Alien426 Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 Of course! Haven't you seen the historical document "Wallace & Gromit: A Grand Day Out"? Any self respecting person will agree that there's unchallengeable proof in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meksilon Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 Originally posted by Riffage you know the forums are called Discussion right, youve just ended it, kinda defeats the point of me asking for comments. nice avatar btw And as you've discovered explinations are just that. Attempts to explain rationally at all costs. Originally posted by Dark_Assassin Also... did you notice that in photos of the moons surface taken by the apollo missions there are no stars. Strange considering that the moon has no atmosphere and stars should be visible at all times... Not true, some photos taken on the moon show up to 4 stars (yes that's right, up to four stars)! Originally posted by The Adventurer Its another lighting issue. In daylight on the moon you can't see the stars. Give it up guys we did land, stop being commies... That is a myth, "daylight" or night the stars are still just as bright on the moon because there is no atmosphere. Originally posted by The Adventurer Guys did you read the site? The first picture is with the lander in the shot. The second shot is the same shot only PAST the Lander. It is the same moutian range. There so far away they just don't look closer when your past the lander. See the big black spot on the second image? Thats the landers shadow their standing in. We know they are definatly NOT taken at diffrent distances because of the cross hairs we can see the mountains to be almost exactly the same size in each photo. Go and get better resolution pictures you will see that your explination is imposible! And explain this^ while you're at it, because they were both on the rolls of film that the Astronaunts took back with them and the ground in both is clearly identical, but the background is compleatly diffrent!! Originally posted by Drunken_Sailor Too many telescopes were watching that night when Neal Armstrong and the crew made its landing back around '69 and plenty caught reflections of descent. Reflections of A decent. Watch Capricorn One. Originally posted by The Adventurer 6) All the ststic pictures taken by the astronauts were taken from chest mounted cameras, of which they could not see what they were taking pictures of, just point in the right direction and take a picture, but all the pictures taken are expertly framed, none are off the edge of a picure, always directly in the middle. There were hundred of "crap" pictures. and because they were crap you never see them. NO, there were NOT! The Astronaunt's each took more then 100 shots on continual rolls of film. The pictures were then made public - ALL the pictures were made public. And they didn't even take two thousand pictures. No pictures were hidden. Originally posted by Wossname Reasons why I think the moon landings were real: 1) A reflector was placed on the moon which has been used by many independant scientists for a variety of experiments. TWO DOSEN'T DESERVE AN ANSWER THREE DOSEN'T DESERVE AN ANSWER EITHER. QUICK POINT RE: The design of the lunar module, for example, can be seen to address real issues regarding visibility out of the windows. It's a bizarre shape that no science fiction writer would ever have come up with. Why bother to spend so much time designing such features if they weren't ever going to be used? THE DESIGNS FOR THE LUNAR MODULE, AND THE ENTIRE APOLLO SPACE CRAFTS HAVE BEEN "LOST". 4) None of the objections withstands more than 3 minutes thought, or a simple experiment: - No Stars: Try looking at the sky on a brightly lit city street and see if you can see stars. It's an issue of contrast, and cameras are much worse than the human eye. - Speeding up the film makes it look like they're walking normally: I have to say that to me it doesn't look normal at all. It looks like sped up film taken in a low-g environment. - No scorch mark: The moon has low gravity, it doesn't take a powerful engine to get off the moon. 5) Basically, in order to make all the 'mistakes' that conspiracy theorist allege (Forgetting to put in stars! Accidentally labelling rocks with letters! Painting crosshairs behind objects instead of in front of them! Somehow deliberately lighting the moon "set" so that shadows go in funny directions), the people making the fake moon landing would have had to be complete and utter morons. I'm not talking about your average Joe Moron here, I'm talking about stupidity on a vast and humungous scale never before encountered outside a school for the mentally handicapped. Forgetting to put in stars?!? They may as well have painted the sky yellow - except that the lack of stars is _correct_!!! http://www.frabjous.org/writing/moon-hoax.html 6) Inconsistencies in the conspiracy theorists explanations for things... 