Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 217

Thread: The ISS proves The Moon Hoax.

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,216
    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.
    One final question, if Apollo never left LEO where did it go?

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Here is a list of the flight data from all of the Apollo missions. If you were to draw a line from the TLI at the inclination angle you can determine the actual path through the VAB. Looking from a side view this would always be a straight line and not a curved line. It really is not necessary because the no matter the path the radiation exposure would be higher than reported. https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apo...Orbit_Data.htm

  3. #63
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    One final question, if Apollo never left LEO where did it go?
    I find the question humorous and I must confess confusing. If you never left home, where did you go kind of confusing. I imagine they were staged at some place and then them and the capsule were loaded on a plane and dropped into the ocean but what do I know? It is like watching a magic trick. You may not know how it is done but you do know there is no such thing as magic.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    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.
    Pitch is the reference of craft in respect to the plane of the ground and is meaningless when thinking of the flight of a spacecraft. if you know the longitude and latitude of the TLI point and you draw a line from that point along the lunar plane across the VAB then you have the path of the craft through the VAB. When looking from the side view of the VAB the starting point moves north and south then the diagonal across the VAB moves correspondingly.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    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.
    Are you claiming spacecraft are unaffected by gravity? And are you arguing that only two dimensions should be considered in a trajectory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Here is a list of the flight data from all of the Apollo missions. If you were to draw a line from the TLI at the inclination angle you can determine the actual path through the VAB. Looking from a side view this would always be a straight line and not a curved line. It really is not necessary because the no matter the path the radiation exposure would be higher than reported. https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apo...Orbit_Data.htm
    That appears to be about the Apollo parking orbit parameters (well, Apollo 7 and Apollo 9 stayed in Earth orbit). How do you get a straight path through the VAB in three dimensional space from that? Again, do you think gravity doesn't affect the 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

  6. #66
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    It is worth noting that the VAB is not centered on the geographical equator rather it is centered on the geomagnetic equator which is 11.5 degrees off set. When considering the AP8 diagram the actual path of the flight should be shifted down 11.5 degrees. In doing so it becomes obvious that the path of the Apollos came very close to the highest radiation areas of the VAB but that is not as important as the fact that no path through the VAB can justify a mission dose of 2.4 mgy.
    Last edited by Dionysus; 2019-May-16 at 08:55 PM.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Are you claiming spacecraft are unaffected by gravity? And are you arguing that only two dimensions should be considered in a trajectory?



    That appears to be about the Apollo parking orbit parameters (well, Apollo 7 and Apollo 9 stayed in Earth orbit). How do you get a straight path through the VAB in three dimensional space from that? Again, do you think gravity doesn't affect the spacecraft?
    Gravity acts to slow the spacecraft and pull it back to the center of the earth. it does not pull it off its inclination angle.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I submit if you were to stage a hoax that appropriate props would be employed. ....
    I submit that is someone's insanity of spending billions of dollars to build the Apollo spacecraft (your "appropriate props") that were perfectly capable of going to the Moon and not using them.
    You do not understand that some of the evidence is physically impossible to be produced on Earth, especially with 1960's technology. 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.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    An elliptical orbit around the earth when viewed from a 2D side view appears as a straight line. From a side view you would not expect to see a curved line. Any depiction of such is does so to mislead.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,327
    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.
    I point out the obvious fact that unmanned spacecraft are not manned spacecraft! The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment bounces lasers off reflectors placed by 3 Apollo manned missions.
    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.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,216
    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.
    Then I suggest that you make clear what you are posting.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    I submit that is someone's insanity of spending billions of dollars to build the Apollo spacecraft (your "appropriate props") that were perfectly capable of going to the Moon and not using them.
    You do not understand that some of the evidence is physically impossible to be produced on Earth, especially with 1960's technology. 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.
    There is nothing placed on the moon that could not have been placed on the moon by unmanned craft. The fact that Russians have placed reflectors and obtained rock samples without ever sending men to the moon is absolute proof. It is known fact that props were created ostensibly for training so who is to say they were not used to stage the hoax. AI am sure about one thing and only one thing and that is the radiation data reported by the Apollo missions is unrealistic. From that fact is is not a possibilty of a hoax it is definitive proof.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    An elliptical orbit around the earth when viewed from a 2D side view appears as a straight line. From a side view you would not expect to see a curved line. Any depiction of such is does so to mislead.
    So you are explicitly rejecting the fact that trajectories exist in three dimensions? You think it's misleading to consider reality (which is not two dimensional)?

    "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. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Consider the empirical data obtained from Our latest venture into the VAB. ...
    Consider the ignorance of citing no sources, a spacecraft probably following a different path to Apollo through the VAB and radiation detectors that may have been outside the Orion EFT, Dionysus, when you are the one going one about radiation shielding!
    Consider the ignorance of denying again that the Apollo missions are supported by a body of physical evidence (empirical data!) and making up what looks like stupid calculations that ignore the real VAB and physics.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-May-16 at 09:00 PM.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Here is a list of the flight data from all of the Apollo missions. If you were to draw a line from the TLI at the inclination angle you can determine the actual path through the VAB. Looking from a side view this would always be a straight line and not a curved line. It really is not necessary because the no matter the path the radiation exposure would be higher than reported. https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apo...Orbit_Data.htm
    You need some time in a 3rd geometry class the orbit will be a straight line, however the trace on the torus will not be straight.
    Did you review the diagrams that Bob and Grant gracefully presented? If you believe them to be in error aside from what you listed in the post I'm linking, then present your evidence.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    So you are explicitly rejecting the fact that trajectories exist in three dimensions? You think it's misleading to consider reality (which is not two dimensional)?
    Physicist have been unable to prove we actually live in a 3 dimensional existence but that is a whole different subject. The ability to conceptualize is challenging. It requires consistency in perspective. Imposing a 3D spatial perspective on a 2D representation distorts the reality of that perspective.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    You need some time in a 3rd geometry class the orbit will be a straight line, however the trace on the torus will not be straight.
    Did you review the diagrams that Bob and Grant gracefully presented? If you believe them to be in error aside from what you listed in the post I'm linking, then present your evidence.
    If you have a globe then conduct a personal experiment. Use a sheet of paper to represent the lunar plane and then view it from the side. Is it not a straight line?

