussion of intensity, types of particles, duration, shielding and ultimately a probabilistic model of biological exposure. The above link gives the actual measured intensities of exposure and compares that to averages of workers in the radiation industry and people who live in areas with naturally high background radiation.
The records also show that no major solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions, but the conspiracists don't care to look that closely. That was a quote from the article.
Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. Page 82 for the explanation of the chart. Page 87 for November 17,18 and 19th 1969.
According to that data provided by Harvard and NASA in that there chart sonny, apollo 12 flew through 12+ hours of M3 and X5 class solar flares.
Unless I'm totally mistaken and don't understand what the chart really is saying? I studied page 82 for 3 hours and finally figured it out so you can't tell me I don't know how to read the chart.
If the data is correct then the article is wrong. Pythagorus wins again.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 24 2011, 07:33 PM)
Wrong.
About 1400 detectable solar flares happened during the Apollo mission. Only the Apollo 12 space craft detected one of these actually raising radiation levels outside of the space craft and the radiation levels inside the command module did not rise.
Also, solar flares are quite directional. Also, major solar events are forecastable quite a few days into the future and indeed NASA set up monitoring (described in earlier links) just for that purpose.
http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/envsun.html
The misleading vividness of the 2/week or 1400 number doesn't begin to address the human health issue, which requires a discussion of intensity, types of particles, duration, shielding and ultimately a probabilistic model of biological exposure. The above link gives the actual measured intensities of exposure and compares that to averages of workers in the radiation industry and people who live in areas with naturally high background radiation.
Solar flares are quite directional?
Impulsive phase heating by uni-directional current systems in solar flares
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
I don't think you will find anything in that paper that would support your assertion that solar flares are directional. In fact, what the paper will point out is that the amount of energy released from solar flares is so massive it spreads out in a huge jet, more like an energy bubble bursting from the lips of the sun.
About 1400 detectable solar flares happened during the Apollo mission. Only the Apollo 12 space craft detected one of these actually raising radiation levels outside of the space craft and the radiation levels inside the command module did not rise.
Also, solar flares are quite directional. Also, major solar events are forecastable quite a few days into the future and indeed NASA set up monitoring (described in earlier links) just for that purpose.
http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/envsun.html
The misleading vividness of the 2/week or 1400 number doesn't begin to address the human health issue, which requires a discussion of intensity, types of particles, duration, shielding and ultimately a probabilistic model of biological exposure. The above link gives the actual measured intensities of exposure and compares that to averages of workers in the radiation industry and people who live in areas with naturally high background radiation.
Solar flares are quite directional?
Impulsive phase heating by uni-directional current systems in solar flares
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
I don't think you will find anything in that paper that would support your assertion that solar flares are directional. In fact, what the paper will point out is that the amount of energy released from solar flares is so massive it spreads out in a huge jet, more like an energy bubble bursting from the lips of the sun.
QUOTE (Bloy+Aug 24 2011, 06:54 PM)
Where are you getting this information? It is all fabricated. It never happened.
So how can you use this bogus information to refute a manned landing on the moon? sheeesh!
In fact, there is no space program. We've actually never been able to get beyond the atmosphere. All this GPS stuff is just a cover. There is no space station.
Much of what I get comes from the NASA website or wikipedia or some other research institute. Sometimes I use online scientific journals.
You seem to place great faith in those with credentials and call themselves experts in the field. There is a field called numbers that are critical to proving assertions made by so-called experts. Claims need to validated by quantifiable numbers.
The amount of energy in space would require some type of electromagnetic shielding or a massive craft which would be mostly shield and far too heavy for liftoff.
Could you please back your assertions up with some numbers?
So how can you use this bogus information to refute a manned landing on the moon? sheeesh!
In fact, there is no space program. We've actually never been able to get beyond the atmosphere. All this GPS stuff is just a cover. There is no space station.
Much of what I get comes from the NASA website or wikipedia or some other research institute. Sometimes I use online scientific journals.
You seem to place great faith in those with credentials and call themselves experts in the field. There is a field called numbers that are critical to proving assertions made by so-called experts. Claims need to validated by quantifiable numbers.
The amount of energy in space would require some type of electromagnetic shielding or a massive craft which would be mostly shield and far too heavy for liftoff.
Could you please back your assertions up with some numbers?
QUOTE
Could you please back your assertions up with some numbers?
You were given numbers, and your reply was 'numbers, numbers, numbers'.
Grow up kid.
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Aug 26 2011, 12:07 AM)
Much of what I get comes from the NASA website or wikipedia or some other research institute. Sometimes I use online scientific journals.
You seem to place great faith in those with credentials and call themselves experts in the field. There is a field called numbers that are critical to proving assertions made by so-called experts. Claims need to validated by quantifiable numbers.
The amount of energy in space would require some type of electromagnetic shielding or a massive craft which would be mostly shield and far too heavy for liftoff.
Could you please back your assertions up with some numbers?
"The amount of energy in space would require some type of electromagnetic shielding or a massive craft which would be mostly shield and far too heavy for liftoff."
