Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 217

Thread: The ISS proves The Moon Hoax.

  1. #91
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That is ignorant, Dionysus, because astronauts were placed on the Moon and they need manned craft. These are the astronauts in the Apollo missions are supported by a body of physical evidence. Also ignorant about unmanned spacecraft which are incapable of placing large, massive objects like Apollo landing stages, etc. on the Moon.

    Maybe a fantasy that billons of dollars were spent building manned Apollo spacecraft that were magically automated to go to the Moon? Add robots to create the foot trails, place the instruments we see, collect rocks and drive rovers around !
    The Russians and Chinese have sent many unmanned craft to the moon. There is nothing to prevent them from claiming they were manned and citing the relics as proof. Ditto for the US.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I did and reject it as government sponsored propaganda.
    Hah! I bet Grant especially would get a kick out of that. (Hint: He isn't American.)

    But do you actually have any science based arguments against what they've shown, or is it just rejection because it goes contrary to your beliefs?

    "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

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,261
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Personally, I see all your responses as attempts to obfuscate the simple fact that the lowest regions of the VAB would produce magnitudes higher exposure in a craft with 4 times the shielding of the Apollo Lunar Craft. We have empirical data to prove this. It is data that is verifiable by all concerned. Intellectual honesty demands that it be recognized for what it is.
    Yes intellectual dishonesty should not be linked or accepted. I may make a suggestion, stay away from sites such as aulis.com which you apparently copied information. The authors especially Mary Bennett as she lies and changes data to fit her concepts.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,261
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I did and reject it as government sponsored propaganda.
    There is no hope for this thread.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Here is an orbital track displayed on a flat representation of the Earth, do you see how 3 dimensional objects curve a straight elliptical orbit? Yes if I were in space and could visualize the orbit from the side it would definitely be a straight line, but when traced on a three dimensional object the line is curved. This is exactly what people here are trying to enlighten you about. Until you understand this concept continuing this topic is pointless, you really really need some time in a 3d geometry class.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_track
    It is all fine and dandy when you compare apples to apples. Prove your point by showing in this representation. The problem occurs when you don't use perspective discipline. A 2D representation is capable of providing 2D information and nothing more. An elliptical plane when viewed from the side in 2D is a straight line. I cannot explain it any simpler.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,359
    Looking back at the OP I can see one probable bit of idiocy other than the obvious ones of no sources and futilely trying to support the fantasy of a Moon hoax.
    The OP seems to treat all the protons in a proton flux as they had the same energy but: The proton belts contain protons with kinetic energies ranging from about 100 keV (which can penetrate 0.6 Ķm of lead) to over 400 MeV (which can penetrate 143 mm of lead).[23]

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    please consider this article[...]
    Dionysus,

    You may make references to off-site materials
    that support your arguments. Such references must specific (paragraph, table, figure, etc) and you should explain their relevance. You may not simply post "read this" links.

    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)

  8. #98
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Consider the Mission doses of the Space shuttle which never came withing 200 miles of the VAB and yet tey are amazing similar to the Apollo mission doses. It is beyond interesting. https://genelab-data.ndc.nasa.gov/ge...radiation/sts/

  9. #99
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    Dionysus,

    You may make references to off-site materials
    that support your arguments. Such references must specific (paragraph, table, figure, etc) and you should explain their relevance. You may not simply post "read this" links.