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    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.
    There is assuming it is correct as it is an accurate trace of the orbit onto a torus. Now as to you your calculations Apollo was completely clear of the 10^4 after twenty minutes, clearly graphed on the illustration.
    Now one more question what is the radiation received by Apollo in this region?

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    731
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    The Orion's inclination was identical to the Apollo's inclination
    Incorrect. Orions trajectory was intentionally into the harder regions of the VAB in order to test it's performance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    and when you consider the fact that the VAB surrounds the earth then the only factors that affects exposure is inclination and speed.
    Incorrect. The VAB does not surround the Earth. It is a torus.

    The Orion traveled along the same path as the Apollo missions [/QUOTE]Nope.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    except it only ventured 3600 miles into the VAB a mere 1/10 of the full breadth.
    Yes because it was a mission objective to test Orion under the most difficult region. That is precisely why it was sent there, That is why it's orbit was intentionally designed to maximise as far as possible it's "loiter" time there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I have worked out the trajectory but I am unable to post drawings.
    Because of the rule that won't let you post links? Put up a borked link like "http ://www[dot]someplace[dot]com" We can figure those out you know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    The Van Allen probes launched in 2012 are still mapping and defining the VAB.
    Sure, so what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    We have learned that we had little understanding of the VAB prior to this mapping process.
    Incorrect. We had a working knowledge of the VABs. Now we are refining it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Prior to this we relied on radiation detectors sent up in mercury missions.
    Incorrect. Explorer 1 and 3 confirmed their existence. Explorer 4, Pioneer 3 and Luna 1 actually mapped them to name a few headliners. On top of that various sats over the years have surveyed the VABs. The claim that it was only the Mercury missions is absurd on it's face.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    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.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    There is nothing placed on the moon that could not have been placed on the moon by unmanned craft.....
    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 !

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I find the question humorous and I must confess confusing. If you never left home, where did you go kind of confusing. I imagine they were staged at some place and then them and the capsule were loaded on a plane and dropped into the ocean but what do I know? It is like watching a magic trick. You may not know how it is done but you do know there is no such thing as magic.
    You may find it amusing but the question remains if they never left LEO where did they go? Here's a big hint if the third stage of the Saturn V plus the CSM (some 98' overall) why did not one astronomer spot that orbiting.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Pitch is the reference of craft in respect to the plane of the ground and is meaningless when thinking of the flight of a spacecraft. if you know the longitude and latitude of the TLI point and you draw a line from that point along the lunar plane across the VAB then you have the path of the craft through the VAB. When looking from the side view of the VAB the starting point moves north and south then the diagonal across the VAB moves correspondingly.
    You really need some time in a 3d geometry class.
    Did you look at Bob's or Grant's images? Yes or no.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    The Orion's inclination was identical to the Apollos's (within a few degrees) Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Orion EFT flight profile.gif 
Views:	35 
Size:	110.3 KB 
ID:	24187

  25. #85
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    1,997
    I'm in no position to argue the physics/radiation effects of the Apollo missions, but if NASA were to hoax such a thing they'd have more luck keeping it a secret by limiting it to 1 landing mission, not 6. Involving 12 walking/roving astronauts not to mention their fellow earth bound perpetrators is an unbelievable stretch of secrecy. Did they toss in #13 just for some added melodrama? The government surely has some really good secrets but this isn't one of them.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Physicist have been unable to prove we actually live in a 3 dimensional existence but that is a whole different subject. The ability to conceptualize is challenging. It requires consistency in perspective. Imposing a 3D spatial perspective on a 2D representation distorts the reality of that perspective.
    Wow. Then you really are insisting that trajectories occur in two dimensions. Amazing. It's pretty clear now why you can't visualize how Apollo spacecraft can go around 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

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,327
    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.
    A fantasy about what you posted in the OP does not make the Apollo missions are supported by a body of physical evidence invalid. You do not have any facts. What you have is nonsense (as in not scientific) based on ignorance of the VAB and basic facts about space flight, especially the flight paths of the Apollo missions.

    This nonsense has been addressed before here as you know.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    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).
    What make this worse is that calculations of the radiation exposure for flights through the VAB are maybe 60 year old physics! You should be able to easily learn the physics and do the real calculations.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-May-16 at 09:31 PM.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    I'm in no position to argue the physics/radiation effects of the Apollo missions, but if NASA were to hoax such a thing they'd have more luck keeping it a secret by limiting it to 1 landing mission, not 6. Involving 12 walking/roving astronauts not to mention their fellow earth bound perpetrators is an unbelievable stretch of secrecy. Did they toss in #13 just for some added melodrama? The government surely has some really good secrets but this isn't one of them.
    You don't have to keep it a secret. You only ave to label the people who expose it as conspiracy theorist. Most people want to believe that we are exceptional. Mark Twain said it best when he said it is easier to fool people than it it is to convince them that they have been fooled.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    You really need some time in a 3d geometry class.
    Did you look at Bob's or Grant's images? Yes or no.
    I did and reject it as government sponsored propaganda.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    If you have a globe then conduct a personal experiment. Use a sheet of paper to represent the lunar plane and then view it from the side. Is it not a straight line?
    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

Posting Permissions

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