Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 545

Thread: Does anyone still believe that Apollo 11 landed on the moon after Chang'E-4

  1. #241
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    I say you have provided no measurement of the dose rate in cislunar space contemporaneous with the Chang'E-4 surface reading, and the LRO reading which was corrected to reflect a surface reading.
    So I say you haven't a clue what the cis-lunar dose rate was then or is now.

    That, presumably, is not what made you imagine that the dose rate increases as you approach the moon, however.
    As others have pointed out (over and over again) the mere fact that the moon is a source of radiation does not mean that the dose rate will increase as you approach it. For that to be true, it would need to be a stronger source of radiation than the GCRs from the sky. And (as has been shown to you over and over again) it isn't.

    Grant Hutchison
    The sources would be additive and not cancel out. It would be GCR plus surface radiation = total radiation. What are you thinking?

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    GCR exposure depends on how much of the sky you are open to. This has been pointed out repeatedly.

    The VAB is not uniform. Apollo craft were deliberately sent through the thinner fringes of the VAB, to lessen the exposure intensity and time. This has been pointed out repeatedly.

    Apollo craft materials reduced the amount of radiation entering the bodies of the astronauts. This has been pointed out repeatedly.

    You continue to reject relevant facts such as these about the very subject that you raised, in order to repeat your original inaccurate claims and assumptions with increasing emphasis, and to disparage the knowledge or intellect of those who contradict you or note flaws in your data and citations.
    Just how does one send a rocket through the fringes when it has to approach the moon on a plane to intercept it? How much extra fuel does that require. What are the proton fluxes in this fringe area? I have so many questions.

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    No, I do not accept the calculation conclusions.
    And offer nothing to counter them.

    The whole article is based on false premises and out right lies.
    No it is not. Show these false premises and downright lies.

    It's a paid shill pandering to the uninformed to promote a deception.
    Passed that comment up the chain.

    If you believe the transit through the VAB looks anything like the depiction then I want to sell you beach front property.
    You really can't debate this can you. Which particular "depiction" do you have a problem with?

  4. #244
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,585
    I have not read it, but I think this paper by Rahmanifard et al. (2020), Galactic Cosmic Radiation in the Interplanetary Space Through a Modern Secular Minimum

    (sorry for the big bold) would be interesting in this discussion. (pdf available)
    ThroughaModernSecularMini
    mum"
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Just how does one send a rocket through the fringes when it has to approach the moon on a plane to intercept it?
    I'm actually going to explain this to you and see if you have the integrity to acknowledge and the education to understand it.

    The TLI is basically a massive elliptical orbit that pushes the craft out to beyond the Moon in a path that intersects its orbit. To visualise this imagine a rugby ball shape, with the Earth at one end and the Moon at the other.

    ANY path around the length of that ellipsoid will be any TLI. The elevation during departure, absent a direction change before LOI determines the elevation arriving at the Moon.

    Basically all the orbits left at the same elevation, the only difference was the inclination of the Moon to the ecliptic....also determining the elevation and key to the CSM/LM stack flying over the landing site.

    How much extra fuel does that require.
    None.

    What are the proton fluxes in this fringe area?
    That should have been part of your research!
    https://science.thewire.in/the-scien...nar-injection/

    I have so many questions.
    Then go get them answered before you embarrass yourself further.

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The sources would be additive and not cancel out. It would be GCR plus surface radiation = total radiation. What are you thinking?
    I'm thinking (because it is true) that the moon blocks GCR. And within that part of the sky occupied by the moon, the GCR is replaced by radiation from the lunar surface. The closer you are to the moon, the more GCR is blocked, and the more lunar surface radiation you receive. Only if the moon pumped out radiation more intense than GCR would your radiation dose rate rise as you approached the moon.
    This is really simple, basic stuff. It's been pointed out to you endlessly.

    But you still have a stack of pending questions. Maybe you should get on and have a go at answering some of them?