Time to find some where else to defecate in your pants.
You seem to place great faith in those with credentials and call themselves experts in the field. There is a field called numbers that are critical to proving assertions made by so-called experts. Claims need to validated by quantifiable numbers.
The amount of energy in space would require some type of electromagnetic shielding or a massive craft which would be mostly shield and far too heavy for liftoff.
Could you please back your assertions up with some numbers?
"The amount of energy in space would require some type of electromagnetic shielding or a massive craft which would be mostly shield and far too heavy for liftoff."Time to find some where else to defecate in your pants.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 24 2011, 06:56 PM)
He's quote mining Wiki.
Wikipedia is now some conspiracy site? How about NASA? Are they in on it too because the information I presented can be found on their website also. Numbers. Only numbers can prove your claim. Pythagorus was right. Numbers don't lie, people do. All the time.
Why don't you start by explaining how the apollo craft could have survived exposure to a gamma ray burst? It's not like gamma ray bursts were not out there when the apollo missions were happening. Then please explain how the apollo craft could have survived exposure to galactic cosmic rays. Numbers man. Numbers. Explain in numbers, not quotes from intellectual prostitutes.
Wikipedia is now some conspiracy site? How about NASA? Are they in on it too because the information I presented can be found on their website also. Numbers. Only numbers can prove your claim. Pythagorus was right. Numbers don't lie, people do. All the time.
Why don't you start by explaining how the apollo craft could have survived exposure to a gamma ray burst? It's not like gamma ray bursts were not out there when the apollo missions were happening. Then please explain how the apollo craft could have survived exposure to galactic cosmic rays. Numbers man. Numbers. Explain in numbers, not quotes from intellectual prostitutes.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 26 2011, 05:44 AM)
You were given numbers, and your reply was 'numbers, numbers, numbers'.
Grow up kid.
Your talking about Xmission right? Don't make me laugh. Like captian Kirk, I need my pain. They specifically pointed out that the dangers of flying in a solar flare were minor if the apollo were ever to encounter one. They also said that NASA could have forcasted in advance solar flares. That almost made me laugh.
There is specific data compiled over the years about solar flares. A catalogue of LDE flares from 1969 - 1986. LDE flares are proton events.
Then Xmission goes on to say that solar flares are directional. Are they serious?
Because there's this paper.
Solar Storm Threat Analysis
James A. Marusek*
Impact, Bloomfield, Indiana 47424
He's probably full of it I guess. Pythagorus wins again.
Grow up kid.
Your talking about Xmission right? Don't make me laugh. Like captian Kirk, I need my pain. They specifically pointed out that the dangers of flying in a solar flare were minor if the apollo were ever to encounter one. They also said that NASA could have forcasted in advance solar flares. That almost made me laugh.
There is specific data compiled over the years about solar flares. A catalogue of LDE flares from 1969 - 1986. LDE flares are proton events.
Then Xmission goes on to say that solar flares are directional. Are they serious?
Because there's this paper.
Solar Storm Threat Analysis
James A. Marusek*
Impact, Bloomfield, Indiana 47424
He's probably full of it I guess. Pythagorus wins again.
Solar Flare classification.
Even the largest flairs are still only about 1/(100,000,000) of the surface area of the Sun that is facing us. Which means they occur of a very very very tiny angular distance. Which means a lot of them just out right miss us and of course the ones on the other side of the sun come no where near us. Just because something is big relative to human scales does not mean it isn't also directional. Of course I have no doubt you will completely ignore this point because of your steadfastly unscientific attitude.
Even the largest flairs are still only about 1/(100,000,000) of the surface area of the Sun that is facing us. Which means they occur of a very very very tiny angular distance. Which means a lot of them just out right miss us and of course the ones on the other side of the sun come no where near us. Just because something is big relative to human scales does not mean it isn't also directional. Of course I have no doubt you will completely ignore this point because of your steadfastly unscientific attitude.
QUOTE (Sithdarth+Aug 26 2011, 04:29 PM)
Solar Flare classification.
Even the largest flairs are still only about 1/(100,000,000) of the surface area of the Sun that is facing us. Which means they occur of a very very very tiny angular distance. Which means a lot of them just out right miss us and of course the ones on the other side of the sun come no where near us. Just because something is big relative to human scales does not mean it isn't also directional. Of course I have no doubt you will completely ignore this point because of your steadfastly unscientific attitude.
I say we remove his shoot and hit the eject button.
Even the largest flairs are still only about 1/(100,000,000) of the surface area of the Sun that is facing us. Which means they occur of a very very very tiny angular distance. Which means a lot of them just out right miss us and of course the ones on the other side of the sun come no where near us. Just because something is big relative to human scales does not mean it isn't also directional. Of course I have no doubt you will completely ignore this point because of your steadfastly unscientific attitude.
I say we remove his shoot and hit the eject button.
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Aug 26 2011, 08:18 AM)
There is specific data compiled over the years about solar flares. A catalogue of LDE flares from 1969 - 1986. LDE flares are proton events.
