Flat-Earth

[nickrulercreator]

By the way, the amount of "power" (Watts) emitted from all radiation and including obviously electromagnetic energy from our Sun, is roughly about, 3.86 x 10 to the power of 26 Watts per meter!! ..so add 26 zero`s to the end of that 26, and you have what is an unimaginable amount of energy coming from our Sun!!!!...And yet we are supposed to believe that a tiny thickness of aluminium will protect people leaving our atmosphere......

I'm assuming you're talking about the total emitted power of the sun, right? You do know that the Earth only receives about 1/2.2billionth of that? 3.86x10^26 * .0000000045 = 1.73*10^17 watts. But, Earth is REALLY big. It has a cross section of 127,400,000km^2, so it's about 1.36kW/m^2, or 81.65kJ/m^2. Is this a lot? Well, we need to know if this is ionizing radiation (the harmful kind), what kind of radiation it is (particles, waves, etc), what was the intensity of the radiation when hitting the hull of the craft, and then we need to know how much of it can penetrate a .75inch (minimum) hull of aluminum.

Luckily, seismometers were carried on each mission. No mission got anywhere close to deadly amounts.

Also, I invite you to read these three pages on radiation, the Van Allen Belts, and Solar Particle Radiation:

Clavius: Environment - radiation primer
Clavius: Environment - radiation and the van allen belts
Clavius: Environment - here comes the sun

 

[MeditationSync]

@nickrulercreator So the South Atlantic Anomaly is packed with radiation it seems from what I read. How about the North? Maybe that is what I read about previously. It would seem logical to me that a space program in its young years would take off from a more "human friendly environment" (less radiation risk to the passengers and equipment on board). I've heard Florida is one of the worst places for a space ship to take off because if it's location in relation to radiation exposure. Any truth to that?
Is it possible this can be explained better by you and others?
Maybe in a new thread ?
Thanks

 

[TimeFlipper]

I'm assuming you're talking about the total emitted power of the sun, right? You do know that the Earth only receives about 1/2.2billionth of that? 3.86x10^26 * .0000000045 = 1.73*10^17 watts. But, Earth is REALLY big. It has a cross section of 127,400,000km^2, so it's about 1.36kW/m^2, or 81.65kJ/m^2. Is this a lot? Well, we need to know if this is ionizing radiation (the harmful kind), what kind of radiation it is (particles, waves, etc), what was the intensity of the radiation when hitting the hull of the craft, and then we need to know how much of it can penetrate a .75inch (minimum) hull of aluminum.

Luckily, seismometers were carried on each mission. No mission got anywhere close to deadly amounts.

Also, I invite you to read these three pages on radiation, the Van Allen Belts, and Solar Particle Radiation:

Clavius: Environment - radiation primer
Clavius: Environment - radiation and the van allen belts
Clavius: Environment - here comes the sun

Im not talking about what power the earth receives, i already covered that!..
The total amount of emitted "power" coming from the SUN and NOT what the earth receives, is calculated at 3.86x10 to the power of 26, watts per square meter in space, which would have been hitting the spacecraft, and .75inches of aluminium would have never provided the protection, only a full thick lead shield would have been the protection...

Your links has quoted electron volts, which only provides extremely small amounts of voltage, from which Clavius made his calculations from....All the "light waves" we see coming from the Sun travel at the speed of light, 186000miles per second and consist of visible light, XRays Microwaves and Radio Waves, and are photon particles (only photons reach the speed of light)....Lets describe what power is, described in watts..Take a 100watt light bulb...And to find the simple calculation for that 100watts of power, we need both Current (Amps) and Voltage..

So lets say the Current (amperage) is one amp and the Voltage is one hundred volts, the calculation would be, Current times Voltage which is 1x100=100watts of power (P=IxV)..check it out...Oh yes, the symbol for current is (I), French for "Intensite de courant" or just current intensity in English..
Now lets look at the absolute enormity of that power calculation again, and remember those tiny little spacecraft with their tiny .75inch of aluminium shields that are not shielded by all the defences that our Earth has......I will use 26 zeros to show the full amount of Watts or power emitted from the Sun..
3.86x10=38.6 to the power of 2600000000000000000000000000 Watts per square meter...Try not to misquote me again..

 

[Cirrus]

@Cirrus Can you honestly believe that the recordings of what would be THE most momentous awe-inspiring occasion EVER in the history of scientific achievements, had been recorded over and then got mixed up with "other" non related tapes, its simply beyond all logical belief!!......And its great that you brought it up ..

There were supposed to be 48 tapes in all, but NASA said 24 of them went missing...The other 24 tapes were apparently found in some university basement in the UK!!.....Of course those HD tapes were tampered with, but obviously not that good!! ...

Thinking this over again... it was the Nixon administration that handled the Apollo 11 records, so it's not completely beyond disbelief that some dummy would mix the tapes in with other tapes or send some of them off to the UK for no apparent reason.

