Flags on the Moon

[silverslith]

The attached moon pic is a photo of the moon in the X-ray spectrum.

I am certain that Nasa is correct that these X-rays behave very differently on the moon to here on earth, and are less penetrating to sheets of paper than ordinary light. I am certain that they cannot have any effect on photography or astronauts with aluminium foil shielded suits on the moon.

The black body X-ray production of the Suns 1 million Kelvin corona is supplemented by production of X-rays by particles in the Solar wind interacting with each other and solids they hit through the processes of:

Charge transfer, Thomson scattering, Bremsstrahlung, Inverse Compton scattering, Synchrotron radiation, X-ray fluorescence, and atomic emission. Exact figures on space X-ray flux are hard to pin down with variations of 1000x and over in stated average figures at 1 AU from various sources.

 

I have cleared up my last Radiation belt uncertainties: The energy distribution of particles at various altitudes in the rad belts. The exit mechanism that must equal the input from the narrow column of particles accelerated towards earths equator in the magnetail, with its volume of billions of amps worth of particles in the equatorial ring current.

 

The distribution is Maxwellian or bell curve shaped. The bell is centered on the energy of particles where the net force vector for a transverse to mag field loop is equal to the force of gravity over that time. Because the outer half of the loop is in weaker magfield than the inner the integration of centripetal force vectors in a full loop results in a total outward force. For this reason the stable altitude for trapped particles is lower the higher their energy. These factors mean that 50MeV is a good conservative assumption for proton energy between 1000 and 5000 km altitude.

The rad belt particles have built up to the point where density causes enough energy exchange to cause extraction to balance input on average. At the ends of their orbits between 15 and 30 degrees of the magnetic pole the circles are more flat to the ground and this allows some downwards drift each time they are reflected by the magnetic fieldlines. The Auroras are the primary extraction mechanism confirmed by their visible energy being mainly Bremsstrahlung related, a high energy process appropriate to the high energy particles in the inner belt but not particles from the magnetail. Another clue that the Auroras are radiation belt not magnetail produced is that they respond immediately to solar storms, not days later.

The Auroral extraction mechanism is to be thanked for the bubble of nice space centered on the equator. Particles moving lower than 1200km altitude equatorial are cleaned out by the polar atmosphere. If the Rad Belts were largely lens shaped equatorial systems then there would be no Low Earth Orbit environment, and equatorial Auroras.

 

I am glad that the Western culture that we live in has such high regard for sharing knowledge and free speech. I’m certain that the serious lockups and screens full of gibberish my computer has experienced immediately on visiting any Nasa site since 24hrs after I started to research the space radiation environment are completely coincidental.

I believe that European Space Agency pages taking hours instead of previously less than a minute to get to me is also coincidental. I’m sure none of the US govt pages I have visited have made use of the fine print telling me that I have given them permission to send me cookies to scan my hard drive.

I’m completely sure that an Astronaut equipped with Diapers and a Mallet is not enroute to teach me some respect.:)

[LaurieAG]

Observatories on the moon would be fantastic! Imagine having one at each of the poles giving the ability to do spectacularly long exposures. It would be great. Bill

 

You're not wrong Bill, although I would prefer a location on a path that would removed all spin from the long exposures. Maybe they'll think about it next time.

[silverslith]

You're not wrong Bill, although I would prefer a location on a path that would removed all spin from the long exposures. Maybe they'll think about it next time.

 

Natuarally spin is eliminated easily by equatorial tracking systems. Simple technology available to any one with a few old car wrecks.

Active optics where any descent mirrors have been equiped for years with hydraulic distorters and lasers to map asmospheric distortion have removed any advantage to telescopes beyond the earths surface. Except for the wavelength of light problem that limits resolving power at a distance. A dissapointing example is that the moon with its easy and cheap access by unmanned probes has been disallowed any close viewing by orbital telescopes that are common above our heads and would allow easy high resolution views of the surface of our nearest celestial neighbour. A symptom of how science has been abducted by the need to preserve myth served up with a large helping of ego massage by the masters of the ancient primate art of deception via smooth lies spun with tempting titbits of ego boosting compliment.;)

[Tormod]

There will be an observatory in the L2 point beyond the moon from 2013 - the James Webb Space Telescope.

