Page 13 of 19 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 390 of 545

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

  1. #361
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I humbly apologize for my indiscretions. Allow me the opportunity to make it right. List your questions again an I will attempt to answer them promptly.
    To start, why not, at long last, answer Van Rijn’s questions? He’s asked you to do so several times already, and you have thus far pretended otherwise. His most recent reminder was in post 357. We shall judge whether you answer the questions actually asked, instead of some distorted version that you instead pretend was asked.

    Clanger just posted a repeat set of questions that you also have yet to answer. Answering Van Rijn and Clanger would be a good start. Then there’s Grant H, and ...

  2. #362
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    ...as all the other environments of a translunar mission offer higher exposure than cislunar space.
    You think dose rate was higher in earth orbit, lunar orbit, and on the lunar surface than in cislunar space!?

  3. #363
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    I would like to ask a question to all that are willing to answer if I am allowed. How do you resolve the fact that Robert A. Braeunig said
    Based on my analysis of electrons, protons, and bremsstrahlung, the predicted total dose received by the Apollo 11 astronauts as a consequence of their transits of the Van Allen radiation belts was only about 32 mrem, or 0.016 rads (all from protons ≥100 MeV). This shows that the Apollo trajectories though the VARB were not only survivable, but that the radiation doses received were inconsequential. Of course the VARB were not the only source of radiation to which the crews were exposed. To record the actual skin doses, the astronauts worn dosimeters. These dosimeter measurements for all the Apollo missions are summarized in Table 8 (Apollo 7 and 9 were Earth orbit missions).

  4. #364
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    You think dose rate was higher in earth orbit, lunar orbit, and on the lunar surface than in cislunar space!?
    Yes

  5. #365
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The values you quote are not specific to the Apollo 11 and really have no bearing on it.
    Wait what!?? These are YOUR values from YOUR data with the SPEs removed!

    Answer the question properly. If you are going to use the data from THIS period and apply it to another period, how can you include SPE data only applicable to the former?

    Apollo 11 occurred during Solar cycle 20 and the values of 24 do not apply to the Apollo 11 mission.
    WHAT!? You are the one using period 24 data and applying them to Apollo 11, now you say I shouldn't be doing it when that is the very point I am making. Slaps forehead with frying pan.

    I do not. NASA indicates Lunar surface GCR was .6mrad/hr
    And? That's 0.144 mgy/day.

    I have not. I made the case that if the entire flight had been in cislunar space
    It wasn't! Only 4 days of it were for all missions.

    then the GCR of cislunar space would be the minimum the mission daily exposure could be as all the other environments of a translunar mission offer higher exposure than cislunar space.
    And you have had data given to you proving that all the other missions were way above that and Apollo 11 including the estimated lunar proximity data was spot on! Notwithstanding that we are using your full dose including the SPEs from the wrong period of less intensity. Utter fail.

    NASA provided the cislunar dose for the Apollo mission and I did not adjust it at all.
    No they did not, they provided the dose for the entire mission which included days less than the GCR full dose because the Moon shielded up to 50%


    Once again, your entire case is built on failure:

    1. Using data from the wrong period, incorporating SPEs that should not be included
    2. Using data from a period 33%-100% less intense than the Apollo era.
    3. Not factoring in the time on the surface at 60% of full daily dose.
    4. Conflating the VAB dose with hopeless ineptitude whilst ignoring a very complex and sound page of calculations.
    5. Worst of all, taking the lowest of all missions and using that as some yardstick for all missions when the basics are wrong and the other missions are in the main significantly higher than Apollo 11.

    Why did you quote my post and ignore this:

    You've chosen the shortest lunar landing mission and rather deceptively the one with the lowest daily rate. Here is a direct analysis by mission:



    Now, taking Apollo 11 as an example and assuming your flawed! figure of 0.24mgy/day:
    Apollo 11 4 days in cislunar space @ 0.24 = 0.98 PLUS 4 days on or around lunar surface @ 60% of 0.24 = 0.576 TOTAL = 1.556mgy ACTUAL 1.8mgy

    According to Bob Brauenig's calculation using mathematics the passage through the VAB added an additional 0.016 rads or 0.16mgy. 1.556 + 0.16 = 1.716 still below actual!