That compiled data you speak of was just made up. I can't believe you are duped into believing these accumulations of data...and then using these to refute a manned flight to the moon.
Well, I don't think it was made up, but it certainly was misunderstood.
Details of solar longitude and the location of the flare are recorded, which supports the general notion that flares have limited spatial extent. Description of the flares in the H-alpha and X-ray spectrums are given, but nothing is given in proton intensities, energies or fluxes in near-Earth space which are the relevant quantities for Apollo astronauts.
http://www.ta3.sk/caosp/Eedition/FullTexts...16/pp79-190.pdf
So solar proton events which reach near Earth space are considerably less frequent than LDE solar flares or solar flars in general.
http://umbra.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEP/
So I'm still waiting for a numerical demonstration that the Apollo dosimeters are wildly out of line with human safety or fact-based estimates of the recorded doses.
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
And as for the solar wind, we have that data. Most solar wind protons have just a few thousand eVs of kinetic energy, as opposed the the millions of eV associated with typical nuclear reactions and associated ionizing radiation.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apo...swc/index.shtml
Details of solar longitude and the location of the flare are recorded, which supports the general notion that flares have limited spatial extent. Description of the flares in the H-alpha and X-ray spectrums are given, but nothing is given in proton intensities, energies or fluxes in near-Earth space which are the relevant quantities for Apollo astronauts.
http://www.ta3.sk/caosp/Eedition/FullTexts...16/pp79-190.pdf
So solar proton events which reach near Earth space are considerably less frequent than LDE solar flares or solar flars in general.
http://umbra.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEP/
So I'm still waiting for a numerical demonstration that the Apollo dosimeters are wildly out of line with human safety or fact-based estimates of the recorded doses.
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
And as for the solar wind, we have that data. Most solar wind protons have just a few thousand eVs of kinetic energy, as opposed the the millions of eV associated with typical nuclear reactions and associated ionizing radiation.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apo...swc/index.shtml
QUOTE (Guest+Aug 26 2011, 08:31 PM)
.
That was me (RC) Bloy. Forgot I was logged out.
.
Hello RC,
Okay....was wondering who this "guest" was.
Thanks...
The point was, for Daddyo, that he accepts everything documented as true EXCEPT all the detailed documentation regarding the numerous explorations to the moon.
That was me (RC) Bloy. Forgot I was logged out.
.
Hello RC,
Okay....was wondering who this "guest" was.
Thanks...
The point was, for Daddyo, that he accepts everything documented as true EXCEPT all the detailed documentation regarding the numerous explorations to the moon.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 24 2011, 06:56 PM)
He's quote mining Wiki.
Is there something wrong with their numbers? They use the same ones as NASA. Unless you can demonstrate in numbers how the apollo craft was able to survive galactic cosmic rays, gamma ray bursts, magnetars, solar flares which happen about twice a week and the solar winds, you are just making assertions.
Show me the numbers that demonstrate how apollo was able to survive cosmic phenomena Unless that's far too beneath you.
Is there something wrong with their numbers? They use the same ones as NASA. Unless you can demonstrate in numbers how the apollo craft was able to survive galactic cosmic rays, gamma ray bursts, magnetars, solar flares which happen about twice a week and the solar winds, you are just making assertions.
Show me the numbers that demonstrate how apollo was able to survive cosmic phenomena Unless that's far too beneath you.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 27 2011, 02:01 AM)
Well, I don't think it was made up, but it certainly was misunderstood.
Details of solar longitude and the location of the flare are recorded, which supports the general notion that flares have limited spatial extent. Description of the flares in the H-alpha and X-ray spectrums are given, but nothing is given in proton intensities, energies or fluxes in near-Earth space which are the relevant quantities for Apollo astronauts.
http://www.ta3.sk/caosp/Eedition/FullTexts...16/pp79-190.pdf
So solar proton events which reach near Earth space are considerably less frequent than LDE solar flares or solar flars in general.
http://umbra.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEP/
So I'm still waiting for a numerical demonstration that the Apollo dosimeters are wildly out of line with human safety or fact-based estimates of the recorded doses.
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
And as for the solar wind, we have that data. Most solar wind protons have just a few thousand eVs of kinetic energy, as opposed the the millions of eV associated with typical nuclear reactions and associated ionizing radiation.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apo...swc/index.shtml
Here's that data you said was missing.
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
This gives the scientific rebuttal to Xmissions assertion that even if apollo did fly during a solar flare, they were insignificant.
I don't think that M3 and X5 class solar flares are nothing to worry about. According to this data LDE flares are specifically proton events and happen about twice a week. Maybe I'm reading the chart wrong or not understanding what they really mean?
Details of solar longitude and the location of the flare are recorded, which supports the general notion that flares have limited spatial extent. Description of the flares in the H-alpha and X-ray spectrums are given, but nothing is given in proton intensities, energies or fluxes in near-Earth space which are the relevant quantities for Apollo astronauts.
http://www.ta3.sk/caosp/Eedition/FullTexts...16/pp79-190.pdf
So solar proton events which reach near Earth space are considerably less frequent than LDE solar flares or solar flars in general.
http://umbra.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEP/
So I'm still waiting for a numerical demonstration that the Apollo dosimeters are wildly out of line with human safety or fact-based estimates of the recorded doses.