 

The James Webb Space Telescope

 

Although it will work primarily in the infrared range, it will also be able to do optical observations.

[Tormod]

A symptom of how science has been abducted by the need to preserve myth served up with a large helping of ego massage by the masters of the ancient primate art of deception via smooth lies spun with tempting titbits of ego boosting compliment.;)

 

Say again? How can "science" be abducted, who has abducted it, and which "myth" are they trying to hide? The SMART-1 probe studied the moon for months:

 

ESA Science & Technology: SMART-1

 

but who would bother to send up probes simply to stifle hoaxters thirst? Wait another 10 years and NASA will film their landing places on location.

[silverslith]

Say again? How can "science" be abducted, who has abducted it, and which "myth" are they trying to hide? The SMART-1 probe studied the moon for months:

 

ESA Science & Technology: SMART-1

 

but who would bother to send up probes simply to stifle hoaxters thirst? Wait another 10 years and NASA will film their landing places on location.

 

 

Its clear that Apollo was a myth as our study of the radiation belt and the specifications of the apollo craft reveal that even my conservative estimates of the radiation flux and heating effect, based on average energy of 50MeV which I now understand are most likely in the range of 5 to 10 times lower than actual, reveal that attempting to shield the radiation from the apollo crew in the craft claimed to have made the trip would have quickly melted it (especially if polyethylene was the shield as is now claimed) and would have within a few minutes, probably as little as 5 or less created an irreversible rising temperature situation that would certainly killed them. The proton penetration data when measured against the shield thickness of the capsule and the maxwellian proton energy distribution centred around the region of 100MeV in the 1200km-5000km altitude that we have examined demonstrates that a lethal dose would have made it through the shields in likely no more than 1 or 2 seconds.

 

The Psychologic forces at work to resist incorporating this knowledge into the cerebrum are simular to the resistance to acceptance of the discovery that earth was not the centre of the universe. It is no less a pleasant belief to mankind, and particularly Americans who can constantly fall back on it to prop up belief that their technology of the 60's has not been matched outside their nation.

I have found in researching this problem that science (with its dedication to logic, reason and a critical attitude that I love so much) has been assaulted very badly in this story by the narcissistic personality disorders of the political sociopath (that make them prouder of their ability to feed us lies spun with ego grease than anything else, and very capable of accepting and basking in praise for things they only lie about doing. Believe me I have studied this psycology in depth).

I am very bitter about this and immensely sad for the damage to the brains of so many who must as knowledge advances try to incorporate into their brains the discoveries of physics incompatible with the apollo myth. The mechanisms of cognitive dissonance are very powerful and for many will be overwhelming in this case. Only the most dedicated to logic over emotion will be able to resist creating and believing irrational explanations to allow belief in the Apollo myth to be maintained.

I have returned to this thread after two weeks of soul searching and ethical and moral discussion on this situation with every intelligent person I mix with. In the end I had to decide that self censoring because people here may not be able to deal with bitter truth, and out of instinct for self preservation, is the worst insult I could deliver to the intellectual capacity of individuals in this community. I think a thread in Psychology should be started to help people understand what unconcious mental forces are at work as they try to deal with the scar on their mental model of the universe that the apollo myth has created.

I do think we must bury the myth because once you incorporate discord into your brain of this magnitude it becomes progressively easier to accept and believe the illogical. This is the slippery slope to detaching mentally from reality. It results in mental disorders like Schitzophrenia and psychopathy. It also opens you up to easy manipulation by Politicians and other insanely exploitational addicts of power.

:)

[TheBigDog]

Its clear that Apollo was a myth :)

silverslithe, you have officially jumped the shark.

 

Bill

[Boerseun]

Silverslith, please visit this site.