7) In one of the missions, one of the astronauts dropped a hammer and a feather, and they fell to the ground at the same speed. This only happens in a vacuum. (One of the conspiracy theorists claims that this actually happens in earth atmosphere too, more proof that they don't even take basic steps to actually verify that the crap they're spouting is true - how difficult would it be for the guy to find a hammer and a feather and drop them and observe the effects? Try it yourself. Hell, if you can't find a hammer and a feather, try a remote control and a piece of paper) 1. Reflectors can easily be placed by an unmaned probe, or you just make the probe reflective! 4: No Stars? Why are there 1, 2, 3 or 4 stars in some photos then? BTW: NO PHOTOS ARE BLACK AND WHITE!! Speeding Up: You're forgetting that the dust kicked up by the astronaunts shoes and the buggie falls at the speed it would on earth when the speed is doubled. The dust should still be falling 3 times slower then earth, even in double speed because the moon has 1/6th out gravity. Scorch mark?!?! Maybe you're refering to the non-existant blast crater. What is interesting is that a flame would not be visible on the moon because it is a vacume. However the Apollo 16 take off - unlike all other apollo take offs - shows us a flame. That is IMPOSIBLE. IMPOSIBLE. There is absolutly NO WAY that could possibly happen!!!! 5. I have made no mention of sketchy information such as cross-hairs or the letter C (it is important to note though that NASA did touch that photo up now and removed the C... why?) As for your comments on the shadows.... EXPLAIN how THAT image came from the moon without any artificial lighting!! 1. I see a spotlight 2. I see shoadows going in to the spotlight 6. You should be more worried about NASA's inconsistancys! AND NUMBER SEVEN, YOU ARE COMPLEATLY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That feather and hammer experiment HAS been done by an independent group of people ON EARTH WITHOUT A VACUME, AND it was FILMED!!!!! When I get beleivable explinations for the photos in this post I may give you some credit. But I know you can't offer me them because they are both imposible! =mek= *Offensive comment edited out by bgbennyboy* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunken_Sailor Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 I´m not going deep into this again. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html http://astronomylinks.com/satellites_and_missions/moon/landing_conspiracy/ http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/hoax.htm http://www.business.uab.edu/cache/motives.htm http://www.business.uab.edu/cache/debunking.htm http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/ http://www.nasastooge.fsnet.co.uk/ http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/pub/expmoon/apollo_landings.html http://www.nasm.edu/apollo/apollotop10.htm http://www.clavius.org/ http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/strangeshadows.html http://www.the-indigestible.com/specials/moon.htm http://www.valleyskeptic.com/moon_hoax.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien426 Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 The spot comes from the dish. It's not one made out of plastic like you have at home, it's a foldable reticule and therefore translucent. You can see the tripod legs' shadows go into the spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffage Posted September 4, 2002 Author Share Posted September 4, 2002 aww come on go deeper into the subject and make this the longest thread ever, you know that post from Meksilon is probably the longest post on a forums i have ever seen that isnt spam! Here have a free atom! Try looking at the sky on a brightly lit city street and see if you can see stars. It's an issue of contrast, and cameras are much worse than the human eye. this is complete bull, you cant see stars from a lit city because of light pollution, the light from the city illuminates up and blocks out the stars because the lights are brighter than they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordmaster Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 Next: a Fox documentary claiming that the alleged holocaust never took place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huz Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 There was a pretty good documentary on Channel 4 last night, about some French bloke who thought that the World Trade Center and Pentagon planes were, respectively, remote controlled and a cunning-disguised cruise missile, all flown by the US government. Apparently his book is selling rather well. Just goes to show, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien426 Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 I don't get it. You crash planes into skyscrapers and thereby kill thousands, yet you remote control the plane so no pilot gets killed? What about the cell phone calls from aboard? That's just about enough conspiracy theories for me, thankyouverymuch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remi Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 Heh, yes, anybody who takes a Fox "documentary" like this seriously needs to get their head examined. They probably watch "Pulse" also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptdc Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 