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
And as for the solar wind, we have that data. Most solar wind protons have just a few thousand eVs of kinetic energy, as opposed the the millions of eV associated with typical nuclear reactions and associated ionizing radiation.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apo...swc/index.shtml
Here's that data you said was missing.
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
This gives the scientific rebuttal to Xmissions assertion that even if apollo did fly during a solar flare, they were insignificant.
I don't think that M3 and X5 class solar flares are nothing to worry about. According to this data LDE flares are specifically proton events and happen about twice a week. Maybe I'm reading the chart wrong or not understanding what they really mean?
QUOTE (Bloy+Aug 27 2011, 12:46 AM)
That compiled data you speak of was just made up. I can't believe you are duped into believing these accumulations of data...and then using these to refute a manned flight to the moon.
Then NASA in conjunction with a few other reputable agencies are making things up now.
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
Imperical evidence presented in the catalogue scientifically prove that M3 and X5 solar flares happend when apollo 12 was in space. Total mission time of apollo 12, 89 hours. Total exposure time to M3 and X5 class solar flares, 12+ hours.
I don't even think they could survive 1 minute in an X5 let alone 12+ hours. According to this catalogue, the astronauts took off on November 14, and would have allegedly been on the moon 3 days later. The catalogue says that on November 17, 18 and 19th, there were solar flares in the M3 and X5 class.
Explain how you could be on the moon and survive a solar flare? The apollo craft was not shielded to protect against a solar flare on the moon. Imperical evidence suggest they never went.
Then NASA in conjunction with a few other reputable agencies are making things up now.
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
Imperical evidence presented in the catalogue scientifically prove that M3 and X5 solar flares happend when apollo 12 was in space. Total mission time of apollo 12, 89 hours. Total exposure time to M3 and X5 class solar flares, 12+ hours.
I don't even think they could survive 1 minute in an X5 let alone 12+ hours. According to this catalogue, the astronauts took off on November 14, and would have allegedly been on the moon 3 days later. The catalogue says that on November 17, 18 and 19th, there were solar flares in the M3 and X5 class.
Explain how you could be on the moon and survive a solar flare? The apollo craft was not shielded to protect against a solar flare on the moon. Imperical evidence suggest they never went.
QUOTE (brucep+Aug 26 2011, 10:12 PM)
I say we remove his shoot and hit the eject button.
You probably don't have much of an ethical problem with the use of depleted uranium on the battlefield either but what do I know huh?
If you can prove how the apollo craft was able to withstand M3 and X5 solar flares I would be willing to listen to you. According to this report done by NASA Astrophysics data systems, apollo 12 flew through 12+ hours of M3 and X5 class solar flares.
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
The explanation of the chart is on page 82. Page 87 for apollo 12 mission which took of on November 14, 1969. The solar flares happened on the 17, 18 and 19th. They would have been on the moon during a M3 and X5 class solar flare.
I don't think the apollo craft was shielded to protect against solar flares. Then don't forget that there are gamma ray bursts, galactic cosmic rays and magnetars out there compounding the shielding problem making the whole thing possible only in a sound stage where they could safely fake the whole thing.
You probably don't have much of an ethical problem with the use of depleted uranium on the battlefield either but what do I know huh?
If you can prove how the apollo craft was able to withstand M3 and X5 solar flares I would be willing to listen to you. According to this report done by NASA Astrophysics data systems, apollo 12 flew through 12+ hours of M3 and X5 class solar flares.
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
The explanation of the chart is on page 82. Page 87 for apollo 12 mission which took of on November 14, 1969. The solar flares happened on the 17, 18 and 19th. They would have been on the moon during a M3 and X5 class solar flare.
I don't think the apollo craft was shielded to protect against solar flares. Then don't forget that there are gamma ray bursts, galactic cosmic rays and magnetars out there compounding the shielding problem making the whole thing possible only in a sound stage where they could safely fake the whole thing.
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
page 82 for explanation of chart. Page 87 for apollo 12 mission. Specifically November 17, 18 and 19th.
I see that those of you who wish to keep taking the blue pill will assert that solar flares are uni-directional. Whatever. Pay close attention then to the heliocentric and heliographic longitude of the solar flares. That would put apollo 12 right in the middle of the mess.
[Moderator: Suspended 10 days for gross intellectual dishonesty, repetition of claims without elucidation, for failing to state a positive case for how the existing evidence came to be, and for improperly attempting to shift the burden of proof.]
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
page 82 for explanation of chart. Page 87 for apollo 12 mission. Specifically November 17, 18 and 19th.
I see that those of you who wish to keep taking the blue pill will assert that solar flares are uni-directional. Whatever. Pay close attention then to the heliocentric and heliographic longitude of the solar flares. That would put apollo 12 right in the middle of the mess.
