Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 217

Thread: The ISS proves The Moon Hoax.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93

    The ISS proves The Moon Hoax.

    1. The Proton Flux in the SAA ranges from 20 Protons/cm^2-sec to 400 protons/cm^2-sec depending on flight path.
    2. The Proton Flux in the VAB ranges from 1*10^4 to 2*10^8 or 25 to 500,000 times as high as the highest region of the SAA.
    3. More than half of the ISS exposure is from the SAA.
    4. The ISSís Labs 1 & 2 have a nominal radiation shield thickness of 40 gms/cm^2.
    5. The Apollo Lunar Craft had a nominal radiation shield thickness of 7 gms/cm^2 but letís assume it was as high as 10 gms/cm^2.
    6. The exposure rate on the ISS in the SAA is 120 to 160 μGy/day (5 to 6.67 μGy/hr).
    7. The daily overall exposure rate from Ionizing radiation dose measurements, made within the habitable volume of the ISS with thermoluminescent dosimeters and crew personal dosimeters, range from 5 to 12 μ Gy (0.5 to 1.2 milli rads) per hour, depending on location in the habitable volume, corresponding to an annual dose range of 44 to 105 milli Gy (4.4 to 10.5 rads).
    8. The International Space Station travels in orbit around Earth at a speed of roughly 17,150 miles per hour (that's about 5 miles per second!). This means that the Space Station orbits Earth (and sees a sunrise) once every 92 minutes!
    9. 12:22 p.m.- Another firing of the third-stage engine, still attached to the command service module, boosts Apollo 11 out of orbit midway in its second trip around the Earth and onto its lunar trajectory at an initial speed of 24,200 miles an hour.
    10. 2:54 p.m. - The spacecraft is reported 22,000 nautical miles from Earth and traveling at 12,914 feet per second. Crew members keep busy with housekeeping duties.
    11. 10:59 p.m. - Because of the pull of Earth's gravity, the spacecraft has slowed to 7,279 feet per second at a distance of 63,880 nautical miles from Earth.
    12. 2:54 minus 12:22 equals 2:32 or 2.533 hrs. 22,000 miles/2.533 hrs = 8684.32 mph. That is to say the transit through the VAB was at a speed of 8684.32 mph
    13. Assuming the duration of the VAB Proton Belt is 6 earth radii then Earth Radii = 3949 miles. 3949 miles * 6 = 23754 miles. So there was roughly a 2.75 hour transit across the VAB.
    14. Using the ISS exposure rate for peak SAA exposure of 400 protons/Cm^2 behind a 40 gms/cm^2 radiation shield and ratio it out to the lowest VAB path of radiation of 10^4 (Which is generous to a fault). We get: 6.67 μGy/hr /400 protons/Cm^2 = x/10^4 protons/Cm^2 = 6670 μGy/hr.
    15. 6670 μGy/hr * 2 trips *2.75 hr transit time = a mission dose of 36685 μGy or 36.69 mGy.
    16. So letís recap If the ISS were to travel through the VAB with is greater shielding of 4 times the Apollo and it followed a path through the VAB that limited its proton flux rate to 1 * 10^4 protons/cm^2-sec then the mission dose would have been 36.69 mGy/actual reported Apollo mission dose of 2.40 mGy = 15.29 times higher and this is without the GCR or lunar surface radiation components. Now because the Apollo had ľ of the shielding of the ISS it is reasonable to assume it would get 4 times the exposure.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,734
    Welcome to the CosmoQuest forums, Dionysus. Having posted in the Conspiracy Theories subforum, you should know that special rules apply to this discussion. Please read those rules in the link in my signature line below. Again, welcome.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,413
    Topic header could use correction. It does not "prove".

    Even if we are to grant every fact and calculation the OP has made (and we don't), the best it demonstrates is a curious discrepancy.

    This discrepancy could be easily resolved by asking an aerospace technologist familiar with the details of the Moon shots to confirm or correct any of the facts purported.

    Which kind of raises the question: where did the OP get his/her facts? If not all from the same place, could the OP provide a bibliography?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    My research has been extensive but if there is a specific point you want to address then I am willing to provide references.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Thanks for accepting me. I look forward to an engaging discussion.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    1. The Proton Flux in the SAA ranges from 20 Protons/cm^2-sec to 400 protons/cm^2-sec depending on flight path.....
    Actual recap: Nothing in this post on the ISS shows that there is a Moon hoax.
    A fantasy about ISS travelling through the Van Allen radiation belt does not make the Apollo flights though the VAB impossible. You need to do your calculations for the actual Apollo spacecraft. But they were done in the 1960's!

