Horizon: Jupiter Revealed.
Watched this Program on TV last night... that I found very interesting.
(http://www.bing.com/th?id=ON.5BE56DD3955A77D5A5A3B11B313EEED4&pid=News&w=197&h=112&c=14&rs=2&qlt=90).
(https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F5aebe666-9a29-11e8-9b62-17ec317258a6.jpg?crop=2550%2C3188%2C0%2C0&resize=498)
I cannot find a copy on video as yet..
It discussed was there water on the actual planet Jupiter... and also what was underneath the cloud to its core..as as how was it likely to have been created.
Although Jupiter is seen as a Gas Giant...and contains much hydrogen (that is in water H2O) it suggested water was within the clouds maybe like in a ice like hail stone form..
but they wanted to know what was underneath the cloud base...
They ended up doing an experiment to severely pressurise a small sample of Hydrogen by using a series of lasers... all firing at the sample at the same time from different angles... and this put it under the same pressure that they believe it to be under the cloud base....
and what they suggested was that it actually changed it into a metal like substance.. or Hydrogen Metal...Which I have never heard of before..They recken that under the cloud belts, that it also has a middle core of metallic like hydrogen..between the outer cloud belt and its inner core..
It seems some of the gas hydrogen changed its state to become a Solid material at lower stages in its atmosphere due to very high pressures..that are created as you go further down into its clouds..
They then made suggestions on how it was formed... with two main theories..
One that it may have been from some smaller like planet or large rock... that ended up gaining its various gases from space over time and ended up as it is now..
The other theory that it was a combination of many small like rocks that formed together somehow...to eventually create its core..
It has been using a probe JUNO to monitor it .. as Juno can get much closer to it than any previous probes and deal with its intense radiation that previously prevented other probes from doing the research that they wanted..
In ref to space craft or probes... and question of the likes of the Van Allen belt effecting them or their electronics..I wonder when they managed to deal with the Van Allen belt in say with the Flights of and before Apollo in the 1970s.. and onwards..
There was always the concernes about radiation effecting old type of electronics ,I assume... as was mentioned recently in another thread..
But I am sure that we do believe that Probes have been sent much further than the moon to other planets in the Solar system..
If not they have done an incredible job in faking it IMO..its suggesting that probes can now deal with the likes of Jupiters radiation ...
So have they now conqurered radiation issues ? with any certainty that are may worse than any vann allen belt ?
Have they done so that Man can now be Ok to go into deeper space ?
QuoteThis film, narrated by Toby Jones, follows Nasa's mission to send its Juno spacecraft to Jupiter, the largest and oldest planet in the solar system. Juno is visiting the most extreme environment Nasa has ever studied. Jupiter is two and a half times as large as all the other planets combined, and with extreme size comes extreme radiation, requiring the craft's fragile electronics to be encased in 200kg of titanium. But its findings are incredible. Juno has observed lightning a thousand times more powerful than that on Earth, has found signs that there may be huge amounts of water on Jupiter, and can reveal to us what is at the planet's core.
Quote from: astr0144 on August 08, 2018, 03:40:28 PM
There was always the concernes about radiation effecting old type of electronics ,I assume... as was mentioned recently in another thread..
It's the opposite, modern electronics are more easily affected because of the small size of their components and of the low energy levels they work with. In those conditions a small interference provoked by radiation can have huge consequences.
QuoteSo have they now conqurered radiation issues ? with any certainty that are may worse than any vann allen belt ?
I suppose the first thing they needed to know to be able to create a probe that can sustain the levels of radiation near Jupiter is to understand what type of radiation they need to work with. Knowing that they will know how to harden the electronics so they can resist against that type of radiation.
I now recall the details of your post in ref to the Buzz Aldrin did not go to the moon thread.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=11034.msg144945#msg144945
I think what I am unsure about is or was... what we were discussing on that thread in relation to did any of the Apollo Flights actually go to the Moon..
and as had been discussed on some past threads... it has been suggested that the Space craft could not have travelled there due to the Van Allen Radiation Belt. V.A.R.B
Now if that was the case... then the electronics used back then... would not have seemed to have been up to it...