[Moderator: Suspended 10 days for gross intellectual dishonesty, repetition of claims without elucidation, for failing to state a positive case for how the existing evidence came to be, and for improperly attempting to shift the burden of proof.]
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Aug 29 2011, 01:44 PM)
You probably don't have much of an ethical problem with the use of depleted uranium on the battlefield either but what do I know huh?
If you can prove how the apollo craft was able to withstand M3 and X5 solar flares I would be willing to listen to you. According to this report done by NASA Astrophysics data systems, apollo 12 flew through 12+ hours of M3 and X5 class solar flares.
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
The explanation of the chart is on page 82. Page 87 for apollo 12 mission which took of on November 14, 1969. The solar flares happened on the 17, 18 and 19th. They would have been on the moon during a M3 and X5 class solar flare.
I don't think the apollo craft was shielded to protect against solar flares. Then don't forget that there are gamma ray bursts, galactic cosmic rays and magnetars out there compounding the shielding problem making the whole thing possible only in a sound stage where they could safely fake the whole thing.
You're a nutcase and I don't give a crap what you think or what you'll listen to. Don' speak to me of ethics you fuking peanut brain booger eating nitwit.
If you can prove how the apollo craft was able to withstand M3 and X5 solar flares I would be willing to listen to you. According to this report done by NASA Astrophysics data systems, apollo 12 flew through 12+ hours of M3 and X5 class solar flares.
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
The explanation of the chart is on page 82. Page 87 for apollo 12 mission which took of on November 14, 1969. The solar flares happened on the 17, 18 and 19th. They would have been on the moon during a M3 and X5 class solar flare.
I don't think the apollo craft was shielded to protect against solar flares. Then don't forget that there are gamma ray bursts, galactic cosmic rays and magnetars out there compounding the shielding problem making the whole thing possible only in a sound stage where they could safely fake the whole thing.
You're a nutcase and I don't give a crap what you think or what you'll listen to. Don' speak to me of ethics you fuking peanut brain booger eating nitwit.
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Aug 29 2011, 09:50 AM)
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
page 82 for explanation of chart. Page 87 for apollo 12 mission. Specifically November 17, 18 and 19th.
I see that those of you who wish to keep taking the blue pill will assert that solar flares are uni-directional. Whatever. Pay close attention then to the heliocentric and heliographic longitude of the solar flares. That would put apollo 12 right in the middle of the mess.
LInk to Paper:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1987CoSka..16...79A
Note that LDE flares cataloged produce Soft X-Rays or SXR.
Note that SXRs have virtually no penetrating ability and are not harmful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray
Arthur
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
page 82 for explanation of chart. Page 87 for apollo 12 mission. Specifically November 17, 18 and 19th.
I see that those of you who wish to keep taking the blue pill will assert that solar flares are uni-directional. Whatever. Pay close attention then to the heliocentric and heliographic longitude of the solar flares. That would put apollo 12 right in the middle of the mess.
LInk to Paper:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1987CoSka..16...79A
Note that LDE flares cataloged produce Soft X-Rays or SXR.
Note that SXRs have virtually no penetrating ability and are not harmful.
QUOTE
Hard X-rays can penetrate solid objects, and their most common use is to take images of the inside of objects in diagnostic radiography and crystallography. As a result, the term X-ray is metonymically used to refer to a radiographic image produced using this method, in addition to the method itself. By contrast, soft X-rays hardly penetrate matter at all; the attenuation length of 600 eV (~2 nm) X-rays in water is less than 1 micrometer.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray
Arthur
More "faked" evidence of Apollo missions.
http://www.space.com/12846-apollo-moon-lan...footprints.html
http://www.space.com/12846-apollo-moon-lan...footprints.html
I was banned for awhile. [Moderator: The preferred term is suspended, indicating that the limitation on posting is temporally finite and bounded.] Why? Don't exactly know. Someone said I kept repeating facts without elucidation. [Moderator: Actually "gross intellectual dishonesty, repetition of claims without elucidation, for failing to state a positive case for how the existing evidence came to be, and for improperly attempting to shift the burden of proof."] Well, let me try one more time. Maybe this will get me banned permanently. I don't care.
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
Page 82 for explanation of the chart. Page 87 for November 17, 18 and 19th 1969. According to established science and NASA, LDE flares are solar proton events. Solar proton events are very dangerous, according to NASA. [Moderator: Only if they hit you. Solar proton events are localized in time and space, and the Apollo command module was not without proton-specific shielding of light nuclei materials.]
Column 9 in the chart is for the level of ionospheric disturbance the event caused. 1 being minor to 3 being the most severe. That means that every single solar proton event in the catalogue hit the earth. [Moderator: Untrue. The first number in column 9 is the intensity of Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance which is caused by a bloom of photoinonization events from the influx of X-rays from the solar flare. You have not made the case that the protons hit the Earth.]
According to the catalogue, November 17, when apollo was allegedly on the moon, there was an M3 class solar proton event. Lasted 3 hours. The 18th, X5 solar proton event lasting 4 hours. The 19th, solar proton event lasting 4 hours, then later in the day, another solar proton event lasting 4 hours.