    Actual science makes the Apollo flights though the VAB real. We studied the VAB before the Apollo missions and had a good understanding of the VAB. That understanding was used to send the Apollo craft on the best path through the VAB with the weakest levels of radiation in the shortest time possible. The recorded exposures were what was expected.

    The body of evidence for the Apollo missions makes the Moon hoax unable to be "proved".
    • Personal accounts from astronauts that went to the Moon.
    • Bits of a previous spacecraft to the Moon returned by a Apollo mission.
    • Videos and photos of Apollo mission gong to, landing on and returning from the Moon.
    • Rocks returned from the Moon that could only come from the Moon.
    • A reflector on an Apollo craft on the Moon reelecting laser light for decades for anyone to use.
    • Images of Apollo landing sites showing Apollo craft on the Moon, foot trills on the Moon and rover trails on the Moon.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-May-16 at 03:36 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Actual recap: Nothing in this post on the ISS shows that there is a Moon hoax.
    A fantasy about ISS travelling through the Van Allen radiation belt does not make the Apollo flights though the VAB impossible. You need to do your calculations for the actual Apollo spacecraft. But they were done in the 1960's!

    Actual science makes the Apollo flights though the VAB real. We studied the VAB before the Apollo missions and had a good understanding of the VAB. That understanding was used to send the Apollo craft on the best path through the VAB with the weakest levels of radiation in the shortest time possible. The recorded exposures were what was expected.

    The body of evidence for the Apollo missions makes the Moon hoax unable to be "proved".
    • Personal accounts from astronauts that went to the Moon.
    • Bits of a previous spacecraft to the Moon returned by a Apollo mission.
    • Videos and photos of Apollo mission gong to, landing on and returning from the Moon.
    • Rocks returned from the Moon that could only come from the Moon.
    • A reflector on an Apollo craft on the Moon reelecting laser light for decades for anyone to use.
    • Images of Apollo landing sites showing Apollo craft on the Moon, foot trills on the Moon and rover trails on the Moon.
    I submit if you were to stage a hoax that appropriate props would be employed. Empirical data cannot be over looked. If we could shield 21 century crafts with 1960 technology then we would so. The very fact that we cannot do it today means we could not do it 50 years ago. The Orion craft launched in the fall of 2014 proved that we still lack the technology.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by

    The body of evidence for the Apollo missions makes the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories"
    Moon hoax[/URL] unable to be "proved".
    • Personal accounts from astronauts that went to the Moon.
    • Bits of a previous spacecraft to the Moon returned by a Apollo mission.
    • Videos and photos of Apollo mission gong to, landing on and returning from the Moon.
    • Rocks returned from the Moon that could only come from the Moon.
    • A reflector on an Apollo craft on the Moon reelecting laser light for decades for anyone to use.
    • Images of Apollo landing sites showing Apollo craft on the Moon, foot trills on the Moon and rover trails on the Moon.
    I point out that the Russians have placed two reflectors on the moon and did so without ever placing men on the moon. In addition our knowledge of the VAB was elementary in the sixties and we have only recently understood the magnitude and breadth of the challenge.
    Last edited by Dionysus; 2019-May-16 at 06:14 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    1. The Proton Flux in the SAA ranges from 20 Protons/cm^2-sec to 400 protons/cm^2-sec depending on flight path....
    Every step of your logic contains or implies a naive assumption about how you would go about actually calculating the radiation exposures. So you won't get a useful result. Out of curiosity, did you come up with this yourself or copy it from somewhere?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    Every step of your logic contains or implies a naive assumption about how you would go about actually calculating the radiation exposures. So you won't get a useful result. Out of curiosity, did you come up with this yourself or copy it from somewhere?
    These are not so much calculations rather it is empirical data. We can address any specific issue you have.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Has no one a real rebuttal of the facts? The attempt to dismiss me by calling me naive will not work. Declaring that it has to be true because I saw it on TV is not a defensible position. Raise a salient point and let's debate it. I have researched the data and I can defend it.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Consider the empirical data obtained from Our latest venture into the VAB.

    The Orion EFT launched on EFT-1 on December 5, 2014 between 12:07 UTC and 16:30 UTC (4 hours, 27 minutes).