BUT since then... we have appeared to have sent probes to further away planets than the moon .. which seems to be with more updated electronics..
As has also been said... it maybe that NASA did send some Apollo programs to the moon or other spacecraft even if just to orbit and photo the moon..
I think thats what needs to initially be clarified in terms of the older claimed Space flights..travelling some distance with the older electronics..that could pass the V.A.R.B..
even if manned flights could not do this ? if humans could not travel due to the V.A.RB, ...
As I say it does seem as if the more modern probes or certain spacecraft can now travel further... and I assume pass the Van Allen Radiation belt... if they are able to go to other planets..
So that may seem to suggest more modern electronics is what is able to deal with radiation better..
But in the article.. it does say... that how fragile the electronics are... and it says that what they did was encase them in 200 KG of Titainium....
Have they done this for other crafts or probes in the past to some degree..
although if they dont travel too close to planets of I assume which usually have higher radiation levels than that to just open space, as it travels thru long strethes of space..
Other than say like the V.A.R.B
So have they sent Craft to Mars ?... we are led to believe so... and I would be very surprised if they did not send those probes to the outer planets..
QuoteNasa has ever studied. Jupiter is two and a half times as large as all the other planets combined, and with extreme size comes extreme radiation, requiring the craft's fragile electronics to be encased in 200kg of titanium
Posted by: ArMaP
QuoteIt's the opposite, modern electronics are more easily affected because of the small size of their components and of the low energy levels they work with. In those conditions a small interference provoked by radiation can have huge consequences.
In the case of Jupiter, its suggested that it has higher radiation than any other planet in the solar system..
How that compares to Van Allen belt radiation, I do not know !
I not sure about types of radiation... Or how Belts of radiation in space exists..
but in ref to the planets ... I think its down to the heat and size of the planet..
QuoteI suppose the first thing they needed to know to be able to create a probe that can sustain the levels of radiation near Jupiter is to understand what type of radiation they need to work with. Knowing that they will know how to harden the electronics so they can resist against that type of radiation.
Quote from: astr0144 on August 08, 2018, 11:11:45 PM
and as had been discussed on some past threads... it has been suggested that the Space craft could not have travelled there due to the Van Allen Radiation Belt. V.A.R.B
It has also been suggested that the craft could travel through the belts but the dose of radiation would effect the health of astronauts adversely. The Russians had already successfully landed unmanned probes on the Moon before Apollo 11....
The amount of solar radiation the Apollo astronauts would be exposed to should also be considered. If NASA don't think that is an issue then why did they publish material such as below.
(https://smd-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/science-pink/s3fs-public/styles/large/public/mnt/medialibrary/2005/06/12/24jun_electrostatics_resources/base2_strip.jpg?itok=Up--vj8V)
Above: Artist's concept of an electrostatic radiation shield, consisting of positively charged inner spheres and negatively charged outer spheres. The screen net is connected to ground. Image courtesy ASRC Aerospace.QuoteThose are all physical solutions. There is another possibility, one with no physical substance but plenty of shielding power: a force field.
Most of the dangerous radiation in space consists of electrically charged particles: high-speed electrons and protons from the Sun, and massive, positively charged atomic nuclei from distant supernovas.
Like charges repel. So why not protect astronauts by surrounding them with a powerful electric field that has the same charge as the incoming radiation, thus deflecting the radiation away?
Many experts are skeptical that electric fields can be made to protect astronauts. But Charles Buhler and John Lane, both scientists with ASRC Aerospace Corporation at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, believe it can be done. They've received support from the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, whose job is to fund studies of far-out ideas, to investigate the possibility of electric shields for lunar bases.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/24jun_electrostatics
NASA claim the Apollo boys were just lucky that Solar radiation levels were low when they went. As usual this is a convenient answer. :)
Quote"A lot of people think about the Apollo astronauts, and that they didn't have much protection and were fine," Lane told SPACE.com. "But in Apollo, it was a very short mission and a lot of it was basically luck. I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky, but I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets."
John Lane, an applications scientist with ASRC Aerospace Corp. at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). https://www.space.com/658-lunar-shields-radiation-protection-moon-based-astronauts.html
So they wouldn't want to risk it now without protection.