These are the facts according to NASA astrophysics data systems. If this catalogue is correct then NASA has some explaining to do. [Moderator: Or rather, it appears you have some l'arning to do.]
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
Page 82 for explanation of the chart. Page 87 for November 17, 18 and 19th 1969. According to established science and NASA, LDE flares are solar proton events. Solar proton events are very dangerous, according to NASA. [Moderator: Only if they hit you. Solar proton events are localized in time and space, and the Apollo command module was not without proton-specific shielding of light nuclei materials.]
Column 9 in the chart is for the level of ionospheric disturbance the event caused. 1 being minor to 3 being the most severe. That means that every single solar proton event in the catalogue hit the earth. [Moderator: Untrue. The first number in column 9 is the intensity of Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance which is caused by a bloom of photoinonization events from the influx of X-rays from the solar flare. You have not made the case that the protons hit the Earth.]
According to the catalogue, November 17, when apollo was allegedly on the moon, there was an M3 class solar proton event. Lasted 3 hours. The 18th, X5 solar proton event lasting 4 hours. The 19th, solar proton event lasting 4 hours, then later in the day, another solar proton event lasting 4 hours.
These are the facts according to NASA astrophysics data systems. If this catalogue is correct then NASA has some explaining to do. [Moderator: Or rather, it appears you have some l'arning to do.]
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Sep 12 2011, 05:48 PM)
I was banned for awhile. [Moderator: The preferred term is suspended, indicating that the limitation on posting is temporally finite and bounded.] Why? Don't exactly know. Someone said I kept repeating facts without elucidation. [Moderator: Actually "gross intellectual dishonesty, repetition of claims without elucidation, for failing to state a positive case for how the existing evidence came to be, and for improperly attempting to shift the burden of proof."] Well, let me try one more time. Maybe this will get me banned permanently. I don't care.
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
Page 82 for explanation of the chart. Page 87 for November 17, 18 and 19th 1969. According to established science and NASA, LDE flares are solar proton events. Solar proton events are very dangerous, according to NASA. [Moderator: Only if they hit you. Solar proton events are localized in time and space, and the Apollo command module was not without proton-specific shielding of light nuclei materials.]
Column 9 in the chart is for the level of ionospheric disturbance the event caused. 1 being minor to 3 being the most severe. That means that every single solar proton event in the catalogue hit the earth. [Moderator: Untrue. The first number in column 9 is the intensity of Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance which is caused by a bloom of photoinonization events from the influx of X-rays from the solar flare. You have not made the case that the protons hit the Earth.]
According to the catalogue, November 17, when apollo was allegedly on the moon, there was an M3 class solar proton event. Lasted 3 hours. The 18th, X5 solar proton event lasting 4 hours. The 19th, solar proton event lasting 4 hours, then later in the day, another solar proton event lasting 4 hours.
These are the facts according to NASA astrophysics data systems. If this catalogue is correct then NASA has some explaining to do. [Moderator: Or rather, it appears you have some l'arning to do.]
It appears you really don't care ... about the pursuit of truth.
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
Page 82 for explanation of the chart. Page 87 for November 17, 18 and 19th 1969. According to established science and NASA, LDE flares are solar proton events. Solar proton events are very dangerous, according to NASA. [Moderator: Only if they hit you. Solar proton events are localized in time and space, and the Apollo command module was not without proton-specific shielding of light nuclei materials.]
Column 9 in the chart is for the level of ionospheric disturbance the event caused. 1 being minor to 3 being the most severe. That means that every single solar proton event in the catalogue hit the earth. [Moderator: Untrue. The first number in column 9 is the intensity of Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance which is caused by a bloom of photoinonization events from the influx of X-rays from the solar flare. You have not made the case that the protons hit the Earth.]
According to the catalogue, November 17, when apollo was allegedly on the moon, there was an M3 class solar proton event. Lasted 3 hours. The 18th, X5 solar proton event lasting 4 hours. The 19th, solar proton event lasting 4 hours, then later in the day, another solar proton event lasting 4 hours.
These are the facts according to NASA astrophysics data systems. If this catalogue is correct then NASA has some explaining to do. [Moderator: Or rather, it appears you have some l'arning to do.]
It appears you really don't care ... about the pursuit of truth.
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Sep 12 2011, 05:48 PM)
I was banned for awhile. [Moderator: The preferred term is suspended, indicating that the limitation on posting is temporally finite and bounded.] Why? Don't exactly know. Someone said I kept repeating facts without elucidation. [Moderator: Actually "gross intellectual dishonesty, repetition of claims without elucidation, for failing to state a positive case for how the existing evidence came to be, and for improperly attempting to shift the burden of proof."] Well, let me try one more time. Maybe this will get me banned permanently. I don't care.
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
Page 82 for explanation of the chart. Page 87 for November 17, 18 and 19th 1969. According to established science and NASA, LDE flares are solar proton events. Solar proton events are very dangerous, according to NASA. [Moderator: Only if they hit you. Solar proton events are localized in time and space, and the Apollo command module was not without proton-specific shielding of light nuclei materials.]