 

Please read all the points the pro-hoaxers refer to, and their step-by-step debunking. You have mentioned no new evidence towards the Apollo landings being hoaxes other than the points debunked at the site I referred you to, and, well, they are comprehensively and systematically debunked.

 

Hey - I'll be nice this time and even insert the link twice.:)

[archaic0]

silverslithe, you have officially jumped the shark.

 

Bill

 

OK, I had read this thread with a straight face until now. That made my day. *smile*

[CraigD]

I believe the very high power fluxes (work/area/time) that silverslith and I have calculated in this thread, for an object in the Van Allen radiation belts, are due to greatly overestimated particle energies.

 

In most of the calculations, the simplifying assumption that all of the Van Allen belt trapped protons have an energy of 50 MeV ([math]8 \times 10^{-12} \mbox{J}[/math]) has been made. However, an examination of actual measurements of counts of particle impacts with detectors on spacecraft in the belt indicate that, although protons with kinetic energies as high as 400 MeV are detected, the great majority of particles have much lower energies. According to the NASA Goddard AP-8 Radiation Belt Model query page, an empirical model fitting data from about 15 spacecraft (listed in this report document (9 MB pdf)), for example, the count rate of < 5 Mev protons for a spacecraft orbiting in the peak flux altitude of 1.4 Earth radii is over 10 times greater than 50 – 150 MeV protons, which is 10 times greater than the count of >150 MeV protons.

 

In summary, previous calculation in this thread, which show (as Silverslith puts it in post # 185) “If you shield them they are cooked. If you don't they are nuked”, appear to overstate total power flux by a factor of about 10[math]^{11}[/math].

 

I can sympathize with people who suspect a cover-up of data such as that in the AP-8 model. The data is, IMHO, very poorly presented and painfully difficult to access in the form of raw spacecraft telemetry. However, it is ultimately accessible, and appears to banish the implausibly high calculated values that have been so vexing this thread. A detailed, dynamic description of heat and ionization of a manned spacecraft with given specifications passing through the Van Allen belts remains challenging, though.

 

Thanks, Boerseun, for the link that lead me to the AP-8 model data. It’s been a long, difficult hunt, no less so that the data seems easy to find once you’ve found it.

[archaic0]

I'm coming in on this very late and from a completely layman perspective, but I had a thought when I read one post in this thread somewhere.

 

The post was about the spacecraft that have flown through the radiation belt and nobody challanges. (like the Voyagers) These spacecraft, the HB's asserted, were simply shielded to a very high degree and that electronics on them were ultra ruggadized for the intense radiation. Suggesting that the craft and/or the electronics were capable of sustaining the enormous radiation but a human craft couldn't be built so well that a human could survive.

 

My thought at that point was that we could track down the specs for one of those crafts to see just what shielding was used and what components were used on board. Maybe some of that is sensitive info, but considering how far away these crafts are and how long ago they were made, surely at least some of this info is available.

 

I just can't fathom that those crafts were shielded as much as the HB's believe because they are under such tight size an weight constraints. And I know a little about ruggadizing electronics (with terrestrial field laptops) and while those are mostly worried about physical damage, things like a faraday mesh help with EM bursts and the like. But to my knowledge there isn't a particular set of electronics out there that are able to take the levels of radiation that HB's assert are out there.

 

I know I'm short on facts and specifics, but to me, from a layman's perspective when it comes to space and space travel, the comment that deep space crafts are fine because they are just very well shielded and the electronics are special just doesn't make sense when coupled with the thought that we couldn't do the same for humans. It seems so much more likely that there is less radiation out there than we think.

 

I mean, the HB argument is often tied to the assertion that there is X amount of radiation and we can't possibly shield against that for a human to survive. Just how much higher of a radiation tollerance does an electronic component have? It's higher than a human I'm sure, but not THAT much higher, right?

 

Does anyone know how much radiation something standard, like an alarm clock, can take? Can it take the radiation levels asserted here at times? And if not, then how much would it have to be shielded to take those large numbers. My guess at this point is that more shielding would be needed than is known to exist on the Voyagers. Therefore dis-proving the high levels numbers.