    Considering you screwed up using data that has no bearing on the Period 20 solar maximum, considering you screwed up using SPE data which OBVIOUSLY does not apply to a different period, considering your massive blunder interpreting the intensity of GCRs on or around the Moon......your claim STILL falls below the actual doses reported!

  6. #366
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    To start, why not, at long last, answer Van Rijn’s questions? He’s asked you to do so several times already, and you have thus far pretended otherwise. His most recent reminder was in post 357. We shall judge whether you answer the questions actually asked, instead of some distorted version that you instead pretend was asked.

    Clanger just posted a repeat set of questions that you also have yet to answer. Answering Van Rijn and Clanger would be a good start. Then there’s Grant H, and ...
    I was kind of hoping the question you wanted answered would be in this post. Could you make it easy for me by asking the question specifically?

  7. #367
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    Wait what!?? These are YOUR values from YOUR data with the SPEs removed!

    Answer the question properly. If you are going to use the data from THIS period and apply it to another period, how can you include SPE data only applicable to the former?



    WHAT!? You are the one using period 24 data and applying them to Apollo 11, now you say I shouldn't be doing it when that is the very point I am making. Slaps forehead with frying pan.



    And? That's 0.144 mgy/day.



    It wasn't! Only 4 days of it were for all missions.



    And you have had data given to you proving that all the other missions were way above that and Apollo 11 including the estimated lunar proximity data was spot on! Notwithstanding that we are using your full dose including the SPEs from the wrong period of less intensity. Utter fail.



    No they did not, they provided the dose for the entire mission which included days less than the GCR full dose because the Moon shielded up to 50%


    Once again, your entire case is built on failure:

    1. Using data from the wrong period, incorporating SPEs that should not be included
    2. Using data from a period 33%-100% less intense than the Apollo era.
    3. Not factoring in the time on the surface at 60% of full daily dose.
    4. Conflating the VAB dose with hopeless ineptitude whilst ignoring a very complex and sound page of calculations.
    5. Worst of all, taking the lowest of all missions and using that as some yardstick for all missions when the basics are wrong and the other missions are in the main significantly higher than Apollo 11.

    Why did you quote my post and ignore this:

    You've chosen the shortest lunar landing mission and rather deceptively the one with the lowest daily rate. Here is a direct analysis by mission:



    Now, taking Apollo 11 as an example and assuming your flawed! figure of 0.24mgy/day:
    Apollo 11 4 days in cislunar space @ 0.24 = 0.98 PLUS 4 days on or around lunar surface @ 60% of 0.24 = 0.576 TOTAL = 1.556mgy ACTUAL 1.8mgy

    According to Bob Brauenig's calculation using mathematics the passage through the VAB added an additional 0.016 rads or 0.16mgy. 1.556 + 0.16 = 1.716 still below actual!

    Considering you screwed up using data that has no bearing on the Period 20 solar maximum, considering you screwed up using SPE data which OBVIOUSLY does not apply to a different period, considering your massive blunder interpreting the intensity of GCRs on or around the Moon......your claim STILL falls below the actual doses reported!
    I am not considering anything but Apollo 11. I do not want to make this too complicated. "K.I.S.S."
    NASA says the GCR for cislunar space during the Apollo mission was .24mgy/day. .24mgy is above the .22mgy daily dose of the Apollo 11.

  8. #368
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Yes
    K. Sounds like that's contributing to your confusion. Cislunar space has the highest dose rate of the mission with the exception of the VAB crossing, which contributed ~~10% of the A11 mission exposure in ~~2% of the mission duration. Earth orbit dose rate is lower because of the magnetosphere and mass of the earth blocking much of the sky. Lunar orbit and surface dose rates are lower because of the moon blocking much of the sky.

  9. #369
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    Wait what!?? These are YOUR values from YOUR data with the SPEs removed!

    Answer the question properly. If you are going to use the data from THIS period and apply it to another period, how can you include SPE data only applicable to the former?



    WHAT!? You are the one using period 24 data and applying them to Apollo 11, now you say I shouldn't be doing it when that is the very point I am making. Slaps forehead with frying pan.



    And? That's 0.144 mgy/day.



    It wasn't! Only 4 days of it were for all missions.