    Grant Hutchison

  7. #247
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I will point out to you that SPE's are part of the overall radiation exposure and cannot be excluded.
    They are not being ignored, but you are deliberately and erroneously assuming that they apply to a different period. You only include SPEs that occur during any particular mission. There were NONE.

    Why you keep bringing this up is confusing.
    It's all confusing to you it seems.

    And yet again you have ignored basically my whole post! Your response to Bob Braeunig's analysis was evasive and a pathetic ad hominem.

    @Lord Foul
    To put this into context and adding other major itemised points:

    • Dose rate for an average period incorporates SPEs and is not an accurate reflection of mean cislunar space dose. Range between 0.19896mGy/day and 0.083184mGy/day.
    • The period being analysed 24 is significantly lower in solar activity than 20, thus its effect diminishing GCR's is also lower. This varies between 33% to 100% higher in solar activity in period 20.
    • Already part of the claim - the short time in LEO and before the VAB is significantly lower than cislunar space. Unless Lord Foul now wants to backpedal on this.
    • Transit through the VAB amounts to 1/10 of overall dose on specimen analysis for Apollo 11.
    • This transit through VAB should NOT be added to the overall figure as claimed, since Lord Foul has already made the claim that the VAB attenuates 99% of GCR!
    • If we allow 4 days TOTALLY in cislunar space (close to and around the Moon this exposure rate plummets progressively to 58%). Apollo 11 - that amounts to only 4 days out of 8. Apollo 17 it amounts to 4 days out of 12. So respectively 50% down to 33% at this highest cislunar rate.


    Every single variable used to make your claim is proven to be wrong, inaccurate or completely irrelevant.

    Questions:

    1. Since SPEs should be removed to give the TRUE GCR readings, why do you keep claiming it is 0.24 when it is a Range between 0.19896mGy/day and 0.083184mGy/day.
    2. Since this period applies to Period 24 and not 20 and since period 20 was 33% to 100% more solar activity, why do you keep ignoring this!?
    3. Why have you assumed the GCR rate is the same close to and on/around the Moon?
    4. Why have you ignored the percentage of flight time actually in cislunar space?
    5. There were no SPEs during Apollo, so why do you think it isn't deceptive to keep these skewed readings?


    Oh, and I will keep on with this until you offer honest and satisfactory answers.

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    They are not so clear that they did not confuse you. Before I embarrass myself, let me ask you to make a statement that I can agree with or disagree with. What is cislunar GCR? I contend it is .24mgy/day. What say ye?
    No that is incorrect, it is approximately .24mgy/day. Start any discussion with this in mind.

  9. #249
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    I'm actually going to explain this to you and see if you have the integrity to acknowledge and the education to understand it.

    The TLI is basically a massive elliptical orbit that pushes the craft out to beyond the Moon in a path that intersects its orbit. To visualise this imagine a rugby ball shape, with the Earth at one end and the Moon at the other.

    ANY path around the length of that ellipsoid will be any TLI. The elevation during departure, absent a direction change before LOI determines the elevation arriving at the Moon.

    Basically all the orbits left at the same elevation, the only difference was the inclination of the Moon to the ecliptic....also determining the elevation and key to the CSM/LM stack flying over the landing site.
    If it helps, I have some diagrams in my little article How Apollo Got To The Moon which illustrate the key concepts here.

    Grant Hutchison

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    And offer nothing to counter them.



    No it is not. Show these false premises and downright lies.



    Passed that comment up the chain.



    You really can't debate this can you. Which particular "depiction" do you have a problem with?
    There are way too many to cover in the time I am willing to spend on this endeavor but one that is easy to see is the path they pretend the Apollo missions took through the outer edges of the VAB. Clearly a deception.

  11. #251
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    I'm actually going to explain this to you and see if you have the integrity to acknowledge and the education to understand it.

    The TLI is basically a massive elliptical orbit that pushes the craft out to beyond the Moon in a path that intersects its orbit. To visualise this imagine a rugby ball shape, with the Earth at one end and the Moon at the other.