 

Of course, even that isn't going to convince a hard core HB because it's not as sexy as a cover-up. But if all of my guesses and wild assertions are even close to the truth, than at least it's a solid scientific response to an HB foothold.

 

Take it all with a grain of salt, I could be WAY off. Just my thoughts.

[silverslith]

Space probe electronics are rated in megarads. Roughly a million times more than humans can handle. This just means it has chunky non-miniturised circuits, micro electronics just get beaten up to easily. You also have to realise that circuit boards are a good hundred times thinner than humans. So a particle travelling at 100 MeV might drop around 100x100=10000 x less rads (energy) in a circuit board than a human. I do think you are on to a telling point with this archaic0. If megarad electronics can handle say 1 billion times as much as a human: Why bother to build them this tough. If a human can handle it with 1.5 inches of polyprop shield then it would be far easier to whack a few microchips in a brick sized chunk of plastic shielding. That way you'd have far more computing power than you'd ever get from your chunky megarad circuitboards. If the flux of particles fast enough to get through isn't enough to bother a human then its an obvious waste of time making electronics that can handle 10 billion times more energy flux.

Obviously we need to so we do. And shielding is not a good answer because you need feet thick not inches.

 

The question as Craig has indicated is whether the energy distribution is maxwellian- bell shaped - the signature of a system in stable equilibrium of inputs and outputs, as the MIT resource on radiation hazards states. Or is it diminishing exponentially in quantities as energy increases, with no significant amount of decently energised particles at dangerous energies as NASA loudly proclaims. Simular to their loud charts showing rad belt particle densitys 100 billion times less than the referenced studies (cladis 71, anspaugh 82) in the mikaelian paper. And their widely spread solar X-Ray flux figures that are around 10000x less than that which you get if you go to base principles and calculate it from the blackbody output of the suns coronal mass. Admitedly they can get away with that one easier because the x-ray flux is 99.99% absorbed by earths radiation belts before it gets to our ionisphere. Not on the moon though. Theres no doubt that there is a widely publicised refutation to every angle on this subject. Easy to find and believe if you're looking for reasurance of that treasured belief. The blue pills in the matrix of Apollo. Unfortunately I have a head that explodes in angry colours and dischord at the clashes of physics when I visualise these NASA proposed models of a cosy human space enviroment. This donut of particles around the equator of just livable energy that never soaks down into our clear LEO enviroment, nor goes near the Auroras, because Nasa wants to sneak past it at 30deg south, and obviously that auroral spectral signature PROVES that the Auroras are nothing to do with the radiation belts because humans can't shield or handle particles with energy that high and apollo did, so there!

 

The belts dip low in the south atlantic magnetic anomaly. In SE asia field strengths are strong enough to permit high energy particles with gyro-radius large enough to near the atmosphere. Manned orbital probes are not sent through either of these zones. Nor in polar orbits. Satillites don't even last long in LEO polar, so its over 20000km alt for polar sats as a general rule. No space shuttle has gone on a lunar flyby and Apollo is the only claim to have taken humans past 700km above the earth. Only one reason. Nixon didn't like admiting that russia was far in advance of US space tech and the gap was widening. Nixon liked being popular.

China and India are not behind in todays technology. And Russian rockets still lift a lot more, and do it far more efficiently than the best US ones as they always have. The 60's is a long time ago technology wise, and if Apollo was real then every space nation would be putting men on the moon routinely. Even the space shuttle could do it in that universe. They've all had a good giggle and moved on with reality. Its time America got over its ego and did the same. They are stuck in the Matrix of belief with the primate leftbrain deleting reality that tries to challenge the fantasy. A powerful bonding mechanism in the primate troop. Much better at cementing a group than believing something real that outsiders can buy into.

Nasa's "radiation belt remedial" scheme is the idea of using high power radio waves to disrubt stability and drain the belts into the auroras to make it possible for manned craft to traverse them. The belts are our shield from the suns x-ray flux. It is what boosts the energy of particles in the trapped particle belts to an average of what the magnetic field strength can contain at that altitude, with steady and equal inputs and outputs from energy sharing.