That is why I contend that they did not risk it for Apollo 11. The mission COULD NOT fail. They pretended to go and just did a few orbits of the Earth before splashing back down and having the dodgy press conference when Aldrin and Armstrong were clearly scared/shocked etc. A human intelligence specialist informed me that in his expert opinion they were hiding something (probably under duress) in that conference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0
Yeah right guys. You went to the Moon and can't agree on that! Fuc4 off! ::)
Apollo 11 was a huge act of fraud.
The body language in the astronaut interview video is deceptive. They're uncomfortable with the question AND the answer.
Quote from: Irene on August 09, 2018, 03:52:40 PM
The body language in the astronaut interview video is deceptive. They're uncomfortable with the question AND the answer.
It appears to me that they were being careful not to reveal classified info. That's why their answers are short and deliberate. And in all probability rehearsed extensively.
Yes they did go to the moon, just not as it was protrayed.
They are definitely things they weren't allowed to talk about!
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on August 09, 2018, 05:15:42 PM
It appears to me that they were being careful not to reveal classified info. That's why their answers are short and deliberate. And in all probability rehearsed extensively.
Yes they did go to the moon, just not as it was protrayed.
They are definitely things they weren't allowed to talk about!
I disagree. I think there's a very good reason Armstrong withdrew from public life. He knew he would have to lie and he couldn't bear to do it more than he had to.
Even Buzz Aldrin has a hard time now maintaining the party line.
Well I think that most people 'see' what they want to 'see'. Even if the 'facts' are pure conjecture, they will find something, anything to validate that belief. I'm not immune from doing the same thing. Until someone goes up there and flies around what is supposed to be the Apollo landing sites, and looks at the foot prints and all the junk they left, no one knows. I think they went.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on August 09, 2018, 05:56:12 PM
Well I think that most people 'see' what they want to 'see'. Even if the 'facts' are pure conjecture, they will find something, anything to validate that belief. I not immune from the same thing. Until someone goes up there and flies around what is supposed to be the Apollo landing sites, and looks at the foot prints and all the junk they left, no one knows. I think they went.
Who said they didn't go? I didn't. All I said was their body language indicates deception. They're lying about something.
Not talking about you in particular. Just an observation of some comments. I thought I was speaking in general. I'm just too stupid to know the difference I guess. ;D
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on August 09, 2018, 07:08:56 PM
Not talking about you in particular. Just an observation of some comments. I thought I was speaking in general. I'm just too stupid to know the difference I guess. ;D
I know. Don't sweat it. :)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on August 09, 2018, 07:08:56 PM
Not talking about you in particular. Just an observation of some comments. I thought I was speaking in general. I'm just too stupid to know the difference I guess. ;D
I think humans have visited the Moon. Perhaps even one of the Apollo missions made it. But Apollo 11? No chance.
It's a hoax!
Quote from: Pimander on August 10, 2018, 12:00:01 AM
I think humans have visited the Moon. Perhaps even one of the Apollo missions made it. But Apollo 11? No chance.
It's a hoax!
You maybe right Pim but I think differently. Until.... lol
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on August 09, 2018, 05:15:42 PM
Yes they did go to the moon,
Do you have any tangible proof from a source OTHER that NASA?
::)
QuoteThey are definitely things they weren't allowed to talk about!
yes MOST definitely
lol well I was going to say Z, do you have ...... oh wait a minute... ;D ;)
Quote from: astr0144 on August 08, 2018, 11:11:45 PM
Now if that was the case... then the electronics used back then... would not have seemed to have been up to it...
BUT since then... we have appeared to have sent probes to further away planets than the moon .. which seems to be with more updated electronics..
As I said in several occasions, it was the opposite, older electronics are
less affected by radiation than modern electronics.
One of the reasons is size. Look at the photo below, showing one IC (Integrated Circuit) used in the Apollo missions.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/11661h.jpg)
(Source (https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/apollo-guidance-computer-and-first-silicon-chips))
Judging by the scale at the bottom right, the smallest features of the transistors on that IC was something like 20 micron (20 / 1,000,000 of a metre). Considering that a proton has a diameter of around 1.6 femtometres (1.6 / 1,000,000,000,000,000 of a metre) you can see that it would be needed a large bombardment of protons to affect those electronics.