    ANY path around the length of that ellipsoid will be any TLI. The elevation during departure, absent a direction change before LOI determines the elevation arriving at the Moon.

    Basically all the orbits left at the same elevation, the only difference was the inclination of the Moon to the ecliptic....also determining the elevation and key to the CSM/LM stack flying over the landing site.



    None.



    That should have been part of your research!
    https://science.thewire.in/the-scien...nar-injection/



    Then go get them answered before you embarrass yourself further.
    If not for fuel constraints and the geopolitical environment it would have been possible to launch from the poles and skirt the VAB entirely. It would require an enormous amount of fuel to do so. The shortest route would be a path along the lunar plane with an intercept at the moon. The lunar plane is roughly 29 degrees to the earth's geographical equator. Which is why all the missions are at roughly a 30 decree inclination. To change course requires fuel. Fuel is heavy.

  12. #252
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The lunar plane is roughly 29 degrees to the earth's geographical equator. Which is why all the missions are at roughly a 30 decree inclination.
    Wrong on two counts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    There are way too many to cover in the time I am willing to spend on this endeavor but one that is easy to see is the path they pretend the Apollo missions took through the outer edges of the VAB. Clearly a deception.
    And yet entirely consistent with the Apollo trajectory and the distribution of radiation in the VAB.

    Do you have anything to bring to this discussion apart from personal incredulity?

    For instance, would you care to give a factual answer to any of your outstanding questions?

    Grant Hutchison

  13. #253
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    There are way too many to cover in the time I am willing to spend on this endeavor but one that is easy to see is the path they pretend the Apollo missions took through the outer edges of the VAB. Clearly a deception.
    If you believe this, then answer the following question:
    what you believe to be the correct trajectory to be and show some calculations proving your contention, quit avoiding answering the questions.
    FYI: I have a spreadsheet that clearly is similar to Bob's work and I find no error in his methodology or accuracies. I believe Grant linked a visual 3-D depiction of Apollo's trajectory. Have you looked at it? And yes the trajectory avoided most of the more dense areas of the VARB.
    So have you completed your calculation of the radiation received through the VARB? It has been a number of days that I requested this.

  14. #254
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    No that is incorrect, it is approximately .24mgy/day. Start any discussion with this in mind.
    No, correct him further.

    It was far less than this when removing the effects of the SPEs(between 0.19896mGy/day and 0.083184mGy/day) and it is totally irrelevant in comparison to a much stronger solar maximum in period 20.

    All in all he shouldn't even start any discussion unless he owns up to these glaring omissions in his "analysis".

  15. #255
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    They are not being ignored, but you are deliberately and erroneously assuming that they apply to a different period. You only include SPEs that occur during any particular mission. There were NONE.



    It's all confusing to you it seems.

    And yet again you have ignored basically my whole post! Your response to Bob Braeunig's analysis was evasive and a pathetic ad hominem.

    @Lord Foul
    To put this into context and adding other major itemised points:

    • Dose rate for an average period incorporates SPEs and is not an accurate reflection of mean cislunar space dose. Range between 0.19896mGy/day and 0.083184mGy/day.
    • The period being analysed 24 is significantly lower in solar activity than 20, thus its effect diminishing GCR's is also lower. This varies between 33% to 100% higher in solar activity in period 20.
    • Already part of the claim - the short time in LEO and before the VAB is significantly lower than cislunar space. Unless Lord Foul now wants to backpedal on this.
    • Transit through the VAB amounts to 1/10 of overall dose on specimen analysis for Apollo 11.
    • This transit through VAB should NOT be added to the overall figure as claimed, since Lord Foul has already made the claim that the VAB attenuates 99% of GCR!
    • If we allow 4 days TOTALLY in cislunar space (close to and around the Moon this exposure rate plummets progressively to 58%). Apollo 11 - that amounts to only 4 days out of 8. Apollo 17 it amounts to 4 days out of 12. So respectively 50% down to 33% at this highest cislunar rate.