    The Orion's radiation detectors recorded 17.9 mGy on the right detector and
    15.7 mGy on the left dector which is an average of 16.8 mGy for a 267 minute mission of which only 2 hrs and 17 minurtes where actually in the Vann allen belt.

    If we use the mission time of 267 minutes then the hourly dose rate is
    16.8 mGy/267 min = .0629 mGy/minute
    Now if we assume that the ever slowing Apollo 11 took 240 minutes to transit the 3700 miles of the Van Allen Belt then we see that .0629 mGy/min * 240 min * 2(two trips) = 30.202 mGy

    Extrapolating out to the 8.33 days of the Apollo mission it can be seen that
    30.202 mGy/8.33 days = 3.63 mGy/day mission dose.

    If the Orion had traveled the same route as the Apollo to the moon the Van Allen belt would add
    3.63 mGy/day to the mission exposure rate. No Apollo mission has anywhere near this amount and this amount does not include GCR or lunar orbit and lunar surface components of the total radiation exposure.

    You can see that no Apollo mission ever left LEO.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I submit if you were to stage a hoax that appropriate props would be employed. Empirical data cannot be over looked. If we could shield 21 century crafts with 1960 technology then we would so. The very fact that we cannot do it today means we could not do it 50 years ago. The Orion craft launched in the fall of 2014 proved that we still lack the technology.
    Yet you are overlooking a vast amount of empirical data, when you just hand-wave all the supporting evidence away as a hoax. And how is Orion relevant, given that its trajectory was far different than Apollo? Apollo spacecraft were deliberately sent on a trajectory to go above much of the belt. Orion was not.

    I point out that the Russians have placed two reflectors on the moon and did so without ever placing men on the moon.
    Which were small and not placed well, unlike the Apollo reflectors. Further, again, that is only one aspect of the supporting evidence.

    In addition our knowledge of the VAB was elementary in the sixties and we have only recently understood the magnitude and breadth of the challenge.
    Evidence please. As far as I'm aware, radiation models have been somewhat refined, but knowledge in the '60s was hardly elementary.

    And as for your calculations, how about actually working out an Apollo trajectory and using a proper radiation model? There's the recent AP-9/AE-9, and if you wanted to show there's a significant change versus the old days, you could do a comparison with the classic AP-8/AE-8.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Yet you are overlooking a vast amount of empirical data, when you just hand-wave all the supporting evidence away as a hoax. And how is Orion relevant, given that its trajectory was far different than Apollo? Apollo spacecraft were deliberately sent on a trajectory to go above much of the belt. Orion was not.



    Which were small and not placed well, unlike the Apollo reflectors. Further, again, that is only one aspect of the supporting evidence.



    Evidence please. As far as I'm aware, radiation models have been somewhat refined, but knowledge in the '60s was hardly elementary.

    And as for your calculations, how about actually working out an Apollo trajectory and using a proper radiation model? There's the recent AP-9/AE-9, and if you wanted to show there's a significant change versus the old days, you could do a comparison with the classic AP-8/AE-8.
    The Orion's inclination was identical to the Apollo's inclination and when you consider the fact that the VAB surrounds the earth then the only factors that affects exposure is inclination and speed. The Orion traveled along the same path as the Apollo missions except it only ventured 3600 miles into the VAB a mere 1/10 of the full breadth. I have worked out the trajectory but I am unable to post drawings. The Van Allen probes launched in 2012 are still mapping and defining the VAB. We have learned that we had little understanding of the VAB prior to this mapping process. Prior to this we relied on radiation detectors sent up in mercury missions.
    Last edited by Dionysus; 2019-May-16 at 07:41 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    I am a bit confused when you ask for evidence. Do you want evidence of the Orion's exposure data? What is it I need to show you?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Strange as it seems, we didn't realize the surface of the moon is so radioactive that it raises space radiation above background in orbit around the moon. You would think astronauts running around kicking up dust and sniffing it would have realized it was radioactive. We did not come to this realization until we launched the CraTer mission to monitor lunar radiation.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Has no one a real rebuttal of the facts? The attempt to dismiss me by calling me naive will not work. Declaring that it has to be true because I saw it on TV is not a defensible position. Raise a salient point and let's debate it. I have researched the data and I can defend it.
    Dionysus

    A possible reason for a lack of enthusiasm to debate this is that there was a very, very long discussion along these exact same lines (VAB, Orion, radiation, etc) a year ago (LINK). If you are interested, there is an extensive discussion of the three-dimensional shape of the VAB and the differing trajectories of Apollo and Orion.

