Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 217

Thread: The ISS proves The Moon Hoax.

  1. #181
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Here is a research paper dated February 1968.

    https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/3.29217

    Radiation dosimetry on the Gemini and Apollo missions.
    W. G. DAVIS, J. C. LILL, R. G. RICHMOND and C. S. WARREN

    This is not "elementary" knowledge, and it is from the 1960s.
    Comparatively speaking it is.

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    3,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I have never claimed we cannot go to the moon. My claim is a simple one. We cannot do it and receive .22 mgy/day doing it. Levels this low can only be achieved in LEO.
    The paper you are looking at says we can send crews to the Moon.
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    I do have to say that I can open the attachment.
    I just get invalid attachment specified.

    It's all right though. Dionysus is going to use his words.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    I have faithfully tried t answer any and all questions. Could someone answer one for me? How can you expect a craft with 1/4 the shielding of the ISS to get less exposure in fluxes thousands of time higher? How does that work?

  5. #185
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    The paper you are looking at says we can send crews to the Moon.
    We can but not at .22 mgy/day.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    3,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Comparatively speaking it is.
    "Comparatively" is a word that does not help your defense. It is a waffling word used to deny what is in front of one's face.

    The paper appeared before the Apollo 8 flight to the Moon in the December 1968. It is proof that you are wrong. The 1958 Van Allen paper is also proof that you are wrong.
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I have never claimed we cannot go to the moon. My claim is a simple one. We cannot do it and receive .22 mgy/day doing it. Levels this low can only be achieved in LEO.
    Your claim is that the manned Moon shots are a "Hoax".

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I have faithfully tried t answer any and all questions.
    I have several questions on the table regarding your conjecture on the path.

  8. #188
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    I just get invalid attachment specified.

    It's all right though. Dionysus is going to use his words.
    Remind me, what words do you need me to use?

  9. #189
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    Your claim is that the manned Moon shots are a "Hoax".


    I have several questions on the table regarding your conjecture on the path.
    My real position is that it is impossible to transit the VAB and recieve the kind of exposure levels reported in the Apollo missions. A hoax is indicated as a consequence. My focus is not the hoax rather the discrepancy in reported exposure levels and possible levels.

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Remind me, what words do you need me to use?
    How you arrived at ~18 degrees. And how the first diagram is wrong.
    The VAB is at ~11 degrees, and path is at 30 degrees; it appears you have naively subtracted one from the other. You have not accounted for the angle between the VAB axis and the semi-major axis of the vehicle path. They could be aligned, they could be opposed, or they could be anything in between.

    My 2nd diagram, in post 169, shows just a few possibilities.
    Last edited by DaveC426913; 2019-May-17 at 03:43 PM.

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,314
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    I do have to say that I can open the attachment.
    Interesting. I can’t. Like others, I get “invalid attachment specified”. I wonder if some permission issue is involved?

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

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

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    My real position is that it is impossible to transit the VAB and recieve the kind of exposure levels reported in the Apollo missions. A hoax is indicated as a consequence. My focus is not the hoax rather the discrepancy in reported exposure levels and possible levels.
    Well, until you demonstrate the actual path relative to the VAB (something you could get simply by asking NASA), you haven't shown that it can't be done. You've guessed at the path.

  13. #193
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    "Comparatively" is a word that does not help your defense. It is a waffling word used to deny what is in front of one's face.

    The paper appeared before the Apollo 8 flight to the Moon in the December 1968. It is proof that you are wrong. The 1958 Van Allen paper is also proof that you are wrong.
    The current mapping of the VAB has been going on for almost a decade. Do you really believe what we learned in the sixties compared to what we have learned in the 21st century? Why is this your focus when the real mystery of how an unshielded craft in 1969 could do what shielded crafts cannot do in the 21st century?

  14. #194
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Here is the data for you to evaluate.Attachment 24193
    That did not answer my question:
    YOU present your evaluation of the data, and yes I have seen this data in they other thread so it is not new.
    Now you present your evaluation of the data, and I'm afraid a graph will not answer.
    Of note you should look at the data and much of it is below .22 mgy/day.

  15. #195
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    Well, until you demonstrate the actual path relative to the VAB (something you could get simply by asking NASA), you haven't shown that it can't be done. You've guessed at the path.
    I posted a drawing of the actual path but it des not matter. I challenge you to provide an alternative path that exposes the craft to less radiation than the ISS receives because if you can"t then the exposure has to be higher than that received by the ISS.

  16. #196
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    3,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    The current mapping of the VAB has been going on for almost a decade. Do you really believe what we learned in the sixties compared to what we have learned in the 21st century? Why is this your focus when the real mystery of how an unshielded craft in 1969 could do what shielded crafts cannot do in the 21st century?
    You make claims which can be proven wrong. Why are you shying away from this point?
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  17. #197
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    That did not answer my question:
    YOU present your evaluation of the data, and yes I have seen this data in they other thread so it is not new.
    Now you present your evaluation of the data, and I'm afraid a graph will not answer.
    Of note you should look at the data and much of it is below .22 mgy/day.
    When you consider GCR is but one of the sources of radiation then the point becomes moot doesn't it? You can assume a low average if you like but then you have to add the additional radiation from the VAB transit and the lunar radiation to the mix.
    Last edited by Dionysus; 2019-May-17 at 03:53 PM.

  18. #198
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    You make claims which can be proven wrong. Why are you shying away from this point?
    As soon as you do then I will change my mind. I contend you fail to grasp the reality of the situation.