    And you have had data given to you proving that all the other missions were way above that and Apollo 11 including the estimated lunar proximity data was spot on! Notwithstanding that we are using your full dose including the SPEs from the wrong period of less intensity. Utter fail.



    No they did not, they provided the dose for the entire mission which included days less than the GCR full dose because the Moon shielded up to 50%


    Once again, your entire case is built on failure:

    1. Using data from the wrong period, incorporating SPEs that should not be included
    2. Using data from a period 33%-100% less intense than the Apollo era.
    3. Not factoring in the time on the surface at 60% of full daily dose.
    4. Conflating the VAB dose with hopeless ineptitude whilst ignoring a very complex and sound page of calculations.
    5. Worst of all, taking the lowest of all missions and using that as some yardstick for all missions when the basics are wrong and the other missions are in the main significantly higher than Apollo 11.

    Why did you quote my post and ignore this:

    You've chosen the shortest lunar landing mission and rather deceptively the one with the lowest daily rate. Here is a direct analysis by mission:



    Now, taking Apollo 11 as an example and assuming your flawed! figure of 0.24mgy/day:
    Apollo 11 4 days in cislunar space @ 0.24 = 0.98 PLUS 4 days on or around lunar surface @ 60% of 0.24 = 0.576 TOTAL = 1.556mgy ACTUAL 1.8mgy

    According to Bob Brauenig's calculation using mathematics the passage through the VAB added an additional 0.016 rads or 0.16mgy. 1.556 + 0.16 = 1.716 still below actual!

    Considering you screwed up using data that has no bearing on the Period 20 solar maximum, considering you screwed up using SPE data which OBVIOUSLY does not apply to a different period, considering your massive blunder interpreting the intensity of GCRs on or around the Moon......your claim STILL falls below the actual doses reported!
    You need to focus. You are all over the place. We are only dealing with the conditions of Apollo 11.

  10. #370
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    You think dose rate was higher in earth orbit, lunar orbit, and on the lunar surface than in cislunar space!?
    The chang'E-4 measured an average total absorbed dose rate in silicon of 13.2 ± 1 μGy/hour and a neutral particle dose rate of 3.1 ± 0.5 μGy/hour. 16.3ugy/hr = .3912mgy/day which is considerably higher than than Cislunar GCR which is around .24 mgy/day.

  11. #371
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The chang'E-4 measured an average total absorbed dose rate in silicon of 13.2 ± 1 μGy/hour and a neutral particle dose rate of 3.1 ± 0.5 μGy/hour. 16.3ugy/hr = .3912mgy/day which is considerably higher than than Cislunar GCR which is around .24 mgy/day.
    There was a spacecraft called chang'E-4 launched in 1969? Or is this more apples and oranges?
    How did you account for differences in shielding performance between primary and secondary GCR?

  12. #372
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The chang'E-4 measured an average total absorbed dose rate in silicon of 13.2 ± 1 μGy/hour and a neutral particle dose rate of 3.1 ± 0.5 μGy/hour. 16.3ugy/hr = .3912mgy/day which is considerably higher than than Cislunar GCR which is around .24 mgy/day.

    This is about the 6th time you've posted this and yet again ignoring this below:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...44#post2535444

    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Yes, you keep repeating that, but it doesn't say what you claim it says.
    1) The Chang'E-4/LRO dose rate of 13 μGy/hour is merely double the Apollo estimate of 0.6 mrad/hr.
    2) That's exactly what the Apollo radiation analysis predicted would happen at solar minimum.
    3) You're comparing the current radiation environment to the radiation environment in 1969 every time you compare the Chang'E-4 dose-rate to the Apollo dose-rate.

    Grant Hutchison

  13. #373
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    K. Sounds like that's contributing to your confusion. Cislunar space has the highest dose rate of the mission with the exception of the VAB crossing, which contributed ~~10% of the A11 mission exposure in ~~2% of the mission duration. Earth orbit dose rate is lower because of the magnetosphere and mass of the earth blocking much of the sky. Lunar orbit and surface dose rates are lower because of the moon blocking much of the sky.
    It confuses me when you claim that the VAB accounts for only approximately 10% of mission dose. Could you please cite references?