    I was simply providing context and not directing anyone to do independent research. I acknowledge my mistake and will honor the rules.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    587
    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.
    Yeesh, so much wrong with this analysis. The Van Allen belts are not homogenous, you can't just take the dose rate from one region and try to use it as the dose rate for a flight with a completely different trajectory. Orion EFT-1 deliberately targeted itself to fly through the most intense region of the Van Allen belt. I've used SPENVIS to run the numbers for the expected dose of an Apollo capsule through both the actual Apollo trans-lunar trajectory and the Orion EFT-1 trajectory. The latter produces a much higher dose of radiation due to the time it spends lingering in a high flux area of the lower Van Allen belt. Here is the dose you would receive in an Apollo capsule with ~7g/cm^2 shielding flying the same trajectory as Orion EFT-1's final orbit (though with a slightly higher perigee, SPENVIS won't let you calculate trajectories that go through the atmosphere):
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gx0...ew?usp=sharing
    Here's a map of the orbit:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o1f...ew?usp=sharing
    Nearly 10 rads, with the dose almost entirely made up of radiation trapped in the belt. This was assuming stormy geomagnetic conditions as a worst case scenario, but even so that is still about 6 times the amount of radiation detected by Orion EFT-1. That makes sense given the worst case scenario I put it through and the lower shielding of Apollo compared to Orion, and it shows that SPENVIS is not wearing rose colored glasses when determining the expected dose for a given trajectory. Now what happens if you run the numbers for Apollo's trans-lunar trajectory? Here is the expected dose for half the mission duration with one trip through the VAB:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kJp...ew?usp=sharing
    Less than 1 rad each way through the VAB, consistent with the dosimeters from Apollo, even assuming stormy geomagnetic conditions. A proper analysis with proper tools like SPENVIS show that Apollo's reported radiation doses are in line with expectations given their trajectory and shielding.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Looking back at the OP I can see one probable bit of idiocy other than the obvious ones of no sources and futilely trying to support the fantasy of a Moon hoax.
    The OP seems to treat all the protons in a proton flux as they had the same energy but: The proton belts contain protons with kinetic energies ranging from about 100 keV (which can penetrate 0.6 Ķm of lead) to over 400 MeV (which can penetrate 143 mm of lead).[23]
    The AP8 diagram is based on proton energies greater than .1 Mev and is this basis from which the assertions arise.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,261
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    It is all fine and dandy when you compare apples to apples. Prove your point by showing in this representation. The problem occurs when you don't use perspective discipline. A 2D representation is capable of providing 2D information and nothing more. An elliptical plane when viewed from the side in 2D is a straight line. I cannot explain it any simpler.
    And I agreed with you, perhaps reread what I posted.
    Yes if I were in space and could visualize the orbit from the side it would definitely be a straight line,
    but it changes when traced on a three dimensional object. That I why I linked the wiki page. I can't make it any simpler than that. Because you are trying to tell us the trace of the orbit of Apollo is a straight line when traced onto a torus, when if fact it is not.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by NGCHunter View Post
    Yeesh, so much wrong with this analysis. The Van Allen belts are not homogenous, you can't just take the dose rate from one region and try to use it as the dose rate for a flight with a completely different trajectory. Orion EFT-1 deliberately targeted itself to fly through the most intense region of the Van Allen belt. I've used SPENVIS to run the numbers for the expected dose of an Apollo capsule through both the actual Apollo trans-lunar trajectory and the Orion EFT-1 trajectory. The latter produces a much higher dose of radiation due to the time it spends lingering in a high flux area of the lower Van Allen belt. Here is the dose you would receive in an Apollo capsule with ~7g/cm^2 shielding flying the same trajectory as Orion EFT-1's final orbit (though with a slightly higher perigee, SPENVIS won't let you calculate trajectories that go through the atmosphere):
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gx0...ew?usp=sharing
    Here's a map of the orbit:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o1f...ew?usp=sharing
    Nearly 10 rads, with the dose almost entirely made up of radiation trapped in the belt. This was assuming stormy geomagnetic conditions as a worst case scenario, but even so that is still about 6 times the amount of radiation detected by Orion EFT-1. That makes sense given the worst case scenario I put it through and the lower shielding of Apollo compared to Orion, and it shows that SPENVIS is not wearing rose colored glasses when determining the expected dose for a given trajectory. Now what happens if you run the numbers for Apollo's trans-lunar trajectory? Here is the expected dose for half the mission duration with one trip through the VAB:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kJp...ew?usp=sharing
    Less than 1 rad each way through the VAB, consistent with the dosimeters from Apollo, even assuming stormy geomagnetic conditions. A proper analysis with proper tools like SPENVIS show that Apollo's reported radiation doses are in line with expectations given their trajectory and shielding.
    I would ask you for a reference that states the Orion's flight path was based on targeting the most intense radiation of the VAB. I am pretty sure the Orion's flight path did not take it out far enough to reach the most intense proton flux of the VAB.
    Last edited by Dionysus; 2019-May-16 at 09:52 PM.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I did and reject it as government sponsored propaganda.
    Oh dear - the fantasy that 2300 year old geometry (Euclid) that billions of school children have learned and applied in their real lives is propaganda!