 

[TimeFlipper]

Thinking this over again... it was the Nixon administration that handled the Apollo 11 records, so it's not completely beyond disbelief that some dummy would mix the tapes in with other tapes or send some of them off to the UK for no apparent reason.

I think if that had been the case, Nixon would have sacked the numptys`who mixed up the tapes, or lost them

 

[Cirrus]

I think if that had been the case, Nixon would have sacked the numptys`who mixed up the tapes, or lost them

Nah. He wasn't a crook, so there would be no sacking.

 

[nickrulercreator]

@nickrulercreator So the South Atlantic Anomaly is packed with radiation it seems from what I read. How about the North? Maybe that is what I read about previously. It would seem logical to me that a space program in its young years would take off from a more "human friendly environment" (less radiation risk to the passengers and equipment on board). I've heard Florida is one of the worst places for a space ship to take off because if it's location in relation to radiation exposure. Any truth to that?
Is it possible this can be explained better by you and others?
Maybe in a new thread ?
Thanks

There is no Northern anomaly. It isn't "packed" with radiation either, it's just an area where the inner belt gets a bit closer to the surface of Earth than normal.

I've never heard that about Florida though, and there doesn't seem to be any problem for the other missions launched from Florida (mercury, gemini, earth Apollo missions, all shuttle missions). Would you mind linking where you heard this before?

 

[nickrulercreator]

Im not talking about what power the earth receives, i already covered that!..
The total amount of emitted "power" coming from the SUN and NOT what the earth receives, is calculated at 3.86x10 to the power of 26, watts per square meter in space, which would have been hitting the spacecraft, and .75inches of aluminium would have never provided the protection, only a full thick lead shield would have been the protection...

Your links has quoted electron volts, which only provides extremely small amounts of voltage, from which Clavius made his calculations from....All the "light waves" we see coming from the Sun travel at the speed of light, 186000miles per second and consist of visible light, XRays Microwaves and Radio Waves, and are photon particles (only photons reach the speed of light)....Lets describe what power is, described in watts..Take a 100watt light bulb...And to find the simple calculation for that 100watts of power, we need both Current (Amps) and Voltage..

So lets say the Current (amperage) is one amp and the Voltage is one hundred volts, the calculation would be, Current times Voltage which is 1x100=100watts of power (P=IxV)..check it out...Oh yes, the symbol for current is (I), French for "Intensite de courant" or just current intensity in English..
Now lets look at the absolute enormity of that power calculation again, and remember those tiny little spacecraft with their tiny .75inch of aluminium shields that are not shielded by all the defences that our Earth has......I will use 26 zeros to show the full amount of Watts or power emitted from the Sun..
3.86x10=38.6 to the power of 2600000000000000000000000000 Watts per square meter...Try not to misquote me again..

Woah woah woah. 3.86x10^26 watts per square meter? That's very wrong. That value is the energy the sun emits TOTAL, not per square meter. The value above, 1.36kW/m^2, is how much would be hitting the spacecraft, not the 386000000000000000000000 kW emitted by the sun. No. .75 inches (minimum) wouldn't protect from the entire amount emitted by the sun, but it would protect from the 1.36kW/m^2 received.

I know how to calculate energy, that's unnecessary though. What you need to factor for is radiation. The 1.36kW is all types of radiation, not just visible light. HOW MUCH of each type of radiation is what matters. The deadly types are those shorter than visible light: Ultraviolet, X-ray, and Gamma waves. Some are transferred in the form of alpha particles, others beta particles, some protons, some electrons. .75inches (minimum) is capable of shielding from these.

You have to know that radiation isn't instant. It's compounding. You have to spend a lot of time in it to get a dangerous level. The astronauts were not in the radiation for a long time. Essentially all the radiation would do is heat up the spacecraft like it heats up Earth, maybe even less. The outside of the CSM and LM is very reflective so it prevents a lot of energy from heating the spacecraft. The spacecraft is also in a slow roll so that no one side gets heated too much. It's called passive thermal control.

 

[TimeFlipper]

You overlooked the fact that the Command Module Columbia had windows in it!, from which you can see the astronauts many times looking through them and taking photographs...So i guess that you are going to try and say that those windows contained some top secret magical ingredient which reflected that enormous amount of energy away from the CM, exactly the same as your .75 inches of aluminium did? ..

The journey to the moon, according to NASA took approximately 3 days, which was the same time for the other Apollo missions, so that scuppers your claim that the "astronauts were not in the radiation for a long time"....I think 3 days is a sufficient amount of time within that massive radiation (which is also pouring in through those magical windows in the Command Module) to fry people ..

Iam sending you a video clip where the ISS commander Terry Virts talks about the future of humans in space..He is actually unknowingly damming all of the faked claims of the Apollo Moon landings!!, listen intently to what he has to say....The next guy you will see is Kelly Smith who is a NASA engineer and was speaking about the Orion module...You will also hear him mention the "deadly radiation" which is within the Van Allen Belt, and how a certain "shield" will protect future astronauts going through it......(He never stated what that shield would be made from, but it certainly WONT be .75 of an inch of aluminium)..".You need to fast forward to 21minutes 30 seconds" on the video clip to see those two people talking..enjoy ..