    A question for you: What would convince you that men landed on the Moon? If the answer is "nothing", I also suspect that your oft-repeated arguments will convince no one here, and this won't be much of a discussion (but that last bit is just my opinion).
    Last edited by Swift; 2019-May-16 at 12:33 PM. Reason: typo
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    These are not so much calculations rather it is empirical data. We can address any specific issue you have.
    You didn't answer my question.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Strange as it seems, we didn't realize the surface of the moon is so radioactive that it raises space radiation above background in orbit around the moon. You would think astronauts running around kicking up dust and sniffing it would have realized it was radioactive. We did not come to this realization until we launched the CraTer mission to monitor lunar radiation.
    FWIW, I have refrained from asking your about what you've posted in this thread, so far, Dionysus, partly because my first sets of questions tend to be asking for the primary sources ... which you can't really supply until you have enough posts under your belt (so to speak) to be able to post URLs (for example).

    However, when you are able to, I would like you to post details of your primary sources (including, where available, URLs) for these of your claims:
    1) "we didn't realize the surface of the moon is so radioactive that it raises space radiation above background in orbit around the moon"
    2) "You would think astronauts running around kicking up dust and sniffing it would have realized it was radioactive" - specifically why should the astronauts have realized that lunar dust was radioactive?
    3) "We did not come to this realization until we launched the CraTer mission to monitor lunar radiation"

    At a later time, when you have answered my early questions, I will likely ask you some "consistency" questions.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I am a bit confused when you ask for evidence. Do you want evidence of the Orion's exposure data? What is it I need to show you?
    I assume this is a response to my "evidence please" request. I was referring to your claim that "knowledge of the VAB was elementary in the sixties." Please support that claim, with respect to relevance to the Apollo missions. Again, as far as I'm aware, there has been some refinement of radiation models, but hardly anything that would suggest significantly different exposure numbers for Apollo astronauts.

    I'll comment on Orion in another post.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    The Orion's inclination was identical to the Apollo's inclination and when you consider the fact that the VAB surrounds the earth then the only factors that affects exposure is inclination and speed.
    No, trajectory matters. The VAB is not a simple wall, it is possible to avoid much of it, and the Apollo trajectories were designed to go "over" much of the VAB. Orion EFT-1 on the other hand, was intended to test radiation exposure, among other things, and was deliberately sent into a higher radiation region. There's actually another thread here that specifically discusses Orion vs Apollo trajectories here:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...ight-be-useful

    The Orion traveled along the same path as the Apollo missions except it only ventured 3600 miles into the VAB a mere 1/10 of the full breadth. I have worked out the trajectory but I am unable to post drawings.
    Do you dispute what was shown in the thread linked above? If so, please explain, and please provide supporting evidence for your arguments. Thanks.

    The Van Allen probes launched in 2012 are still mapping and defining the VAB. We have learned that we had little understanding of the VAB prior to this mapping process. Prior to this we relied on radiation detectors sent up in mercury missions.
    Are you claiming the only radiation detection was done with the manned Mercury missions prior to 2012? No radiation detection from any other spacecraft?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Has no one a real rebuttal of the facts? The attempt to dismiss me by calling me naive will not work.
    Well, you might want to review this analysis of the Apollo 11 trajectory using the AP8/AE8 radiation models:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170821...VABraddose.htm

    and on this other page are some graphical views of the trans-lunar trajectory:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170907...ollo11-TLI.htm

    Frankly, for me to start taking your argument seriously, I'd want to see something comparable from you. It isn't terribly relevant to Apollo missions what the maximum South Atlantic Anomaly exposure is. What matters is the radiation that Apollo missions would encounter on their specific trajectories. And we have radiation models specifically because the VAB isn't a simple wall. The details matter.

    Declaring that it has to be true because I saw it on TV is not a defensible position.
    Other supporting evidence for Apollo landings is far more than "I saw it on TV," and you apparently are just dismissing all of it in favor of your not terribly impressive radiation calculation.
    Last edited by Van Rijn; 2019-May-16 at 05:48 PM. Reason: typo

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Jean Tate, Consider this article: https://www.seeker.com/moon-poses-ra...764980915.html

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I assume this is a response to my "evidence please" request. I was referring to your claim that "knowledge of the VAB was elementary in the sixties." Please support that claim, with respect to relevance to the Apollo missions. Again, as far as I'm aware, there has been some refinement of radiation models, but hardly anything that would suggest significantly different exposure numbers for Apollo astronauts.