    Or maybe knee-jerk paranoia or ignorance about "Bob's or Grant's images" in Some Apollo-Orion graphics that might be useful. These are based on the same Apollo and Orion data that you are using !

    Dionysus, if you deny the basic fact that we live in the world with 3 dimensions then you will never be able to calculate actual radiation exposures for 3D paths through the VAB.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    The AP8 diagram ....
    There is no "AP8 diagram" in the OP.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    And I agreed with you, perhaps reread what I posted.

    but it changes when traced on a three dimensional object. That I why I linked the wiki page. I can't make it any simpler than that. Because you are trying to tell us the trace of the orbit of Apollo is a straight line when traced onto a torus, when if fact it is not.
    No I am not. Reference the drawing I posted in post #46. You need to shift your perspective if you are to correct perceive what I am saying.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    There is no "AP8 diagram" in the OP.
    There are many things that I assumed were general knowledge and felt no need to provide. I can post one if you like.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Oh dear - the fantasy that 2300 year old geometry (Euclid) that billions of school children have learned and applied in their real lives is propaganda!

    Or maybe knee-jerk paranoia or ignorance about "Bob's or Grant's images" in Some Apollo-Orion graphics that might be useful. These are based on the same Apollo and Orion data that you are using !

    Dionysus, if you deny the basic fact that we live in the world with 3 dimensions then you will never be able to calculate actual radiation exposures for 3D paths through the VAB.
    Truths are eternal. Perception is a function o perspective. If you are spatially challenged and incapable of dealing with 2D information then I am at a loss.

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I would ask you for a reference that states the Orion's flight path was based on targeting the most intense radiation of the VAB. I am pretty sure the Orion's flight path did not take it out far enough to reach the most intense proton flux of the VAB.
    Showing ignorance about your sources is not good, Dionysus. "targeting the most intense radiation of the VAB" (more exactly a extended stay in the main part of the VAB) was a mission target of Exploration Flight Test-1
    Radiation Levels
    Traveling 15 times farther into space than the International Space Station will take Orion beyond the radiation protection offered by Earthís atmosphere and magnetic field. In fact, the majority of EFT-1 will take place inside the Van Allen Belts, clouds of heavy radiation that surround Earth. No spacecraft built for humans has passed through the Van Allen Belts since the Apollo missions, and even those only passed through the belts Ė they didnít linger.

    Future crews donít plan to spend more time than necessary inside the Van Allen Belts, either, but long missions to deep space will expose them to more radiation than astronauts have ever dealt with before. EFT-1ís extended stay in the Van Allen Belts offers a unique opportunity to see how Orionís shielding will hold up to it. Sensors will record the peak radiation seen during the flight, as well as radiation levels throughout the flight, which can be mapped back to geographic hot spots.

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Truths are eternal. Perception is a function o perspective. If you are spatially challenged and incapable of dealing with 2D information then I am at a loss.
    Gibberish and ignorance. Thousands of years of geometry is fundamental mathematics which is the language of physics. If you cannot not understand basic mathematics any physics you attempt is wrong.

  21. #111
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    The undeniable fact is that unless there is a region and a path in the VAB with a proton flux less than the SAA then it can be safely ascertained that exposures must be higher than that experienced by the ISS with 4 times the shielding. Is this really a thing we can honestly question?

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    587
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I would ask you for a reference that states the Orion's flight path was based on targeting the most intense radiation of the VAB. I am pretty sure the Orion's flight path did not take it out far enough to reach the most intense proton flux of the VAB.
    "4. Radiation Levels – Traveling 15 times farther into space than the International Space Station will take Orion beyond the radiation protection offered by Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field. In fact, the majority of EFT-1 will take place inside the Van Allen Belts, clouds of heavy radiation that surround Earth. No spacecraft built for humans has passed through the Van Allen Belts since the Apollo missions, and even those only passed through the belts – they didn’t linger."
    https://www.nasa.gov/content/five-th...t-flight-test/

    They launched Orion on the largest rocket available at the time, the Delta IV Heavy, and had it linger in the Van Allen Belts at about as high an altitude as they could get it. They exposed it to considerably more radiation that Apollo would have experienced. Here are the values I used for the orbit generator on SPENVIS, again I had to raise the perigee to the SPENVIS limit of 300 km:
    Perigee: 300 km
    Apogee: 5795 km
    Inclination: 28.76 degrees
    RAAN: 075.6738 degrees
    Argument of Perigee: 130.5360 degrees
    These numbers are in agreement with the TLE published for Orion EFT-1 on space-track.org

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,582
    Dionysus, you're making a vast number of suppositions in reaching your conclusions.
    Little of this has to be derived from first principles, as you are doing.

    Would it not make more sense to start with with the claimed path? Ask NASA for the path and for the radiation measurements they would have experienced.

    Your job would be much simpler, because you wouldn't have to have your conclusion be based on a tall hill of your own assumptions - all of which we can doubt.

    You wouldn't have to worry about them lying to you, because you will certainly verify the physics and find any flaws.


    It's kind of like me claiming Red Riding Hood could never have gotten to gramma's house because I can't find a safe path.
    Better to simply ask RRH what path she claims to have taken. Then I can simply show that that path is impossible, as opposed to having to show that all possible paths are impossible.
    Last edited by DaveC426913; 2019-May-16 at 10:12 PM.

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    587
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    There are many things that I assumed were general knowledge and felt no need to provide. I can post one if you like.
    AP8 was used in my calculations, they show that Orion EFT-1's trajectory results in a significantly higher dose of radiation than Apollo's trajectory, by orders of magnitude. This even included also factoring in other sources such as GCR flux in my calculations.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    There are many things that I assumed were general knowledge and felt no need to provide. I can post one if you like.
    It is the lack of sources that is the start of the idiocy in the OP. Post your sources for the data in the OP. Not any uncited images but where we can read the data for ourselves

  26. #116
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Showing ignorance about your sources is not good, Dionysus. "targeting the most intense radiation of the VAB" (more exactly a extended stay in the main part of the VAB) was a mission target of Exploration Flight Test-1
    That in no way implies they went seeking the highest radiation of the VAB. The highest proton flux density of the VAB starts roughly at 2.5 earth radii (3950 miles) and the Orion only went 3600 miles.
    Last edited by Dionysus; 2019-May-16 at 10:16 PM.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    ...Is this really a thing we can honestly question?
    A seemingly ignorant and/or incoherent calculation with no sources claiming to support a Moon hoax fantasy will always be honestly questioned. What you need is a coherent, supported and clear calculation.

  28. #118
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by NGCHunter View Post
    AP8 was used in my calculations, they show that Orion EFT-1's trajectory results in a significantly higher dose of radiation than Apollo's trajectory, by orders of magnitude. This even included also factoring in other sources such as GCR flux in my calculations.
    If you use the path commonly depicted by Braeuning then you have been deceived. To obtain the true path then draw a straight line from the longitude and latitude of the TLI point at an angle of the inclination. Remember to shift the the VAB 11.5 degrees to center it on the geomagnetic equator.

  29. #119
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    A seemingly ignorant and/or incoherent calculation with no sources claiming to support a Moon hoax fantasy will always be honestly questioned. What you need is a coherent, supported and clear calculation.
    My information comes from a multitude of sources. If you question the validity of any specific point then state it and I will provide adequate references,

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    No I am not. Reference the drawing I posted in post #46. You need to shift your perspective if you are to correct perceive what I am saying.
    And what I see is a representation that shows the VAB as a solid shell around the Earth. There's no indication of the three dimensional structure, that particle density varies, or that the Apollo (unlike the Orion EFT-1) largely went around the VAB. In short, it's blatantly wrong, in part because it ignores the third dimension.

    Let's go back to Grant's post with three graphics showing the Orion vs Apollo trajectories and a more realistic representation of the VAB:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...79#post2447879

    I'll ask again, what science based issues do you have with this?

    "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

Posting Permissions

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