Column 9 in the chart is for the level of ionospheric disturbance the event caused. 1 being minor to 3 being the most severe. That means that every single solar proton event in the catalogue hit the earth. [Moderator: Untrue. The first number in column 9 is the intensity of Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance which is caused by a bloom of photoinonization events from the influx of X-rays from the solar flare. You have not made the case that the protons hit the Earth.]
According to the catalogue, November 17, when apollo was allegedly on the moon, there was an M3 class solar proton event. Lasted 3 hours. The 18th, X5 solar proton event lasting 4 hours. The 19th, solar proton event lasting 4 hours, then later in the day, another solar proton event lasting 4 hours.
These are the facts according to NASA astrophysics data systems. If this catalogue is correct then NASA has some explaining to do. [Moderator: Or rather, it appears you have some l'arning to do.]
According to the chart on page 87, the solar proton event on the 17th of November was a 2+ on the SID scale. The next day on the 18th, a 3+ (most intensive events). The 19th yielded another 3+ SID.
I am going to assume that the sudden ionospheric disturbance is in reference to our planet, not the sun which is disturbed all the time.
Is this correct or not?
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
Bibliographic Code: 1987CoSka..16...79A
Page 82 for explanation of the chart. Page 87 for November 17, 18 and 19th 1969. According to established science and NASA, LDE flares are solar proton events. Solar proton events are very dangerous, according to NASA. [Moderator: Only if they hit you. Solar proton events are localized in time and space, and the Apollo command module was not without proton-specific shielding of light nuclei materials.]
Column 9 in the chart is for the level of ionospheric disturbance the event caused. 1 being minor to 3 being the most severe. That means that every single solar proton event in the catalogue hit the earth. [Moderator: Untrue. The first number in column 9 is the intensity of Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance which is caused by a bloom of photoinonization events from the influx of X-rays from the solar flare. You have not made the case that the protons hit the Earth.]
According to the catalogue, November 17, when apollo was allegedly on the moon, there was an M3 class solar proton event. Lasted 3 hours. The 18th, X5 solar proton event lasting 4 hours. The 19th, solar proton event lasting 4 hours, then later in the day, another solar proton event lasting 4 hours.
These are the facts according to NASA astrophysics data systems. If this catalogue is correct then NASA has some explaining to do. [Moderator: Or rather, it appears you have some l'arning to do.]
According to the chart on page 87, the solar proton event on the 17th of November was a 2+ on the SID scale. The next day on the 18th, a 3+ (most intensive events). The 19th yielded another 3+ SID.
I am going to assume that the sudden ionospheric disturbance is in reference to our planet, not the sun which is disturbed all the time.
Is this correct or not?
Material shielding can be effective against galactic cosmic rays, but thin shielding may situationally actually make the problem worse for some of the higher energy rays, because more shielding causes an increased amount of secondary radiation, although very (arguably impractically) thick shielding could counter such too.[13] The aluminum walls of the ISS, for example, are believed to have a net beneficial effect. In interplanetary space, however, it is believed that thin aluminum shielding would have a negative net effect.[14]
Several strategies are being studied for ameliorating the effects of this radiation hazard for planned human interplanetary spaceflight:
Spacecraft can be constructed out of hydrogen-rich plastics, rather than aluminum.[15] Unfortunately, "[S]ome 'galactic cosmic rays are so energetic that no reasonable amount of shielding can stop them,' cautions Frank Cucinotta, NASA's Chief Radiation Health Officer. 'All materials have this problem, including polyethylene.
That's from Wikipedia and NASA, specifically Frank Cucinotta.
Eventually the truth hits everybody.
[Moderator: Suspended 20 days for gross intellectual dishonesty, repetition of claims without elucidation, for failing to state a positive case for how the existing evidence came to be, and for improperly attempting to shift the burden of proof.]
Several strategies are being studied for ameliorating the effects of this radiation hazard for planned human interplanetary spaceflight:
Spacecraft can be constructed out of hydrogen-rich plastics, rather than aluminum.[15] Unfortunately, "[S]ome 'galactic cosmic rays are so energetic that no reasonable amount of shielding can stop them,' cautions Frank Cucinotta, NASA's Chief Radiation Health Officer. 'All materials have this problem, including polyethylene.
That's from Wikipedia and NASA, specifically Frank Cucinotta.
Eventually the truth hits everybody.
[Moderator: Suspended 20 days for gross intellectual dishonesty, repetition of claims without elucidation, for failing to state a positive case for how the existing evidence came to be, and for improperly attempting to shift the burden of proof.]
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/...del_bursts.html
Models of Gamma ray bursts / NASA Goddard Space Center
The observed isotropy is also a necessary requirement of cosmological models. The apparent inhomogeneity would result from redshift effects, and possibly source evolution. If gamma-ray bursts are cosmological, however, their energy release must be gigantic. For the brightest bursts, if the intrinsic emission is isotropic the total energy in gamma-rays must be 10^53 to 10^54 ergs, which is at least as great as that produced in supernovae. The difference, of course, is that in supernovae only 10^51 ergs comes out in kinetic energy and visible light, and almost all of the photons are well below X-ray energies. Cosmological models are being developed which can get all that energy into high-energy photons; they are currently favored by the majority of astrophysicists.