  19. #199
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    When you consider GCR is but one of the sources of radiation then the point becomes moot doesn't it? You can assume a low average if you like but then you have to add the addition radiation from the VAB transit and the lunar radiation to the mix.
    Yes those all add to the radiation received by the Apollo crews, But you did not answer the question. You need to justify the number you quote. There is another question looming once you answer my question.

  20. #200
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I challenge you ...
    It does not work that way. You are making the claim here.

    I've asked how you got the numbers, and you have not answered.

    I've shown that your numbers are guesswork (since you did not account for the relative angle). That means your assertion is baseless, and you need to withdraw and develop it further.
    Last edited by DaveC426913; 2019-May-17 at 03:56 PM.

  21. #201
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Yes those all add to the radiation received by the Apollo crews, But you did not answer the question. You need to justify the number you quote. There is another question looming once you answer my question.
    What number did I quote?

  22. #202
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    It does not work that way. You are making the claim here.

    I've asked how you got the numbers, and you have not answered.

    I've shown that your numbers are guesswork (since you did not account for the relative angle). That means your assertion is baseless, and you need to withdraw and develop it further.
    I have shown you that of all the possibilities that exist, it is not possible to get less than the ISS gets. That single fact is the definitive proof.

  23. #203
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    3,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Could someone answer one for me? How can you expect a craft with 1/4 the shielding of the ISS to get less exposure in fluxes thousands of time higher? How does that work?
    You go through the ionizing radiation very quickly and through less intense zones of it. You do not absorb radiation all at once; it depends on how long you are there to take it in. The Apollo lunar missions went through the Van Allen belts very quickly, spending about 30 minutes in the worst parts (which were not the worst parts of the belts as a whole, just the worst part they could not avoid).

    That's it. Shielding and speed.
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  24. #204
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    What number did I quote?
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I look at the thread referenced at the beginning of this thread and I agree with the basic assessment that the only place in the known universe where exposure rates as low as Apollo 13 received is behind the shield of the Van Allen belt. If a spaceship was outside the VAB it's exposure rate would be higher than .22 mgy/day simply because GCR is higher than .22 mgy/day. The Mars mission proves this.
    Does this refresh your memory?

  25. #205
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    You go through the ionizing radiation very quickly and through less intense zones of it. You do not absorb radiation all at once; it depends on how long you are there to take it in. The Apollo lunar missions went through the Van Allen belts very quickly, spending about 30 minutes in the worst parts (which were not the worst parts of the belts as a whole, just the worst part they could not avoid).

    That's it. Shielding and speed.
    The lowest region in the VAB is 10^4 which is 25 times higher than the highest region of the SAA. The round trip transit took 5.5 hours. The Apollo has a quarter of the shielding of the ISS. AIt is not possible and the I say again, the path of the lunar transit is not arbitray and was not selected to minimize radiation. It is the the most fuel efficient path which is along the lunar plane.

  26. #206
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I have shown you that of all the possibilities that exist, it is not possible to get less than the ISS gets. That single fact is the definitive proof.
    That's not a fact; it's an assertion. And I've shown that the premises it's based on are simplistic assumptions.

    I've posted a diagram (post 169) showing that the possible angle between vehicle path and VAB could be as much as 42 degrees - and that's even granting your numbers.
    Last edited by DaveC426913; 2019-May-17 at 04:22 PM.

  27. #207
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    3,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    The lowest region in the VAB is 10^4 which is 25 times higher than the highest region of the SAA. The round trip transit took 5.5 hours. The Apollo has a quarter of the shielding of the ISS. AIt is not possible and the I say again, the path of the lunar transit is not arbitray and was not selected to minimize radiation. It is the the most fuel efficient path which is along the lunar plane.
    It is not the fact that you contact radiation that injures you, it is how long you stay there. The ISS has a lot of shielding because astronauts are there for a long time; they build up a large radiation exposure. The Van Allen belts have loads of radiation, but you get around that by not staying there for long; you get through it as fast as you can.

    In a different way, say there is a pile of radioactive material on the ground. If you run up to it and jump over it, you will suffer fewer injuries than if you walk over and sit on it.

    You seem to have the idea that an area with X amount of radiation is automatically going to kill you, while ignoring the time factor, radiation absorbed dose and rems and all that.

    What is your understanding of how radiation affects human beings? Do you think you get all the radiation at once, or is it spread out over time?
    Last edited by Roger E. Moore; 2019-May-17 at 04:25 PM.
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  28. #208
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    It is not the fact that you contact radiation that injures you, it is how long you stay there.
    I wondered about this. Is Dionysus not aware that they knew there would be significant radiation, but chose to optimize fuel consumption, knowing that radiation exposure would be brief?

  29. #209
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Does this refresh your memory?
    So do you want me to demonstrate that in 1969 the background GCR level was greater than .22? Here is the MSL graph showing GCR levels taken from https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...2017_final.pdfClick image for larger version. 

Name:	MSL GCR.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	85.1 KB 
ID:	24196

  30. #210
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    It is not the fact that you contact radiation that injures you, it is how long you stay there. The ISS has a lot of shielding because astronauts are there for a long time; they build up a large radiation exposure. The Van Allen belts have loads of radiation, but you get around that by not staying there for long; you get through it as fast as you can.

    In a different way, say there is a pile of radioactive material on the ground. If you run up to it and jump over it, you will suffer fewer injuries than if you walk over and sit on it.

    You seem to have the idea that an area with X amount of radiation is automatically going to kill you, while ignoring the time factor, radiation absorbed dose and rems and all that.

    What is your understanding of how radiation affects human beings? Do you think you get all the radiation at once, or is it spread out over time?
    Where does this come from? I have made it clear that I contend the reported exposures are not realistic. I have never claimed the levels would kill. Stop making stuff up.

Posting Permissions

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