Page 14 of 19 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 420 of 545

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

  1. #391
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    There was not a question posed in #381 Take this opportunity to pose your question.
    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.
    Bolding added.

  2. #392
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    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
    There is nothing to resolve, all his work was given to anyone on his former web page. That you feel there is conflict is your inability to grasp facts that destroy your beliefs.

  3. #393
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    I am not sure but I think we all can agree that GCR during the Apollo 11 mission was .24mgy/day?
    I am also not sure but I think we all can agree that the Apollo craft was permeable to GCR.
    I think the only thing remaining to definitively proving that a transit through the VAB is at a significant exposure, is evidence of such.
    Is there anyone that would contest this?

  4. #394
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I am not sure but I think we all can agree that GCR during the Apollo 11 mission was .24mgy/day?
    No it was approximately .24 mgy/day, get this fact through your head. Therefore the dose received was lower than the average dose, but well within the average rate.
    I am also not sure but I think we all can agree that the Apollo craft was permeable to GCR.
    I think the only thing remaining to definitively proving that a transit through the VAB is at a significant exposure, is evidence of such.
    No, the dosage was/is proved; you just refuse to accept that fact. From Bob B.
    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).[/b]
    Is there anyone that would contest this?
    My contest are noted.

  5. #395
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    Bolding added.
    This information is to demonstrate that Nasa had made some assumptions about lunar surface GCR levels but had not actually measured the lunar surface. The Chang'e-4 measurements were the first of their kind and corrected some previous misconceptions.

  6. #396
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    No it was approximately .24 mgy/day, get this fact through your head. Therefore the dose received was lower than the average dose, but well within the average rate.
    No, the dosage was/is proved; you just refuse to accept that fact. From Bob B.


    Is there anyone that would contest this?
    My contest are noted.[/QUOTE]

    I am not sure Robert Braeunig conducted penetration test.
    GCR radiation is a different matter: it is constant, isotropic, and contains many very high-energy species that cannot be shielded by currently employed shielding regimes.
    https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514...0much%20higher.
    I point out to you that both the ISS and the Orion missions are empirical proof that Apollo shielding is permeable to proton flux.
    .22 is within plus or minus 10% of .24 and that would be fine if not for the fact that the VAB dose is not considered in this value. If GCR was the only source of radiation then this would not be a question.
    Last edited by Lord Foul; 2021-Apr-20 at 04:04 AM. Reason: Further comments

  7. #397
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    This information is to demonstrate that Nasa had made some assumptions about lunar surface GCR levels but had not actually measured the lunar surface. The Chang'e-4 measurements were the first of their kind and corrected some previous misconceptions.
    They confirmed and refined previous observations. Observations which compliment but do not conflict with the early probes, Apollo dosimetry, or more recent probes.

  8. #398
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    They confirmed and refined previous observations. Observations which compliment but do not conflict with the early probes, Apollo dosimetry, or more recent probes.
    I cannot argue that position. They made some assumptions and when they had empirical data contested their assumptions they abandoned those assumptions. It is the scientific way. If only everyone could do that.

  9. #399
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514...0much%20higher.
    I point out to you that both the ISS and the Orion missions are empirical proof that Apollo shielding is permeable to proton flux.
    "Permeable to proton flux" is an incomplete phrase. At what energy, and to what level of attenuation? A stationary proton is cold ionized hydrogen, not radiation. Your linked paper explicitly notes, repeatedly, that the Apollo missions went to the moon. It also mentions that the GCR is attenuated (not eliminated) by aluminum, for example in figure 1. And, it notes:

    The trapped radiation in the Van Allen belts may be characterized as “high-flux low-energy particles” for which adequate shielding protocols exist, and which do not present a serious hazard to humans or equipment leaving the region below the Earth’s magnetosphere if they are traversed quickly with standard shielding.'

  10. #400
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    "Permeable to proton flux" is an incomplete phrase. At what energy, and to what level of attenuation? A stationary proton is cold ionized hydrogen, not radiation. Your linked paper explicitly notes, repeatedly, that the Apollo missions went to the moon. It also mentions that the GCR is attenuated (not eliminated) by aluminum, for example in figure 1. And, it notes:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Orion radiation.png 
Views:	17 
Size:	215.8 KB 
ID:	26088
    Consider this radiation graph of the Orion exposure. Note the spike in radiation as soon as it enters the VAB at about an altitude of 600 miles. I have no idea of the shielding characteristics of the Orion but I am forced to believe that they are considerably better than the Apollo. 50 years later and we have not cracked this nut.

  11. #401
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Apollo misssion path.jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	186.1 KB 
ID:	26089
    I do not know where I found this but I find it very interesting.

  12. #402
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Orion radiation.png 
Views:	17 
Size:	215.8 KB 
ID:	26088
    Consider this radiation graph of the Orion exposure. Note the spike in radiation as soon as it enters the VAB at about an altitude of 600 miles. I have no idea of the shielding characteristics of the Orion but I am forced to believe that they are considerably better than the Apollo. 50 years later and we have not cracked this nut.
    https://directory.eoportal.org/web/e.../article/orion

    While not producing entry velocities as high as those experienced in returning from a lunar orbit, the trajectory was chosen to provide higher stresses on the thermal protection and guided entry systems, as compared against a lower energy LEO entry. However the required entry geometry with constraints on inclination and landing site result in a trajectory that lingers for many hours in the Van Allen radiation belts. This exposes the vehicle and avionics to much higher levels of high energy proton radiation than a typical LEO or lunar trajectory would encounter. As a result, Van Allen radiation poses a significant risk to the Orion avionics system, and particularly the FCM (Flight Control Module) computers that house the GN&C flight software.
    If by "cracked this nut", you mean invented a practical Star Trek-style deflector shield, we agree. If you mean we don't know what mass of a material stops a proton of a given velocity, you are incorrect.

  13. #403
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    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!

    This thread is becoming absurd. We now have this person going full circle and reiterating his claims that CLEARLY are false, based on false data and without any direct correlation to that data. This large post of mine got two replies, both of them 1 line and both of them pathetic and not even close to relevant.

  14. #404
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I have no idea of the shielding characteristics of the Orion but I am forced to believe that they are considerably better than the Apollo.
    That about sums up the problem.

    These are known values. The composition of Apollo craft and Orion are not secret, you could have looked them up if you chose to. The shielding values of all those materials has already been well determined both in labs and in the field (IE, through direct experience in space).

    Here's my free advice: If you want your idea to be taken seriously, show you know the basics.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  15. #405
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    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.

    DO NOT comment to moderation posts. If you have something to say then use the report button.
    You have been told this before in this thread. Infraction given.
    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

  16. #406
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Apollo misssion path.jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	186.1 KB 
ID:	26089
    I do not know where I found this but I find it very interesting.
    Particularly since you recently claimed:
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I am not considering anything but Apollo 11. I do not want to make this too complicated. "K.I.S.S."
    By introducing those graphs, you've just blown your excuse for not responding to Clanger's questions concerning other Apollo missions. Please now respond to Clanger's questions.

    And I'm still waiting for any evidence to support your claim that the lunar surface has a higher radiation dose rate than cis-lunar space. So far I've been offered invalid historical comparisons and a data-set labelled as being adjust to match the lunar surface.
    Please provide that evidence, since your original claims fall apart without it.

    Grant Hutchison

  17. #407
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Once again I am going to summarise the issues and see if we can get an honest response.

    From Apollohoax.net Jason Thompson made this post:

    "Interesting that you should mention this little nugget of information. The sata you are using to assume your baseline GCR was taken in 2012, during solar cycle 24. As it happens, this cycle was quite a subdued one as they go. If you look it up you can see that the sunspot number peaked around 2012 at about 75. The Apollo missions happened in solar cycle 20, and if you look at the sunspot number for that maximum you can see it was significantly higher than that for the entire duration of the lunar flight phase of the Apollo program (between 100 and 150). Have you factored this into your baseline? No, you just took the MSL data and presented it as a constant GCR background level that should be present in all missions beyond LEO."

    This was posted here and has been continuously ignored!

    2. Using data from a period 33%-100% less intense than the Apollo era.

    Question 1: How can you not see that using such data is invalid and inaccurate?
    Question 2: On this one point alone are you going to offer any rebuttal that isn't bluster or evasion?

  18. #408
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    My contest are noted.
    I am not sure Robert Braeunig conducted penetration test.

    https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514...0much%20higher.
    I point out to you that both the ISS and the Orion missions are empirical proof that Apollo shielding is permeable to proton flux.
    .22 is within plus or minus 10% of .24 and that would be fine if not for the fact that the VAB dose is not considered in this value. If GCR was the only source of radiation then this would not be a question.[/QUOTE]

    I doubt very much that Bob did any penetration test, but the fact remains the amount of radiation was calculated on known and proven equations taken from the scientific literature. If you have issues with those equations, then I suggest you contact the authors and see if any changes might be made. Aside from that the equations are fact and you should accept those facts. You obviously don't read/comprehend very well Bob B. indicated that indeed VARB radiation WAS added to the final result, it just wasn't that much. Accept that fact and move on.

  19. #409
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    That is not true. Make your case.
    I mean, you admit you don't really understand radiation every time you admit you can't do the math for things. (I can't do the math for things, either; that's why I accept that I don't understand it.) But somehow, despite that, you refuse to accept any information you're given that proves that you're wrong, because . . . reasons.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  20. #410
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    Once again I am going to summarise the issues and see if we can get an honest response.

    From Apollohoax.net Jason Thompson made this post:

    "Interesting that you should mention this little nugget of information. The sata you are using to assume your baseline GCR was taken in 2012, during solar cycle 24. As it happens, this cycle was quite a subdued one as they go. If you look it up you can see that the sunspot number peaked around 2012 at about 75. The Apollo missions happened in solar cycle 20, and if you look at the sunspot number for that maximum you can see it was significantly higher than that for the entire duration of the lunar flight phase of the Apollo program (between 100 and 150). Have you factored this into your baseline? No, you just took the MSL data and presented it as a constant GCR background level that should be present in all missions beyond LEO."

    This was posted here and has been continuously ignored!

    2. Using data from a period 33%-100% less intense than the Apollo era.

    Question 1: How can you not see that using such data is invalid and inaccurate?
    Question 2: On this one point alone are you going to offer any rebuttal that isn't bluster or evasion?
    I have said this many times but it seems you cannot hear me. The baseline GCR I used is
    1mrad/hr.
    This is the value that NASA said that existed for Apollo 11.

  21. #411
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    That about sums up the problem.

    These are known values. The composition of Apollo craft and Orion are not secret, you could have looked them up if you chose to. The shielding values of all those materials has already been well determined both in labs and in the field (IE, through direct experience in space).

    Here's my free advice: If you want your idea to be taken seriously, show you know the basics.
    If you have a link t the Orion shielding page I would greatly appreciate it. I have been unable to locate it.

  22. #412
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    <snip>
    Question 1: How can you not see that using such data is invalid and inaccurate?
    Question 2: On this one point alone are you going to offer any rebuttal that isn't bluster or evasion?
    Those are not appropriate questions and the second one rises to the level of a rule violation (rule 2).

    If the decorum in this thread doesn't start improving, it will be closed. If any of you can no longer discuss this politely, maybe you need to step away from the thread.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  23. #413
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    If you have a link t the Orion shielding page I would greatly appreciate it. I have been unable to locate it.
    Shielding on the Orion capsule is a red herring. It doesn't matter what the shielding is, your OP concerns Apollo radiation, specifically A11.

    ETA: You have been shown that the orbit of Orion was vastly different than that of A11 during TLI.
    Last edited by bknight; 2021-Apr-20 at 05:04 PM. Reason: Orion orbit

  24. #414
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Particularly since you recently claimed:By introducing those graphs, you've just blown your excuse for not responding to Clanger's questions concerning other Apollo missions. Please now respond to Clanger's questions.

    And I'm still waiting for any evidence to support your claim that the lunar surface has a higher radiation dose rate than cis-lunar space. So far I've been offered invalid historical comparisons and a data-set labelled as being adjust to match the lunar surface.
    Please provide that evidence, since your original claims fall apart without it.

    Grant Hutchison
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Crater Telescope.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	141.9 KB 
ID:	26090
    The CraTer Telescope measures cislunar and lunar radiation. The Crater Data page gives Cislunar values.

  25. #415
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The CraTer Telescope measures cislunar and lunar radiation. The Crater Data page gives Cislunar values.
    Nope. CRaTER doesn't work the way you seem to think it works, but I'm not going to give you a tutorial on that, too.
    I'll simply repeat that the CRaTER data you've supplied have all been corrected to the lunar surface. I've pointed this out before, and I've directed you to the relevant information before.

    But one more time:
    Here is one of the datasets from CRaTER that you've previously offered as evidence: https://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/produc...G111=doserates
    You can look at the data source for the graph by clicking on the link below "Plot derived from data file:"
    That takes you here: https://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/c..._allevents.txt
    Then you read the file header:
    # CRaTER (GCR+SEP) dose rates for individual and combined detectors
    # from 2021-03-15 DOY:074
    # through 2021-04-14 DOY:104
    #
    # Columns are separated by a tab character.
    # All dose rate units: cGy / day
    # All dose rates have a silicon to water correction applied and are altitude corrected to the lunar surface.
    My emphasis throughout.
    So these data are not cis-lunar free-space data. Please stop claiming they are, and instead provide some cis-lunar data in answer to my question. (Or admit that you can't find any.)

    Grant Hutchison

  26. #416
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Nope. CRaTER doesn't work the way you seem think it works.
    And the CRaTER data you've supplied have all been corrected to the lunar surface. I've pointed this out before, and I've directed you to the relevant information before.

    But one more time:
    Here is one of the datasets from CRaTER that you've previously offered as evidence: https://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/produc...G111=doserates
    You can look at the data that have been graphed by clicking on the link below "Plot derived from data file:"
    That takes you here:
    https://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/c..._allevents.txt
    Then you read the file header:My emphasis throughout.
    So these data are not cis-lunar free-space data. Please stop claiming they are, and instead provide some cis-lunar data in answer to my question. (Or admit that you can't find any.)

    Grant Hutchison
    The CraTer Cislunar GCR reading for Feb 4th is .409mgy/day. The CraTer reading adjusted for the lunar surface was 13.29ugy/hr. 13.29ugy/hr *24 hr = .31896mgy/day

  27. #417
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The CraTer Cislunar GCR reading for Feb 4th is .409mgy/day. The CraTer reading adjusted for the lunar surface was 13.29ugy/hr. 13.29ugy/hr *24 hr = .31896mgy/day
    And this means what concerning Apollo 1969-1972 Lunar landings?

  28. #418
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    And this means what concerning Apollo 1969-1972 Lunar landings?
    When the neutron component is added to the GCR component on the lunar surface, The lunar Surface is roughly 96% of the exposure rate of Cislunar space. It is further proof that Apollo 11 could not have made a lunar transit.

  29. #419
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    When the neutron component is added to the GCR component on the lunar surface, The lunar Surface is roughly 96% of the exposure rate of Cislunar space. It is further proof that Apollo 11 could not have made a lunar transit.
    How so? Show your calculations, not your beliefs.

  30. #420
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    How so? Show your calculations, not your beliefs.
    The CraTer Cislunar GCR reading for Feb 4th is .409mgy/day. The CraTer reading adjusted for the lunar surface was 13.29ugy/hr. (GCR 13.29ugy/hr + Neutron 3.1ugy/hr)*24 hr = .39336mgy/day. .39336/.409=.9617

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
  •