    Every single variable used to make your claim is proven to be wrong, inaccurate or completely irrelevant.

    Questions:

    1. Since SPEs should be removed to give the TRUE GCR readings, why do you keep claiming it is 0.24 when it is a Range between 0.19896mGy/day and 0.083184mGy/day.
    2. Since this period applies to Period 24 and not 20 and since period 20 was 33% to 100% more solar activity, why do you keep ignoring this!?
    3. Why have you assumed the GCR rate is the same close to and on/around the Moon?
    4. Why have you ignored the percentage of flight time actually in cislunar space?
    5. There were no SPEs during Apollo, so why do you think it isn't deceptive to keep these skewed readings?


    Oh, and I will keep on with this until you offer honest and satisfactory answers.
    1. If you are doing an academic exercise and want to isolate the GCR component of exposure then by all means remove the SPE component but if you are determining expected exposure for a mission then leave it in.
    2. Originally the conversation was about the value of GCR during the Apollo 11 mission.
    3. I have not assumed that. NASA assumed the GCR on the lunar surface would be 60% of cislunar space.
    4. No, I have made no calculations on dosage. I contend that any additional dosage in and above GCR proves the Apollo 11 never left LEO because its mission dosage is less than GCR.
    5. See number #1

  16. #256
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    No, correct him further.

    It was far less than this when removing the effects of the SPEs(between 0.19896mGy/day and 0.083184mGy/day) and it is totally irrelevant in comparison to a much stronger solar maximum in period 20.

    All in all he shouldn't even start any discussion unless he owns up to these glaring omissions in his "analysis".
    I will as soon as you demonstrate these values were correct for Apollo 11

  17. #257
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    There are way too many to cover in the time I am willing to spend on this endeavor but one that is easy to see is the path they pretend the Apollo missions took through the outer edges of the VAB. Clearly a deception.
    And yet you spend a great deal of time posting commentary questioning parts of A11 mission, that are verifiable for anyone who spends a little time and effort to learn. You do spend too much time of the logical fallacy: The radiation seems low therefore the mission is fake.

  18. #258
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    but one that is easy to see is the path they pretend the Apollo missions took through the outer edges of the VAB. Clearly a deception.
    And you demonstrably have not the slightest clue about it.



    That animation works at any elevation and is the actual, or very close to, the shortest path possible. It is the fee-return trajectory and the LOI stops this, at the Moon.

    This is the flux level on the 30 degree angle trajectory:


  19. #259
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I will as soon as you demonstrate these values were correct for Apollo 11
    It is not incumbent for the rest of us to defend the Apollo numbers, but it is up to you to show work that your beliefs are correct. So far you have not shown anybody any work, just constant verbal assaults on the Apollo record.

  20. #260
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I will as soon as you demonstrate these values were correct for Apollo 11
    No you won't. You have the burden of proof.

    My contention is that they were NOT the values for ANY Apollo mission due to the things you keep evading.

  21. #261
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    If you believe this, then answer the following question:
    what you believe to be the correct trajectory to be and show some calculations proving your contention, quit avoiding answering the questions.
    FYI: I have a spreadsheet that clearly is similar to Bob's work and I find no error in his methodology or accuracies. I believe Grant linked a visual 3-D depiction of Apollo's trajectory. Have you looked at it? And yes the trajectory avoided most of the more dense areas of the VARB.
    So have you completed your calculation of the radiation received through the VARB? It has been a number of days that I requested this.
    I think the correct path through the VAB can be determine by taking an illustration of the AP8 Proton flux map and shifting the map 11.5 degrees to the geomagnetic equator and then plotting a straight line from the TLI's longitude and latitude at an inclination of 30 degrees from the geographical equator. Calculating the radiation received during a VAB transit is above my skill set but if it is a positive number then it proves that Apollo 11 never left LEO.

  22. #262
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    And yet you spend a great deal of time posting commentary questioning parts of A11 mission, that are verifiable for anyone who spends a little time and effort to learn. You do spend too much time of the logical fallacy: The radiation seems low therefore the mission is fake.
    Opinion?