  14. #374
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    It confuses me when you claim that the VAB accounts for only approximately 10% of mission dose. Could you please cite references?
    This is getting absurd now. You've been given and responded to this with ** about Braeunig being a paid shill!

    http://web.archive.org/web/201410090...VABraddose.htm

  15. #375
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    This is about the 6th time you've posted this and yet again ignoring this below:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...44#post2535444
    The salient point is the surface radiation is higher than cislunar space. .6mrad/hr was NASA's belief in the Apollo era. NASA learned in 2009 that that was not correct as the moon itself was a source of radiation.

  16. #376
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,772

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I was kind of hoping the question you wanted answered would be in this post. Could you make it easy for me by asking the question specifically?
    Stop the delaying. Answer Van Rijn's questions first. That's a direct request.

    You seem reluctant to answer our questions, but they are not going to go away. You shouldn't fear enlightenment. Yes, it can be painful to confront how wrong you've been, but isn't it better to stop clinging to absurdities? So, get to work!

  17. #377
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    It confuses me when you claim that the VAB accounts for only approximately 10% of mission dose. Could you please cite references?
    You've already been provided with this (as Clanger notes above). Please answer my questions from post #371.

  18. #378
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    There was a spacecraft called chang'E-4 launched in 1969? Or is this more apples and oranges?
    How did you account for differences in shielding performance between primary and secondary GCR?
    No. NASA has realized it's assumptions about radiation on the lunar surface were in error. They now have empirical information to adjust their outlook.
    I am not sure I understand your question but GCR is essentially unshieldable and neutron flux is sheildable by using hydrogenous material.

  19. #379
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post



    Stop the delaying. Answer Van Rijn's questions first. That's a direct request.

    You seem reluctant to answer our questions, but they are not going to go away. You shouldn't fear enlightenment. Yes, it can be painful to confront how wrong you've been, but isn't it better to stop clinging to absurdities? So, get to work!
    Lead me to the question or state it. I have no idea of which one you are interested in.

  20. #380
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Lead me to the question or state it. I have no idea of which one you are interested in.
    As expected, you show fear.

  21. #381
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    No. NASA has realized it's assumptions about radiation on the lunar surface were in error. They now have empirical information to adjust their outlook.
    I am not sure I understand your question but GCR is essentially unshieldable and neutron flux is sheildable by using hydrogenous material.
    NASA didn't have to rely on assumptions. As already noted, lunar surface radiation was first measured in 1966. Chang'E-4 measured a different radiation environment than what Apollo would have encountered, exactly how did you account for this?

    GCR is not "unshieldable", though attenuating it to near zero on a mass-limited spacecraft may be impractical. But the secondary radiation from the activated regolith will be lower energy particles, which will be less penetrating. Try again.

  22. #382
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    As expected, you show fear.
    Is it to difficult to post the question you desire an answer to? I am trying to accommodate you. Make it easy for me.

  23. #383
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    NASA didn't have to rely on assumptions. As already noted, lunar surface radiation was first measured in 1966. Chang'E-4 measured a different radiation environment than what Apollo would have encountered, exactly how did you account for this?

    GCR is not "unshieldable", though attenuating it to near zero on a mass-limited spacecraft may be impractical. But the secondary radiation from the activated regolith will be lower energy particles, which will be less penetrating. Try again.
    Same difference., It was not shielded by the Apollo crafts. In 1969 the US did not measure the neutron flux generated by GCR and had no idea that lunar surface was radiated beyond incoming GCR. You find what you look for?

  24. #384
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Originally Posted by Swift
    Lord Foul

    The post I've quoted above is a virtual copy of this post. You are guilty of either using someone else's work without proper attribution, of 'second party' posting (a rule 7 violation), or of being a sockpuppet of a previously banned member. Please explain exactly which one it is - and yes - I want you to answer directly in thread.
    They are not identical as I have altered values in it to coincide with my research. I was not aware that I could not do this.
    Given the tiny changes and the overwhelming similarity (down to the "So let's recap"), you are testing my belief in that statement, but we'll let it go for now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    You need to focus. You are all over the place. We are only dealing with the conditions of Apollo 11.
    You need to stop telling other people what to do, or what they may ask you. Since the credibility of Apollo 11 directly relates to the credibility of the entire program, such questions are completely acceptable.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  25. #385
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Lead me to the question or state it. I have no idea of which one you are interested in.
    Here are the questions I asked, four? five? six? Too many times to bother keeping track . . . including earlier today:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...64#post2535564

    Answer the first, then the second and finish with the third. Answer the questions asked, not something you made up yourself, with quantitative evidence where requested, sources, and if you dispute a peer reviewed article I would expect you to speak directly to the statements made in the article.