    I'll comment on Orion in another post.
    please consider this article: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...rst-spacecraft

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I submit if you were to stage a hoax that appropriate props would be employed. Empirical data cannot be over looked. If we could shield 21 century crafts with 1960 technology then we would so. The very fact that we cannot do it today means we could not do it 50 years ago. The Orion craft launched in the fall of 2014 proved that we still lack the technology.
    Specifically why can't we repeat Apollo, and answering that we haven't accomplished this is not an answer, why can't we do it?

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I point out that the Russians have placed two reflectors on the moon and did so without ever placing men on the moon. In addition our knowledge of the VAB was elementary in the sixties and we have only recently understood the magnitude and breadth of the challenge.
    Another specific question.
    What was the trajectory of Apollo?
    What are the radiation levels of each of the bands in the VARB?
    Exctly how long the craft would have been in each of these zones? (Average travel time is not specific enough)

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Consider the empirical data obtained from Our latest venture into the VAB.

    The Orion EFT launched on EFT-1 on December 5, 2014 between 12:07 UTC and 16:30 UTC (4 hours, 27 minutes).

    The Orion's radiation detectors recorded 17.9 mGy on the right detector and
    15.7 mGy on the left dector which is an average of 16.8 mGy for a 267 minute mission of which only 2 hrs and 17 minurtes where actually in the Vann allen belt.

    If we use the mission time of 267 minutes then the hourly dose rate is
    16.8 mGy/267 min = .0629 mGy/minute
    Now if we assume that the ever slowing Apollo 11 took 240 minutes to transit the 3700 miles of the Van Allen Belt then we see that .0629 mGy/min * 240 min * 2(two trips) = 30.202 mGy

    Extrapolating out to the 8.33 days of the Apollo mission it can be seen that
    30.202 mGy/8.33 days = 3.63 mGy/day mission dose.

    If the Orion had traveled the same route as the Apollo to the moon the Van Allen belt would add
    3.63 mGy/day to the mission exposure rate. No Apollo mission has anywhere near this amount and this amount does not include GCR or lunar orbit and lunar surface components of the total radiation exposure.

    You can see that no Apollo mission ever left LEO.
    Compare the trajectory of Orion with Apollo?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Consider the empirical data obtained from Our latest venture into the VAB.

    The Orion EFT launched on EFT-1 on December 5, 2014 between 12:07 UTC and 16:30 UTC (4 hours, 27 minutes).

    The Orion's radiation detectors recorded 17.9 mGy on the right detector and
    15.7 mGy on the left dector which is an average of 16.8 mGy for a 267 minute mission of which only 2 hrs and 17 minurtes where actually in the Vann allen belt.

    If we use the mission time of 267 minutes then the hourly dose rate is
    16.8 mGy/267 min = .0629 mGy/minute
    Now if we assume that the ever slowing Apollo 11 took 240 minutes to transit the 3700 miles of the Van Allen Belt then we see that .0629 mGy/min * 240 min * 2(two trips) = 30.202 mGy

    Extrapolating out to the 8.33 days of the Apollo mission it can be seen that
    30.202 mGy/8.33 days = 3.63 mGy/day mission dose.

    If the Orion had traveled the same route as the Apollo to the moon the Van Allen belt would add
    3.63 mGy/day to the mission exposure rate. No Apollo mission has anywhere near this amount and this amount does not include GCR or lunar orbit and lunar surface components of the total radiation exposure.

    You can see that no Apollo mission ever left LEO.
    Compare the trajectory of Orion with Apollo?
    How can you compute the radiation received during the short amount of time in the VARB with the roughly 10-14 day Apollo mission(most spent outside the VARB)
    Last edited by bknight; 2019-May-16 at 07:04 PM. Reason: Duplicate post, but added thought.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,329
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Another specific question.
    What was the trajectory of Apollo?
    What are the radiation levels of each of the bands in the VARB?
    Exctly how long the craft would have been in each of these zones? (Average travel time is not specific enough)
    That reminds me . . . Dionysus, do you dispute the Apollo 11 trajectory analysis and radiation calculations I linked to in this post:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...78#post2482878

    If so, please explain why, thanks.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    This article clearly is talking about long term radiations rates not the 1-3 days spent during Apollo, radiation has time accumulated effects.
    Prove the 1-3 day stay on the Moon was dangerous to the astronauts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •