The ISS proves The Moon Hoax.

[Dionysus]

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.

That is a fallacy. The angle of transit is recorded history. You cannot simply pick an angle and make it reality. Use actual data and show some intellectual integrity.

[Dionysus]

Here is the actual data. I reject any assumption that does not use actual fact as its basis. https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apo...Orbit_Data.htm

[Dionysus]

[VQkr]

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.

I called your calculation naive, not you. Criticism of your viewpoints is not a personal insult.

1. The Proton Flux in the SAA ranges from 20 Protons/cm^2-sec to 400 protons/cm^2-sec depending on flight path.

This implies that all protons in the VAB are equal. In reality they have a broad spectrum of energies.

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.

See issue with #1. The SAA is part of the VAB, so it is inconsistent to place a different value on the minimum flux for any given proton energy.

3. More than half of the ISS exposure is from the SAA.

Citation needed. This implies that LEO is not otherwise quiescent, though.

4. The ISS’s Labs 1 & 2 have a nominal radiation shield thickness of 40 gms/cm^2.

Citation needed.

5. The Apollo Lunar Craft had a nominal radiation shield thickness of 7 gms/cm^2 but let’s assume it was as high as 10 gms/cm^2.

7 g/cm^2 approximates the density of the command modules pressure hull. It is significantly lower than the effective shield density.

6. The exposure rate on the ISS...

Naive implication that the predicted exposures can be accurately determined by comparing exposure times.

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

No. The velocity of the spacecraft changed non-linearly with time.

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.

You need to integrate the dose along the flight path. Using arithmetic averages to calculate dose is, again, naive.

16. So let’s 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 ¼ of the shielding of the ISS it is reasonable to assume it would get 4 times the exposure.

Since you've made errors at effectively every step, we can be confident that your conclusions are not going to be valid.

[Roger E. Moore]

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.

Refusal to directly answer a question about your thesis means your thesis cannot be defended. The insults are further evidence that this is true.

Sorry about your dead parrot, but perhaps it is not good to carry it around and show it to people. They might get the wrong idea.

[slang]

Thread closed pending moderator discussion.

[PetersCreek]

OP banned a sock of a previously banned member. This thread will remain closed.