Today's electronics are made with the smallest feature measuring 10 nanometres (2000 times smaller), the probability of particles interfering with the normal functioning of the IC is much higher.
PS: I hope I didn't make any mistake on the my post, as I'm half asleep I can't really know.
Thanks to all that have posted their comments.
As I mentioned... I am sure there are many a previous similar discussion that has occurred before on PRC...
But It may also be of interest to see if any views may have changed...as we all obtain new or varied information and our opinions can alter..
In ref to the Apollo Moon Missions and the Van Allen Radiation belt..and did Apollo go to the Moon..
I would be content to know if any of the Missions did actually land there and if Man did walk on the Moon....
But I could see possibilities that such issues suggested could have occurred on Apollo 11.
But its also of interest to see Sgts views on How they may have got around the Van Allen Radiation Belt.. as I think the Moon Missions are one of Sgts main areas of interest.
I was not sure if during past disputes about such topics if maybe most of the members had come to one main conclusion on it...
So its good to read some of the differing comments to get some further idea..what members may now consider about it today..
I may make some further more detailed replies to some posts later..
This also relates to the other recent thread that I posted on that is of the same sort of topic.. that I note has also had some further related updated comments posted on it..
Buzz Aldrin says we didn't go to the moon.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=11034.msg145058#msg145058
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on August 10, 2018, 01:51:54 AM
You maybe right Pim but I think differently. Until.... lol
I very rarely make statements like, "Apollo 11 is a hoax," without proof but on this one it is more than a hunch. There is a distinctive smell about Bullshit (I should know I grew up near several farms).
Quote from: zorgon on August 10, 2018, 02:19:31 AM
Do you have any tangible proof from a source OTHER that NASA?
Quoteon Monday, November 4, 2002, the eve of the national elections, ABC's World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings chose the subject for his closing story: "Finally this evening, we're not quite sure what we think about this," he intoned. "But the space agency is going to spend a few thousand dollars trying to prove to some people that the United States did indeed land men on the moon."
Jennings described how "NASA had been so rattled" it "hired" somebody "to write a book refuting the conspiracy theorists." He closed with a misquotation: "A professor of astronomy in California said he thought it was beneath NASA's dignity to give these Twinkies the time of day. Now, that was his phrase, by the way. We simply wonder about NASA."
Jennings was referring to Philip Plait, an educator (not a professor) in California who runs the Bad Astronomy Web site that discusses many mythical aspects of outer space. What Plait actually had said was that he felt it was proper for NASA to respond, but that it did seem "beneath their dignity" to be forced to do it. Contrary to Jennings's account, Plait fully supported the monograph contract.
But that TV insult did it as far as NASA management was concerned. Their dignity called into question, and fearing angry telephone calls from congressmen returning to Washington after the election, they decided to revoke the contract. They paid for work done to date and washed their hands of the project.
http://www.jamesoberg.com/042003lessonsfake_his.html
So they hired someone to refute the Apollo hoax theorists. What happened next? They chickened out!
To be fair to Jim O he thinks they should have gone ahead (see link).
This may or may not be the place to post this, but here goes.
I have access to a website (which most of you probably know about) called Academia.edu
There are scientific papers posted there from Oxford, Berkley, MIT and NYU.
I scan this from time to time to see if there are any interesting items to read about.
I came across one in particular, mostly because of the title.
Lunar Lies: The Impact of Informational Framing and Individual Differences in
Shaping Conspiracist Beliefs About the Moon Landings
Here is the summary:
Summary: Two studies examined the role of informational framing and individual differences on acceptance of the moon landings
conspiracy theory (CT). In Study 1, participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups in which they were
exposed to different forms of information about the moon landings CT. Results showed that information critical of the moon
landings CT resulted in attenuated conspiracist beliefs and that information supportive of the CT resulted in stronger conspiracist
beliefs. In addition, stronger belief in the moon landings CT was associated with participants' belief in other CTs and openness to
experience. In Study 2, participants completed a survey measuring their belief in the moon landings CT and a range of individual
difference factors. Results showed that acceptance of the moon landings CT was associated with the adoption of a conspiracist
worldview and schizotypal tendencies. Possibilities for conceptualizing the functional roles played by CTs are discussed. Copyright
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
It goes on to discuss the different studies and their outcome.