99.999999... % of conspiracy theories are absolute crap, such as this one. The trouble is that because most of them are crap the one theory that might be true is dismissed as crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scabb Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 Originally posted by PTDC 99.999999... % of conspiracy theories are absolute crap, such as this one. The trouble is that because most of them are crap the one theory that might be true is dismissed as crap. So you're conspiring against conspiracy theories? That means that theory is a conspiracy theory. * scabb dismisses PTDC's theory as crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunken_Sailor Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 Originally posted by Riffage 1) The moon has been mapped several times but there is no evidence of thier studies on the moon, eg. the moon buggy was left there, but it cant be seen on any pictures taken. You must remember those veicles were really cuite small. You´d need at least resolution with each pixel covering a meter square of ground. They´d be invisible on any resolution inferior to that Originally posted by Riffage why is it that some of the cameras are in colour and some not, and why are some really grainy and some perfectly clear They had different cameras, i.e. the handheld ones and some video cameras that had been attached externally so that they could f.e. take external pictures of the Astronaut´s initial descend to ground f.e. Moreover, the quality of the images being transmitted to ground could wary simply because of the variable athmospheric conditions. After all our athmosphere is a dynamic system, not stable, and the planet was also rotating all of the time. Therefore the transmission would be pashing through ahtmospheric conditions that would have waried from minute to minute. Originally posted by Riffage 3) Apparently due to the physics of the magnetic poles of the earth the radiation produced would virtually kill the astronauts when they returned to earth Sorry, but actually the radiation inside the Earth´s magnetic field is considerd relativelly benign, i.e. relativelly a low energy particle radiation. Therefore a metal sheat no thicker than a few millimeters actually does usually suffice as a shield. [One consideration is that the radiation inside the Earth´s manetic field does vary from time to time, i.e. a dynamic system. An increased solar activity, i.e. a sun storm f.e., does raise the charge levels. Therefore there can come periods when the radiation becomes a danger for astronauts. However after a while the charge does fade again down to normal. So timing is important. You don´t want to be in space during an active sun cycle. During the 60s and 70s the sun was still in a low activity cycle] A spacecraft inside it doesn´t encounter comsic rayes, as the magnetic field acts as a shield against them. Outside the magnetic field that´s though a different matter. However, usually an astronaut pashing through space does not even so get a dangerous radiation dosage as long as his spacetrip does not exceed from few weeks to few moths in length. The trips to the Moon and back all were short enough in duration so that the absence of cancer is not a surprice. Originally posted by Riffage 4) When the landing pod lands on the moon dust is only blown up for about 1/2 second and then everything goes clear, the moon lander is then spotless of dust or any particles That´s exactly how dust behaves on the Moon. Actually this is exactly a proof that these pictures were taken on the Moon and nowere ellse. Originally posted by Riffage When the moon lander blasts off from the moon there is no dust blown up and no scorch marks are left No surprice there. You still are descriping it as it ought to be. You are forgetting that it was only the upper part of the lander, i.e. the ascent stage, which arose. The rocket it was using was small and it´s small blast did not touch the surfece. Originally posted by Riffage how does that camera follow it up away from the surface They had left a camera on the surface to picture the ascent. Originally posted by Riffage of which they could not see what they were taking pictures of. Obviously it´s incorrect that they didn´t see what they were picturing Originally posted by Riffage there are no stars. Exposure time, exposure time. The Moon surface is relativelly bright. Therefore when you are taking pictures of the surface, you choose a short exposure time meaning relativelly faint objects like stars fade into the background and the foreground does not get glaringly bright in the pictures taken. So if they´d want to take pictures of stars they´d have had to have chosen a longer exposure time and to have fased the camera away from the surface altogether. You can try this your self on your camera here on ground. Try first to take pictures fasing into the sun. Notice how all other objects than the sun in the picture become very dark, because your camera has automaticly chosen a very short exposure time. Now turn your camera away from the sun, take another picture, and notice now how the background objects become so much brighter. The difference with taking pictures of stars is that those objects are much fainter relativelly speaking, so the difference in exposure time alters wether they are seen at all or not. Originally posted by Riffage I still have my doubts, I mean there can't be two identical sets of mountains in two different directions, it just doesn't happen.. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/mountns1.jpg Sorry, LOL, but now your scepticism really has gone into overdrive. Quite obviously the one picture is taken with the lander in the foreground. The second is taken after the astronaut has walked a fair distance and now the lander is invisble for the camea behind his back. Notice that he is standing in the shadow of the lander when he is taking that second picture. The mountains look unchanged as they are still a fair distance away. Originally posted by Meksilon but the background is compleatly diffrent!.. No, it´s the very same mountain in both pictures. They simply aren´t taken from preciselly the same spot, i.e. the astronaut took a picture, took a step forward, took another picture. In [http://web.bryant.edu/~history/h453proj/spring_02/hoaxes/backdrop1.jpg] the astronaut who took the picture is obviously standing at a slightly higher spot and taking the picture at a slightly different angle than when he took picture [http://web.bryant.edu/~history/h453proj/spring_02/hoaxes/backdrop.jpg]. Originally posted by Meksilon You're forgetting that the dust kicked up by the astronaunts shoes and the buggie falls at the speed it would on earth when the speed is doubled. The dust should still be falling 3 times slower then earth, even in double speed because the moon has 1/6th Earth's gravity!.. Rubbish, you are forgetting that dust actually falls a lot slower on Earth than on the Moon, because the Earth has athmosphere and the Moon has not. The precense of atmosphere quite owerwhelms the difference in theyr behavior that ought to have been caused by gravity. Your statement would be true if the Moon had an athmosphere which moreover would be equally thick as on the Earth. You see dust particles are carried by air. Without air they´d just fall down immediatelly like a rock like they do on the Moon. Originally posted by Meksilon There is absolutly NO WAY that could possibly happen!!.. Depends on the type of rocket fuel. A litle bit of flame might be seen when f.e. using the combination of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen as fuel potentially creating a real fier even in vacume. Originally posted by Meksilon http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/goodphoto.gif EXPLAIN how THAT image came from the moon without any artificial lighting!!.. Sorry, but I see nothing out of the ordinary. There are at least three light sources on the Moon which are of natural origin, i.e. the sun, the Earth and the reflected light from the Moon surface itself. If you think you are seing light from two different directions, then those two light sources are with a high probability the Sun, the brighter one, and the Earth, the less bright light coming from the other direction. Originally posted by Meksilon That feather and hammer experiment HAS been done by an independent group of people ON EARTH WITHOUT A VACUME, AND it was FILMED!!!.. Sorry, but in athmosphere a feather and a hammer fall at a very different rate. That´s quite elementary. Anyone claiming different is lying outright, emplying some trick to make it look he is right. However inside a vacume chamber, that´s a different matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbeard Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 Is the Moon Big!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Adventurer Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 Hellbeard your spaming is not apresiated. *points to the General Discussion hub* Get thee out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbeard Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 I'm just showing how much i care! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elTee Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 Hey, Hellbeard, keep 'em coming! Drunken_Sailor is absolutely correct. The only reason things fall at different rates on the Earth is because of the atmosphere. The only thing that makes anything fall at all is Gravity, which is at a rate of roughly 9ms on the Earth, and roughly 1.6ms on the moon. This is also known as "acceleration due to gravity" - ie, if you drop an object this is how fast it will fall as a result of the gravitational pull. The gravitational pull is in turn dependant on the mass of the object at the centre of the field - and this also explains the escape velocity. As the moon is smaller in mass than the Earth, and thus has a less powerful gravitational pull, its escape velocity is significantly less than the Earths. Also, a smaller hight is required to achieve orbit. It would be possible to escape the moon with a long ladder, if need be. Basically, to those who don't study physics this means that the moon is very different to the earth - not that the laws of physics are different, just