I wont be making anymore replies to you, as you clearly are in denial on the reality of the faked Moon landings, but it is your opinion that man did land on the Moon (and no doubt other members too) and must be respected ..

( Unfortunately i cannot get the video clip to show on Paranormalis, the title of that video clip is, "Moon Landing Hoax..Final Evidence"..)
Perhaps you can get the video clip to show in your country, i hope so as its VERY compelling evidence...However, iam absolutely certain that the members in denial, who believe that man actually went to the Moon, will NEVER want to watch that video clip!!..

This very short video clip that i can actually show to you, should completely convince people that man NEVER went to the Moon!!! ..

 

[nickrulercreator]

You overlooked the fact that the Command Module Columbia had windows in it!, from which you can see the astronauts many times looking through them and taking photographs...So i guess that you are going to try and say that those windows contained some top secret magical ingredient which reflected that enormous amount of energy away from the CM, exactly the same as your .75 inches of aluminium did? ..

How big were the windows? Were any ever directly facing the sun for long periods of time? How thick was the glass of the windows? What type of glass were the windows made of? Were the windows polarized? Was there every any cover over the windows? How much radiation should be coming through the windows? How much of each type of radiation would be hitting the craft? Is it more that the windows would heat up the CSM/LM, or could it be more deadly? Can you provide me any of this information or are you pulling things out of your ass?

The journey to the moon, according to NASA took approximately 3 days, which was the same time for the other Apollo missions, so that scuppers your claim that the "astronauts were not in the radiation for a long time"....I think 3 days is a sufficient amount of time within that massive radiation (which is also pouring in through those magical windows in the Command Module) to fry people ..

3 days is not a long time. To get enough radiation from the VARBs for it to be deadly, you need to be in the most intense areas with minimal shielding for several weeks. More than minimal shielding, or time outside the most intense areas, and you need longer time. How much DEADLY radiation was hitting the spacecraft on the way to the Moon from the Sun? Not just microwaves, infrared, etc, as those aren't deadly unless in huge numbers. How much UV, X-ray, and Gamma radiation?

Also "I think 3 days is a sufficient amount of time" doesn't cut it. You can think whatever, that doesn't constitute anything. The windows wouldn't be pouring in a massive amount of radiation, because the radiation wasn't "massive," and the windows we know nothing about (answer the questions above).

Iam sending you a video clip where the ISS commander Terry Virts talks about the future of humans in space..He is actually unknowingly damming all of the faked claims of the Apollo Moon landings!!, listen intently to what he has to say....The next guy you will see is Kelly Smith who is a NASA engineer and was speaking about the Orion module...You will also hear him mention the "deadly radiation" which is within the Van Allen Belt, and how a certain "shield" will protect future astronauts going through it......(He never stated what that shield would be made from, but it certainly WONT be .75 of an inch of aluminium)..".You need to fast forward to 21minutes 30 seconds" on the video clip to see those two people talking..enjoy ..

Never got the video, but I know what you're talking about. This video is a VERY common one used by hoax believers, and it is ALWAYS taken out of context and cherry picked. If you wanted to actually know what he's saying, here goes (not his words but my summary):

With newer technology such as the Orion spacecraft being developed, and longer missions than Apollo being planned, shielding will need to be developed to protect astronauts from radiation in space. Smith talks about the "deadly radiation" in the VARBs because it is deadly... when exposed for long periods of time, like the missions Orion will take, with no shielding. The shielding he mentioned that will need to protect astronauts is being developed for Orion. Missions for Orion will spend longer in space, and in the VARBs, than Apollo ever did. This means better shielding will be necessary to protect the astronauts and the capsule's electronics. That's another thing: the electronics today are far more sensitive to radiation than they were 50 years ago. Today, heavier shielding is needed to keep radiation from messing up the computers on board.

So, TL;DR: He's talking about Orion missions, which plan to spend more time in the belts/space than Apollo ever did. He never said it's impossible, but without shielding, astronauts would be toast.

Guess what, though! Orion has already been tested on Exploration Flight Test 1. They found that levels in the belts for the mission got to be around the amount received in a mammogram. That's for an unmanned spacecraft that stayed in the belts for a long (longer than Apollo) period of time. NASA even says that one thing they will learn (written before EFT-1) is how radiation effects the craft. Here's another paper with the results of the test. This is a powerpoint by NASA showing how they're going to monitor and shield radiation.

I wont be making anymore replies to you, as you clearly are in denial on the reality of the faked Moon landings, but it is your opinion that man did land on the Moon (and no doubt other members too) and must be respected ..

You haven't provided any evidence to make me question or deny the official story. I respect your opinion as well, but when debating, don't try to claim it as fact without any evidence to support it.

This very short video clip that i can actually show to you, should completely convince people that man NEVER went to the Moon!!! ..

You don't... actually believe this is a real Apollo clip, do you? I mean, even the creators have said it's faked for entertainment purposes.