This information should establish a positive case for how the evidence came to be. It's from NASA and every other scientific institution out there so you wouldn't be ble to accuse me of being intellectually dishonest.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987CoSka..16...79A
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full ... ..16...79A
Page 82 for explanation of the chart. Page 87 for November 17, 18 and 19th 1969. LDE flares are solar proton events. Column 9. SID = Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance. The solar proton events on the 17th, 18th and 19th of November caused SID's. That means the solar proton events hit this planet, hence the moon.
A Solar proton event occurs when protons emitted by the Sun become accelerated to very high energies either close to the Sun during a solar flare or in interplanetary space by the shocks associated with coronal mass ejections. These high energy protons cause several effects. They can penetrate the Earth's magnetic field and cause ionization in the ionosphere. The effect is similar to auroral events, the difference being that electrons and not protons are involved. Energetic solar protons are also a significant radiation hazard to spacecraft and astronauts.
Significant proton radiation exposure can be experienced by astronauts who are outside of the protective shield of the Earth's magnetosphere, such as an astronaut in-transit to, or located on the Moon. However, the effects can be minimized if astronauts are in a low-Earth orbit and remain confined to the most heavily shielded regions of their spacecraft. Proton radiation levels in low earth orbit increase with orbital inclination. Therefore, the closer a spacecraft approaches the polar regions, the greater the exposure to energetic proton radiation will be.
These are only facts copied and pasted from NASA and wikipedia.
Models of Gamma ray bursts / NASA Goddard Space Center
The observed isotropy is also a necessary requirement of cosmological models. The apparent inhomogeneity would result from redshift effects, and possibly source evolution. If gamma-ray bursts are cosmological, however, their energy release must be gigantic. For the brightest bursts, if the intrinsic emission is isotropic the total energy in gamma-rays must be 10^53 to 10^54 ergs, which is at least as great as that produced in supernovae. The difference, of course, is that in supernovae only 10^51 ergs comes out in kinetic energy and visible light, and almost all of the photons are well below X-ray energies. Cosmological models are being developed which can get all that energy into high-energy photons; they are currently favored by the majority of astrophysicists.
This information should establish a positive case for how the evidence came to be. It's from NASA and every other scientific institution out there so you wouldn't be ble to accuse me of being intellectually dishonest.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987CoSka..16...79A
Title: Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Authors: Antalova, A.
Journal: Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, vol. 16, p. 79-190.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full ... ..16...79A
Page 82 for explanation of the chart. Page 87 for November 17, 18 and 19th 1969. LDE flares are solar proton events. Column 9. SID = Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance. The solar proton events on the 17th, 18th and 19th of November caused SID's. That means the solar proton events hit this planet, hence the moon.
A Solar proton event occurs when protons emitted by the Sun become accelerated to very high energies either close to the Sun during a solar flare or in interplanetary space by the shocks associated with coronal mass ejections. These high energy protons cause several effects. They can penetrate the Earth's magnetic field and cause ionization in the ionosphere. The effect is similar to auroral events, the difference being that electrons and not protons are involved. Energetic solar protons are also a significant radiation hazard to spacecraft and astronauts.
Significant proton radiation exposure can be experienced by astronauts who are outside of the protective shield of the Earth's magnetosphere, such as an astronaut in-transit to, or located on the Moon. However, the effects can be minimized if astronauts are in a low-Earth orbit and remain confined to the most heavily shielded regions of their spacecraft. Proton radiation levels in low earth orbit increase with orbital inclination. Therefore, the closer a spacecraft approaches the polar regions, the greater the exposure to energetic proton radiation will be.
These are only facts copied and pasted from NASA and wikipedia.
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Aug 25 2011, 09:23 PM)
Pythagorus was right. Numbers don't lie. People do. To themselves and others. Will any one of you be willing to discuss the numbers associated with cosmic phenomena? Or are the numbers just too far over my head that I couldn't possible understand?
Cmon! I thought science was about numbers, facts and the scientific method? Are we now to believe someone just because they say it's so? Are those who make such assertions obligated to prove their claim with numbers and facts or should we just take their word for it because they're an expert in the field?
I disagree. Pythagorus does too.
Hahaha It's spelled "Pythagoras" with an 'a' not a 'u'.
If you're gonna' quote someone, at least learn how to spell the name correctly.
Cmon! I thought science was about numbers, facts and the scientific method? Are we now to believe someone just because they say it's so? Are those who make such assertions obligated to prove their claim with numbers and facts or should we just take their word for it because they're an expert in the field?
I disagree. Pythagorus does too.
Hahaha It's spelled "Pythagoras" with an 'a' not a 'u'.
If you're gonna' quote someone, at least learn how to spell the name correctly.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.