  23. #263
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    1. If you are doing an academic exercise and want to isolate the GCR component of exposure then by all means remove the SPE component but if you are determining expected exposure for a mission then leave it in.
    How is this relevant for a totally different ERA!?

    2. Originally the conversation was about the value of GCR during the Apollo 11 mission.
    So what, your data is NOT from that period!

    3. I have not assumed that. NASA assumed the GCR on the lunar surface would be 60% of cislunar space.
    Seems close enough, yet you have not factored in that only 50% to 33% of mission time should be at the full WRONG rate you are applying!

    4. No, I have made no calculations on dosage. I contend that any additional dosage in and above GCR proves the Apollo 11 never left LEO because its mission dosage is less than GCR.
    Enough said bolding mine. You haven't made any calculations accurately on anything!

    5. See number #1
    You didn't answer question 1 in terms of why you are applying GCR and including data that only relates to THAT timeframe. That is deceptive.

  24. #264
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    And you demonstrably have not the slightest clue about it.



    That animation works at any elevation and is the actual, or very close to, the shortest path possible. It is the fee-return trajectory and the LOI stops this, at the Moon.

    This is the flux level on the 30 degree angle trajectory:

    Now if you shift the VAB 11.5 degrees from the geographical equator then I'm all all on board. You will note that this is radically different to the fake one you wanted to pass off earlier.

  25. #265
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I think
    Nope. Don't do that, look at the record, augmented by extremely accurate photography showing that inclination.

    Apollo 17 Blue Marble.

    Calculating the radiation received during a VAB transit is above my skill set but if it is a positive number then it proves that Apollo 11 never left LEO.
    It's all above your skill set and your "if" is an assumption disproven by Bob Braeunig's analysis.

  26. #266
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Now if you shift the VAB 11.5 degrees from the geographical equator then I'm all all on board. You will note that this is radically different to the fake one you wanted to pass off earlier.
    How incredibly uninformed of you not to realise that the inclination on all missions was away from departure point giving an extra 11.5 degrees or so elevation to the 30 already made from Earth orbit. 41.5 degrees. And please spare us your ridiculous "it was faked", "he's a shill" naff incredulity.

  27. #267
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    How is this relevant for a totally different ERA!?



    So what, your data is NOT from that period!



    Seems close enough, yet you have not factored in that only 50% to 33% of mission time should be at the full WRONG rate you are applying!



    Enough said bolding mine. You haven't made any calculations accurately on anything!



    You didn't answer question 1 in terms of why you are applying GCR and including data that only relates to THAT timeframe. That is deceptive.
    Maybe you came in late. I presented a NASA document that stated during the Apollo era the GCR was 1mrad/hr and it would be .6 on the lunar surface. This evolved from that simple statement. Now if you contest that then show me what you have.

  28. #268
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    Nope. Don't do that, look at the record, augmented by extremely accurate photography showing that inclination.

    Apollo 17 Blue Marble.



    It's all above your skill set and your "if" is an assumption disproven by Bob Braeunig's analysis.
    Dude, cannot you see the AP8 Proton map above? Does that look like the Braeunig's deception?

  29. #269
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    How incredibly uninformed of you not to realise that the inclination on all missions was away from departure point giving an extra 11.5 degrees or so elevation to the 30 already made from Earth orbit. 41.5 degrees. And please spare us your ridiculous "it was faked", "he's a shill" naff incredulity.
    Inclination is always in relation to the earth's geographical equator. You can move the origin of that line from an longitude and latitude you like but the angle to a line running through the equator is always the inclination angle. Geomagnetical equator is not the same as the geographical equator and everyone knows the VAB centers around the geomagnetical equator.

  30. #270
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The sources would be additive and not cancel out. It would be GCR plus surface radiation = total radiation. What are you thinking?
    For crying out loud! The Moon blocks out 50% of the GCR stream.

    How many more times, this is absurd.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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