more... well, pure, if you follow. There is less interference, so although things are different (such as weight) that doesn't mean that they don't obey the laws of physics. The main reason I think that NASA wouldn't fake the photos is because eventually they will be caught out if they did. I mean, they'd lose a hell of a lot of respect - America would, really. Try checking out all the films made at the time about the apollo missions. Most of them can be found as extra's on the DVD version of The Dish. That radiation that riffage mentioned - the Van Allen belt - this is interesting. Check this out: Van Allen Belt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbeard Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 When I grow up I'm going to blow up the Moon! *evil laugh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elTee Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 Ah, c'mon man! That was piss-poor. I prefered it when you pleaded ignorance to our natural satellite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffage Posted September 4, 2002 Author Share Posted September 4, 2002 Hm just had a thought, if it was faked they think it was at Area 51..... BUT... what if area 51 was the moon! ahh HA now your stumped..... sort of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meksilon Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 Drunken_Sailor. please, please stop you're killing me! Originally posted by Drunken_Sailor Rubbish, you are forgetting that dust actually falls a lot slower on Earth than on the Moon, because the Earth has athmosphere and the Moon has not. The precense of atmosphere quite owerwhelms the difference in theyr behavior that ought to have been caused by gravity. Your statement would be true if the Moon had an athmosphere which moreover would be equally thick as on the Earth. You see dust particles are carried by air. Without air they´d just fall down immediatelly like a rock like they do on the Moon. Complete nonsence - go in the desert and kick up some dust. And then watch it fall. Air resistance makes almost no diffrence except to the small fraction which might be dust dust and carried away. But the rest is there. Originally posted by Drunken_Sailor Depends on the type of rocket fuel. A litle bit of flame might be seen when f.e. using the combination of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen as fuel potentially creating a real fier even in vacume. what a poor understanding you have. Originally posted by Drunken_Sailor Sorry, but I see nothing out of the ordinary. There are at least three light sources on the Moon which are of natural origin, i.e. the sun, the Earth and the reflected light from the Moon surface itself. If you think you are seing light from two different directions, then those two light sources are with a high probability the Sun, the brighter one, and the Earth, the less bright light coming from the other direction. If anything that makes TWO light sources - the Sun and the Earth. However if this wall really the case all the objects would have 2 shaddows, each going in parallel to the other shadows. OR the earth's shadows would be washed out by the sun's light. In this case everyone has one shadow which is in parallel. Originally posted by Drunken_Sailor Sorry, but in athmosphere a feather and a hammer fall at a very different rate. That´s quite elementary. Anyone claiming different is lying outright, emplying some trick to make it look he is right. However inside a vacume chamber, that´s a different matter. Oh really, you think it can't be done... Click Here or buy the 'What happened on our Moon?' video. I will also repeate this point: The Van Allen radiation belt was told to be much smaller then previously thought when NASA's Apollo spacecraft went through. A few years later CNN reports that it has been discovered the Van Allen Radiation belts are much thicker then previously thought. Moreso no spacecraft (except the Apollos) has ever "gone through" these belts. The crew of a Space Shuttle who approached the belt but remained a very fair distance away reported that they could see the radiation with their eyes closed. Now we sent 6 apollo missions to the moon (and apollo 13 went through the belt too) - but none of the crew bothered reporting about how they could see the radiation with their eyes closed, in fact they couldn't even tell it's thickness even though they were proceeding through it. =mek= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercatfat Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 Soak your head, dammit. The moon's physics are way different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbeard Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 I a tree falls on the moon and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercatfat Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 If someone punched you in the nose really, really hard, would anyone care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien426 Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 Hellbeard: You don't happen to be dry or melon from the older LucasFans forum? Thanks for the loosening remarks between those long, long, long posts. They are appreciated. No, the tree (imported from earth) doesn't make a sound. Even if there was someone there, they wouldn't hear it because Houston is babbling on the radio. Ha! Quotes: Puhleaze don't over-use them! scabb is one of the persons who is known to quote his predecessors regularly. That's not necessary! Just POST REPLY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunken_Sailor Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 Originally posted by Meksilon Complete nonsence - go in the desert and kick up some dust. And then watch it fall. Air resistance makes almost no diffrence except to the small fraction which might be dust dust and carried away. But the rest is there Ow, ow, ow...not really. Moon dust is very fine grained, so it will not behave like sand particles but like dust particles in the air. On the Moon particles fall right down no matter how small because there is no air. You can see that when you watch the Moon rover roving about Originally posted by Meksilon what a poor understanding you have Well, oxygen in our athmosphere is what causes things to burn, i.e. to combine with oxygen. As there is no air in vacume things can´t burn unless you bring oxygen with you. If your rocket is using the combination of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen there might conceivably be a litle flame in the exhaust in case the burn was imperfect and there is a litle bit of oxygen and hydrogen mixed with the exhaust particles. Anyhow, any rocket exhaust will seem to glow a litle in vacume simply because it´s hot, not that there is any flame probably in most cases. Originally posted by Meksilon If anything that makes TWO light sources - the Sun and the Earth. However if this was really the case all the objects would have 2 shadows, each going in parallel to the other shadows. OR the earth's shadows would be washed out by the sun's light. In this case everyone has one shadow which is in parallel One light source can be directly overhead so that the shadow is constantly under your feet. Earth light is much fainter, but the Earth is much closer. What it probably means is that you´ll not seing double shadows, as Earth light is not strong but still everyhere. What it will mean is that the shadows will be lit by Earth light and therefore not very dark like they ellse ought to be if the Sun were the only light source. Originally posted by Meksilon In this case everyone has one shadow which is in parallel Incorrect. That´s only true if the ground is completelly level and all the objects are fairly close by. On uneven ground and given different distances, well see: http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/strangeshadows.html http://www.the-indigestible.com/specials/moon.htm http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth....If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You'll see that they appear to diverge. Here is a major claim of the HBs that you can disprove all by yourself! Don't take my word for it, go out and try! Originally posted by Meksilon Oh really, you think it can't be done... Click Here or buy the 'What happened on our Moon?' video Sorry, had difficulty with your file. But it could really only be done through some trickery. Originally posted by Meksilon A few years later CNN reports that it has been discovered the Van Allen Radiation belts are much thicker then previously thought See, Van Allen Belts: http://www.lbl.gov/Education/CSEE/cup/Su00/Bailey/radeffectswebpage1.html http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wenpart1.html 10-100 Mev Typical proton energies in the inner radiation belt." "10-15,000 Mev [mega electron volt] Range of energies in solar outbursts (see Sun)." "1-100,000,000,000 Gev [giga electron volt] Range of energies among cosmic ray ions. However as their energy goes up, their intensity goes way down, so that ions at the high energy end are quite rare." As you can see, radiation inside the so called radiation belt is a lot more benign than radiation coming from cosmic rays and the sun during a stormy period. http://srhp.jsc.nasa.gov/Newsletter/Volume1-2/Index.html [you can read here about radiation risk projections for a trip to the Mars] Originally posted by Meksilon none of the crew bothered reporting about how they could see the radiation with their eyes closed Ha, well you think so: http://www.thursdaysclassroom.com/30may01/pdf/ast30may_1.pdf [When Apollo astronauts were traveling to the Moon, they occasionally saw flashes of light inside their eyes . ... ] http://www.geocities.com/beyondearth2/view38.htm [When Apollo astronauts were traveling to the Moon, they occasionally saw flashes of light inside their eyes. It was a sign that high-energy cosmic rays were coursing through their bodies. Fortunately, the dose of such radiation during a round trip to the Moon was not enough to cause health problems. No one was harmed.] Originally posted by Meksilon in fact they couldn't even tell it's thickness even though they were proceeding through it.. What do you think it is, a clout of thick gue? Its quite invisible thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.