I just thought it interesting that there was an effort to quantify the belief in Conspiracy Theories and that the author's would use the belief/non-belief in the Apollo Landings as model.
Note: if this has been posted before or is common knowledge, please excuse my ignorance.
8)
(if you can't access the site and would like a copy of the study, PM me and I'll email you a pdf file.) ;)
Quote from: Pimander on August 13, 2018, 09:07:32 PM
I very rarely make statements like, "Apollo 11 is a hoax," without proof but on this one it is more than a hunch. There is a distinctive smell about Bullshit (I should know I grew up near several farms).
http://www.jamesoberg.com/042003lessonsfake_his.html
So they hired someone to refute the Apollo hoax theorists. What happened next? They chickened out!
To be fair to Jim O he thinks they should have gone ahead (see link).
Phil Plait... the failed astronomer that makes more money getting PAID to debunk stuff...
Jim Oberg... the PAID NASA spokesperson they always put on TV news to debunk stuff...
I like Jim actually he really wants to believe in UFO's LOL But even the news people toss him in as a token debunker and have cut him short on occasions
So still waiting for that PROOF :P
Quote from: zorgon on August 14, 2018, 01:44:06 AM
So still waiting for that PROOF :P
That will take an act of God unless you are lucky. :P
It was Ben Rich's opinion that the public should not be told [about UFOs and extraterrestrials] .
He believed they could not handle the truth — ever. Only in the last months of his decline did he begin to feel that the "international corporate board of directors" dealing with the "Subject" could represent a bigger problem to citizens' personal freedoms under the United States Constitution than the presence of off-world visitors themselves. http://wpas.worldpeacefull.com/2017/09/lockheed-skunk-works-director-on-deathbed-ufos-are-real/
Quote from: Pimander on August 09, 2018, 02:18:35 PM
It has also been suggested that the craft could travel through the belts but the dose of radiation would effect the health of astronauts adversely. The Russians had already successfully landed unmanned probes on the Moon before Apollo 11....
The amount of solar radiation the Apollo astronauts would be exposed to should also be considered. If NASA don't think that is an issue then why did they publish material such as below.
(https://smd-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/science-pink/s3fs-public/styles/large/public/mnt/medialibrary/2005/06/12/24jun_electrostatics_resources/base2_strip.jpg?itok=Up--vj8V)Above: Artist's concept of an electrostatic radiation shield, consisting of positively charged inner spheres and negatively charged outer spheres. The screen net is connected to ground. Image courtesy ASRC Aerospace.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/24jun_electrostatics
NASA claim the Apollo boys were just lucky that Solar radiation levels were low when they went. As usual this is a convenient answer. :)
John Lane, an applications scientist with ASRC Aerospace Corp. at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). https://www.space.com/658-lunar-shields-radiation-protection-moon-based-astronauts.html
So they wouldn't want to risk it now without protection. That is why I contend that they did not risk it for Apollo 11. The mission COULD NOT fail. They pretended to go and just did a few orbits of the Earth before splashing back down and having the dodgy press conference when Aldrin and Armstrong were clearly scared/shocked etc. A human intelligence specialist informed me that in his expert opinion they were hiding something (probably under duress) in that conference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0
Yeah right guys. You went to the Moon and can't agree on that! Fuc4 off! ::)
Apollo 11 was a huge act of fraud.
i may be wrong but all hv charges put off xrays above say 10,000vdc,at a right angle.so if a particle shorts out the ball,a spike of xrays will be created or gamma etc.depending on voltage used.so the astronauts may get no relief from the overhead high voltage balls.or they may ,as all the interaction is on the top side of balls.im just putting that out there to think about.
Water clouds discovered deep inside Jupiter's Great Red Spot.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=11075.msg145438#msg145438