    If you can’t or won’t answer the questions then be honorable enough to admit you can’t support the claims that fostered those questions.

    Now you’ve been directly led to the questions as you requested, not that you should need to be still again, so get to answering.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  26. #386
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    “His pants spontaneously burst into flame.”
    Do not accuse someone else of lying, even as a joke and leave moderation to the moderators.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    <snip>

    Meanwhile Lord Foul (not dionysus or timfinch at all) frantically avoids 90% of my posts!
    Watch it. Public accusations of sockpuppetry violate multiple rules. If you have such suspicions, I know you know what to do.

    All

    A warning to everyone. This thread is becoming troublesome. Be on your best behavior or we will start dishing out the infractions.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  27. #387
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    It was not shielded by the Apollo crafts.
    No, that does not adequately answer 381. Though there are a bunch of older questions you've similarly ignored.
    Last edited by VQkr; 2021-Apr-20 at 01:07 AM. Reason: per mod request to improve tone

  28. #388
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Given the tiny changes and the overwhelming similarity (down to the "So let's recap"), you are testing my belief in that statement, but we'll let it go for now.


    You need to stop telling other people what to do, or what they may ask you. Since the credibility of Apollo 11 directly relates to the credibility of the entire program, such questions are completely acceptable.
    Confusing the issue with extraneous and unrelated points is an apparent act of deflection,. It is in the pursuit of truth that I try to retain the focus.

  29. #389
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    No, that does not adequately answer 381. Though there are a bunch of older questions you've similarly ignored.
    There was not a question posed in #381 Take this opportunity to pose your question.

  30. #390
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Did you even read my first question in that post? You’re just repeating your “it’s radioactive” claim without qualification. That is meaningless. Everything is radioactive. Of course NASA knew the lunar surface was to some extent radioactive just as the Earth’s surface is.

    Again, repeating the question I asked regarding your radioactivity claim:

    To be clear, I was and still am looking for quantitative measurements that can be used for comparison purposes. It isn’t enough to just say something is radioactive, since any random bit of dirt on Earth contains radioisotopes and is measurably radioactive, though in most cases only trivially so. I would also expect to see supporting evidence for any values you would provide.

    Would you please answer the question I asked, or admit you are unable.

    And by the way, induced radioactivity was no surprise to NASA either. Nuclear research goes back to the early 20th century and induced radioactivity had been discovered long before anything reached space.

    Here’s an abstract of an article written in 1970 of measurements of induced radioactivity of Apollo 11 samples:

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/168/3931/575

    Radioactivity Induced in Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Material by Solar Flare Protons

    Abstract
    Comparison of values of the specific radioactivities reported for lunar surface material from the Apollo 11 mission with analogous data for stone meteorites suggests that energetic particles from the solar flare of 12 April 1969 may have produced most of the cobalt-56 observed.

    But remember, that says nothing about *how* radioactive the material was, and obviously NASA’s measurements didn’t show anything of concern for a short mission.



    Again, you didn’t answer my question.. I went to a fair amount of trouble to break out parts of the technical article you had previously linked to that showed the lunar radiation dose would be far below the cislunar dose. My question was:

    Do you now understand your error, and accept the absorbed radiation dose near the moon would be lower than in cislunar space? If not, than please explain why and present your supporting evidence. I would expect you to speak directly to the statements in the linked peer reviewed article.


    Again I ask, please answer the question I asked.

    And you didn’t even touch my third question:

    In general, you’ve made a number of claims that can only be evaluated quantitatively, but you have been unable or unwilling to support them with evidence and calculations. Will you admit that in such cases, you have no basis for making the claim?

    Heck, you’ve just done it again! Please answer the question I asked.
    I can only rely on the official postings of NASA and other scientific postings. I will make this simple by saying I am unable to answer your questions because they lack specificity and are broad. If you ask pointed questions and in limited quantit then I will do my best to answer them promptly.
    Last edited by Lord Foul; 2021-Apr-20 at 01:34 AM. Reason: addition of a word

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
  •