My advice: stay indoors for a few weeks if they start sodding around with "rad belt remediation":naughty:

And if you're tempted to publically point out discrepencies in NASA's info on this topic then after don't visit any of their pages with a computer you like. Ive lost 3 this last year since I dug up MIT's little paper and posted it here. - visit NASA page-lockup- deadmotherboard. just like that.

[Moontanman]

We are unable to see anything on the surface of the moon because of sheer scale. The moon is some 340,000 kilometers away. Even from orbit around the moon you would have a hard time seeing the Apollo hardware.

 

The same goes for the rovers on Mars. There are actually photographs taken from orbiting spacecraft (around Mars, of course) which shows the tracks of the rovers, where the shields impacted etc. But even then you have to know what to look for, and where.

 

I usually point Apollo hoax believers to Phil Plait's excellent website, Bad Astronomy:

Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Bad TV

 

Although we can't see the actual landers or flags we can bounce lasers off the reflectors left on the moon by the astronauts. almost the same thing!

[Boerseun]

- visit NASA page-lockup- deadmotherboard. just like that.

AWESOME! Have you got a link to that page? I know a few people I'd love to send it to. Also, maybe we can refer trolls at Hypo to it...

 

No, let's be serious. You're insinuating some sort of conspiracy from NASA that blows up computers of people who might try to disprove the moonlandings. That's not how Evil Government Agencies work. See, they will blow up your computer before you publish the damning results of your research. And, just to make sure you don't do it again, they will blow you up. What you're saying is that they blew up your motherboard after you've published, which won't help them at all.

 

So, apart from insisting that the moon landings were hoaxed, you're now saying that three faulty powersupplies in a row (extremely bad luck - maybe you should check out your DB box and replace the fuses for your plug circuits with fuses of the proper amperage) is NASA trying to stop you from debunking the Greatest Hoax Ever.

 

Come on. Publish that MIT report here, and let's see if Hypo's server suddenly explodes.

[Pyrotex]

Better yet, Silverslith, just give it a rest.

The Apollo Moon landings happened exactly as advertised.

A conspiracy involving nearly 100,000 people is just beyond all believability.

They would have blown the whistle before the second landing.

The Russians would have blown the whistle before the first landing.

Your data and your physics is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

[CraigD]

Space probe electronics are rated in megarads. Roughly a million times more than humans can handle. This just means it has chunky non-miniturised circuits, micro electronics just get beaten up to easily.

Silverslith, if you have some data supporting this claim, please provide it.

 

So source that I’ve encountered in a short search for radiation hardened electronics indicated that increasing electronics feature size – “non-miniaturization” – is a common approach to this commercially and scientifically important process. Rather, electronic hardening usually involves replacing conductive or semi-conductive features with insulators to prevent accidental electric currents that can damage sensitive components and adding shielding in excess of that found in ordinary electronics, such as with borosilicate glass. Consider this product description page, which includes DRAMs up to 1GB – electronics with far from non-miniaturized features.

And if you're tempted to publically point out discrepencies in NASA's info on this topic then after don't visit any of their pages with a computer you like. Ive lost 3 this last year since I dug up MIT's little paper and posted it here. - visit NASA page-lockup- deadmotherboard. just like that.

I’ve visited many NASA webpages on this topic with no ill effects. If what silverslith is claiming is true, it’s evidence of a fairly serious communication and property crime. However, unless one uses a browser to install and launch executable files, ActiveX controls, or similar activities that nearly all commercial browsers in their default configurations warn against, visiting a website via a brower simply can’t damage a computer in good condition, so the claim appears very unlikely to be true.

[Pyrotex]

Oddly enough, Silverslick, I work at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX. Actually, I work for one of their contractors, SAIC, but JSC is literally across the street (NASA Road 1) from my office. It was trivial to look up their department in charge of destroying computers on the Internet with their secret "Virtual Surge Technology" , and I gave them your email address.

 

Good luck! :confused: