Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 217

Thread: The ISS proves The Moon Hoax.

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    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.
    Indeed Bob did a great job in defining the amount of radiation exposed to Apollo.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Okay, I've considered it. It appears to be a popular science article that discusses Explorer I and VABs in a general way. Could you explain how it supports your claim that "knowledge of the VAB was elementary in the '60s?"

    "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. #33
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    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



    Do you dispute what was shown in the thread linked above? If so, please explain, and please provide supporting evidence for your arguments. Thanks.



    Are you claiming the only radiation detection was done with the manned Mercury missions prior to 2012? No radiation detection from any other spacecraft?
    I categorically object to the premise in this thread. The determining factors in selecting the path of the Trans lunar launch had nothing to do with limiting radiation exposure. The real factors are identified in this article. https://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    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).
    What a mess that was, from "one who knew radiation because he worked around nuclear submarines."

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    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)
    Does it matter how long it was in each band? In the OP I assumed the entire VAB was at the lowest band of 10^4. Assuming it possible (it is not) to selectively travel around the perimeter of the VAB and only pass through the lowest fluxes then it can be demonstrated that radiation exposure would be an order of magnitude higher. The points you want to highlight are inconsequential in ascertaining the improbability of the feat.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I categorically object to the premise in this thread. The determining factors in selecting the path of the Trans lunar launch had nothing to do with limiting radiation exposure. The real factors are identified in this article. https://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html
    You are called to defend your proposition, we on the other hand don't have to defend the general consensus concerning Apollo.
    You object to the premise of the thread? How strange since you started the thread.
    The selection of the trajectory has everything to do with radiation exposure, and the article doesn't dispute this.
    I asked before compare the trajectories of Orion and Apollo and I'll ask again.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    740
    Thanks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    May I ask, what is this in reference to?

    Specifically, which of my three questions is it intended to answer (or address)?

    In any case, do I read your post correctly, that the content of webpage the URL refers to is - to you - a primary source?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight 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.
    I made no claim that it was dangerous. I made the claim that it was radioactive. So radioactive that it raises background radiation in space 30 to 40 percent higher than it would be otherwise. If you can imagine how that would not be hazardous to astronauts on the surface then your imagination far exceeds my own.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    Thanks.

    May I ask, what is this in reference to?

    Specifically, which of my three questions is it intended to answer (or address)?

    In any case, do I read your post correctly, that the content of webpage the URL refers to is - to you - a primary source?
    This is in response to the question about radioactive lunar surface. No it is not my only source.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Does it matter how long it was in each band? In the OP I assumed the entire VAB was at the lowest band of 10^4. Assuming it possible (it is not) to selectively travel around the perimeter of the VAB and only pass through the lowest fluxes then it can be demonstrated that radiation exposure would be an order of magnitude higher. The points you want to highlight are inconsequential in ascertaining the improbability of the feat.
    It most certainly matters how long the travel time in each band radiation accumulation is time related, or hadn't you considered that? And you are incorrect when you state "Assuming it possible (it is not) to selectively travel around the perimeter of the VAB and only pass through the lowest fluxes"

    Consider this a third request, compare the trajectories of Orion and Apollo.

    ETA: you have been given a clue to Apollo's trajectory in
    https://web.archive.org/web/20170821...VABraddose.htm
    By Van Rijn
    Last edited by bknight; 2019-May-16 at 07:32 PM. Reason: added link

  11. #41
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    You are called to defend your proposition, we on the other hand don't have to defend the general consensus concerning Apollo.
    You object to the premise of the thread? How strange since you started the thread.
    The selection of the trajectory has everything to do with radiation exposure, and the article doesn't dispute this.
    I asked before compare the trajectories of Orion and Apollo and I'll ask again.
    I was referring to the link about a previous discussion someone had and I found the premise of that thread to be categorically wrong. All lunar missions are flown on or about an plane that approximates the lunar plane which is roughly 30 degrees inclination to the geographical equator. If you think about it, it only makes sense. The Orion launched on this same angle of inclination, It is this angle of inclination that determines where you cross the VAB. The higher the inclination the lower the exposure.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I categorically object to the premise in this thread.
    On what basis? You were making claims about the Orion EFT-1 mission and comparing it to Apollo. That shows the very different trajectories involved and dramatically different paths through the VAB which makes clear why EFT-1 would be subject to a larger radiation exposure. Are you disputing that, do you dispute the structure of the VAB, or something else? If you do, please present your arguments and supporting evidence, 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

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    There seems to be some confusion. I was asked to comment on an old thread and responded by saying I categrically reject the premis in tis thread. It was the old thread and not this one.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I made no claim that it was dangerous. I made the claim that it was radioactive. So radioactive that it raises background radiation in space 30 to 40 percent higher than it would be otherwise. If you can imagine how that would not be hazardous to astronauts on the surface then your imagination far exceeds my own.
    You did not address my question:
    Prove the 1-3 day stay on the Moon was dangerous to the astronauts.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    There seems to be some confusion. I was asked to comment on an old thread and responded by saying I categrically reject the premis in tis thread. It was the old thread and not this one.
    Sorry, I'm still a bit confused. You appeared to claim that the different trajectories of Orion EFT-1 vs Apollo weren't relevant to radiation exposure, and in response I pointed you to this thread:

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

    where Grant Hutchison illustrated why the different trajectories indeed do matter.

    So do you dispute that the different trajectories make a significant difference in radiation exposure? If you do, could you also explain why you think the trajectory would not be relevant?

    "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

  16. #46
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    On what basis? You were making claims about the Orion EFT-1 mission and comparing it to Apollo. That shows the very different trajectories involved and dramatically different paths through the VAB which makes clear why EFT-1 would be subject to a larger radiation exposure. Are you disputing that, do you dispute the structure of the VAB, or something else? If you do, please present your arguments and supporting evidence, thanks.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	01 Top View of VAB.jpg 
Views:	43 
Size:	59.8 KB 
ID:	24185

    I assert that the pertinent point is the inclination angle and nothing else. Consider this drawing looking down from the pole. It really does not matter the azimuth as you will encounter the same thing. It only matters the inclination and the Orion and the Apollos had the same inclination.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    740
    Again, thanks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate
    Thanks.

    May I ask, what is this in reference to?

    Specifically, which of my three questions is it intended to answer (or address)?

    In any case, do I read your post correctly, that the content of webpage the URL refers to is - to you - a primary source?
    This is in response to the question about radioactive lunar surface.
    You mean this one?

    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"


    If so, may I suggest that you make use of the "quote" function of this site? I feel it will reduce the number of times I have to ask you for clarification.

    No it is not my only source.
    If so, then you did not answer my question.

    First, I asked about primary sources (not any old source). Second, I asked for details of your primary sources (plural).

    Please answer all three of my questions.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I categorically object to the premise in this thread. The determining factors in selecting the path of the Trans lunar launch had nothing to do with limiting radiation exposure. The real factors are identified in this article. https://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html
    First of all, you can't logically claim the NASA moon landings are fake by pointing to a NASA explanation. Second, if you like NASA links, how about this document:

    https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...I_Problem7.pdf

    Now this is just some high school calculation exercise, but it does show clearly how the Van Allen Belts are donut shaped with the earth in centre, and how you can go to their outside yet avoid most of the peak radiation zones by lofting over the donuts, see the black line in the second picture. This picture gives a more accurate trajectory for Apollo, where again you see they lofted over the core of the donuts:

    https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci....?itok=05jwtOp-

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post

    I assert that the pertinent point is the inclination angle and nothing else. Consider this drawing looking down from the pole. It really does not matter the azimuth as you will encounter the same thing. It only matters the inclination and the Orion and the Apollos had the same inclination.
    If I'm understanding your argument, you think the VAB is a wall? Is that correct? And you don't see why an Apollo trajectory that largely goes around the VAB (and avoiding high particle density regions) would be different from a much tighter orbit of the EFT-1 that would spend a significant period in a particle dense region of the VAB.

    "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

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	01 Top View of VAB.jpg 
Views:	43 
Size:	59.8 KB 
ID:	24185

    I assert that the pertinent point is the inclination angle and nothing else. Consider this drawing looking down from the pole. It really does not matter the azimuth as you will encounter the same thing. It only matters the inclination and the Orion and the Apollos had the same inclination.
    I feel this is going exactly like the other thread was going. The VAB are donut shaped. Take a donut. Put your finger through it vertically: you don't touch the donut. Put your finger through it horizontally: you've now got a donut mess all over your finger.

    This is how you go from inside to outside the donut without touching it:
    https://www.canstockphoto.com/finger...a-5630537.html

    This is the messy way:
    https://i.redd.it/elp6orhmirc11.jpg

    Direction matters!

    Let me state it this way: if you'd launch straight up from the north or south pole, you basically wouldn't encounter any Van Allen Belts whatsoever because you'd be going through the hole of the donut.
    Last edited by Nicolas; 2019-May-16 at 08:01 PM.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	AE-8 Max01.png 
Views:	40 
Size:	302.2 KB 
ID:	24186 Looking at the side view it becomes obvious that the lower the inclination angle the greater the exposure. To conserve fuel the most direct path to the moon would be at an angle of the lunar plane which is roughly 30 degrees to the geographical equator.
    Last edited by Dionysus; 2019-May-16 at 08:10 PM.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,518
    Yes, look how it avoids the most intense radiation region of the outer belt. But the real trajectory was more curvy than this straight line, as shown in the picture I linked to earlier. They could only give it limited inclination as they needed enough energy to still reach the moon, but still they had enough to give it some inclination and thereby avoid the most intense parts of the belts.
    Last edited by Nicolas; 2019-May-16 at 08:04 PM.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Out of curiosity, Dionysus, what is your take on the purpose of the moon hoax? Why would it be done? How many people do you think were or are involved in maintaining the hoax? How is the hoax perpetuated?

  24. #54
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    First of all, you can't logically claim the NASA moon landings are fake by pointing to a NASA explanation. Second, if you like NASA links, how about this document:

    https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...I_Problem7.pdf

    Now this is just some high school calculation exercise, but it does show clearly how the Van Allen Belts are donut shaped with the earth in centre, and how you can go to their outside yet avoid most of the peak radiation zones by lofting over the donuts, see the black line in the second picture. This picture gives a more accurate trajectory for Apollo, where again you see they lofted over the core of the donuts:

    https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci....?itok=05jwtOp-
    Using your drawing an accepting it as correct then what in the OP is wrong? I assumed that the path traveled through a region of 10^4 flux while your drawing shows it traveling through much higher regions. There is no way your path produces a exposure less than the OP's calculated exposure. The lowest exposure imaginable is still magnitudes higher than claimed by NASA.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    Yes, look how it avoids the most intense radiation region of the outer belt. But the real trajectory was more curvy than this straight line, as shown in the picture I linked to earlier. They could only give it limited inclination as they needed enough energy to still reach the moon, but still they had enough to give it some inclination and thereby avoid the most intense parts of the belts.
    Exactly how does one curve the path of a rocket and if they did so why does it not show up as a course adjustment in the Apollo logs? If the path remained on the lunar pane, which I contend it must then viewed from the side it would be a straight line.
    Last edited by Dionysus; 2019-May-16 at 08:10 PM.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Out of curiosity, Dionysus, what is your take on the purpose of the moon hoax? Why would it be done? How many people do you think were or are involved in maintaining the hoax? How is the hoax perpetuated?
    I imagine after having spent billions of dollars and in the face of abject failure it was thought that the deception was warranted. The problem with that attitude is it has cost us a century in advancement. Imagine where we would be if we had admitted failure.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I imagine after having spent billions of dollars and in the face of abject failure it was thought that the deception was warranted. The problem with that attitude is it has cost us a century in advancement. Imagine where we would be if we had admitted failure.
    At what point in time do you think "abject failure" became clear, in your review of NASA documents? Also, how was the hoax accomplished? How many people do you think were or are involved in maintaining the hoax? How is the hoax perpetuated today?

  28. #58
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    First of all, you can't logically claim the NASA moon landings are fake by pointing to a NASA explanation. Second, if you like NASA links, how about this document:
    Sure I can. It would be like saying that you can not ascertain the truth from the words of a liar. You most certainly can.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I was referring to the link about a previous discussion someone had and I found the premise of that thread to be categorically wrong. All lunar missions are flown on or about an plane that approximates the lunar plane which is roughly 30 degrees inclination to the geographical equator. If you think about it, it only makes sense. The Orion launched on this same angle of inclination, It is this angle of inclination that determines where you cross the VAB. The higher the inclination the lower the exposure.
    No that is not correct, the path of Orion was toward the most intense portion of the lower VARB the path Apollo took skirted that area. I refer you to the diagram that Bob drew up in the linked web page. Inclination is one of the parameters considered in space travel also is pitch of the craft. you did not include pitch in your description.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	AE-8 Max01.png 
Views:	40 
Size:	302.2 KB 
ID:	24186 Looking at the side view it becomes obvious that the lower the inclination angle the greater the exposure. To conserve fuel the most direct path to the moon would be at an angle of the lunar plane which is roughly 30 degrees to the geographical equator.
    This is good, but it does not show either the trajectory of Apollo or Orion. Compare the trajectories of each on this image.

Posting Permissions

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