Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 545

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

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    This shows how little you are actually paying attention - posted in #142

    Now, kindly answer my questions:

    1. Why? I mean the figure quoted is a mean figure, so how do you equate that to all days and all times?
    2. How have you determined the individual doses by region behind the shielded Apollo Command Module?
    3. How have you determined the VAB dose is higher, when you haven't done any calculations?
    4. How have you determined the full accuracy of the Apollo dosimeters within a shielded compartment, compared to purpose built instruments?
    5. Are you aware that the solar maximum during Apollo was considerably stronger in cycle 20 during Apollo?

    You ignored the data showing how the average is massively skewed larger due to SPEs.
    You ignored the reference showing a massive difference between solar maximum 20 and 24.


    https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/ind...43817#msg43817
    "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."


    "Let us look at that data, shall we? Without the spikes for SPE, the lunar daily average measures less than .05 cGy, which is .5mGy/day. Fair enough, BUT to be realistic, you can look at the specific data for 2013 which is within the peaks, and thus correlates to the same approximate Sun activity period during which Apollo 11 traveled. Look at those non-SPR numbers,
    (from http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/cr..._allevents.txt) and you get data that is consistent from day to day:

    "2456335.104166 2013 42 2013.1139840 1.333 0.734 1.000 1.8702e-02 1.7726e-02 1.8333e-02 1.0221e-02 1.5785e-02 9.0085e-03 1.5598e-02 9.2391e-03 1.6074e-02
    2456335.145833 2013 42 2013.1140982 1.333 0.761 1.000 1.8404e-02 1.9054e-02 1.8450e-02 9.7684e-03 1.6187e-02 1.0216e-02 1.5965e-02 9.4166e-03 1.6368e-02
    2456335.187500 2013 42 2013.1142123 1.333 0.738 1.000 1.7298e-02 1.7642e-02 1.9122e-02 8.9207e-03 1.5822e-02 8.9500e-03 1.5526e-02 1.0296e-02 1.6089e-02
    2456335.229166 2013 42 2013.1143265 1.333 0.756 1.000 1.8975e-02 1.8092e-02 1.9896e-02 1.0249e-02 1.6089e-02 9.1526e-03 1.6310e-02 1.0720e-02 1.6458e-02
    2456335.270833 2013 42 2013.1144406 1.333 0.742 1.000 1.8276e-02 1.7111e-02 1.8640e-02 9.6895e-03 1.5953e-02 8.3184e-03 1.5481e-02 9.7308e-03 1.6527e-02"

    Now, that is a RANDOMLY picked 5 day window from 2013. The HIGHEST dose rate recorded is .019896cGy/day, or .19896mGy/day, and the LOWEST is .0083184cGy/day, or .083184mGy/day.

    Those numbers fit very neatly UNDER the Apollo 11 daily dose for their whole trip. And just to put the slam dunk on your confusion, you STILL have failed to account for their time in LEO, which is part of their mission exposure, and which also resulted in MUCH lower dose rates for the duration of that potion of the mission."

    You keep ignoring the majority of my posts - I wonder why?

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    .6mrad/hr = 6ugy/hr = 144ugy/day expected level. Actual level 10ugy/hr = 240ugy/hr/ 144ugy/day = 1.667 higher than expected? .24mgy is higher than .22mgy. It seems the moon would add a component of radiation to the overall in and above GCR. I am glad you guys straightened me out on this. I was thinking it was 6.7 times as high when it is only 1.66 times as high as expected. the article claimed 30 too 40% higher so I guess that checks out too.
    I erred in this calculation as the combined GCR + Neutron dose is 13.1ugy/hr.
    .6mrad/hr = 6ugy/hr = 144ugy/day expected level. Actual level 13.1ugy/hr = 314.4ugy/day/ 144ugy/day = 2.183 higher than expected?
    Now we know that the level of GCR reaching the lunar surface is 10ugy/hr. If we assume lunar shielding (1mr/hr/.6mr/hr)=1.6667 then 10ugy/hr * 1.666 = 16.6667ugy/hr or 1.6667mrad/hr
    This means an astronaut on the lunar service would receive 13.1ugyhr * 24 hr/day = 314.4ugy/day or .314mgy/day which is to say we should expect a lunar landing to add to the overall mission dose and not lower it.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,808
    Lord Foul,

    The rules of this forum require you to provide timely answers to the questions asked of you. Please begin doing so immediately. If you donít know an answer, please say so. If you need a reasonable amount of time to prepare an answer, please explain and follow up within that time frame.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,577
    No. Posting CRaTER data (even if it were appropriate CRaTER data) won't help you, because (as previously revealed) these dose rates are "corrected for altitude". That is, they're deliberately manipulated to estimate lunar surface dose rates. So very much not cis-lunar dose rates.

    I strongly suggest you go to your own link and click on LEARN MORE. (It does what it says on the label.)

    Grant Hutchison

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Results from the RADOM experiment onboard CHANDRAYAAN-1, India's first mission to Moon which was launched on October 22, 2008, noted outside the radiation belts (Cislunar Space), en-route to the Moon, the particle flux (~3 particle cm-2 s-1) and corresponding dose were very small (~12 ĶGy h-1 or .288 mgy/day) which further decreased slightly in the lunar orbit because of the shielding effect of the Moon. Average flux and dose in lunar orbit were ~2.5 particle cm-2 s-1 and ~10 ĶGy h-1 (.24 mgy/day)

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    No. Posting CRaTER data (even if it were appropriate CRaTER data) won't help you, because (as previously revealed) these dose rates are "corrected for altitude". That is, they're deliberately manipulated to estimate lunar surface dose rates. So very much not cis-lunar dose rates.

    I strongly suggest you go to your own link and click on LEARN MORE. (It does what it says on the label.)

    Grant Hutchison
    The CraTer telescope has six detectors two of which are aimed at the lunar surface. It also has detectors monitoring cislunar space.

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The CraTer telescope has six detectors two of which are aimed at the lunar surface. It also has detectors monitoring cislunar space.
    Oh for pity's sake. Please click on LEARN MORE.
    And then come back and start answering some of the outstanding questions.

    Grant Hutchison

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    I ask anyone seeking me to answer a question limit the question to a single question at a time and be as concise as possible. A lot of people are asking a lot of questions and it is difficult to keep track.

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Oh for pity's sake. Please click on LEARN MORE.
    And then come back and start answering some of the outstanding questions.

    Grant Hutchison
    is that a question?

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I ask anyone seeking me to answer a question limit the question to a single question at a time and be as concise as possible. A lot of people are asking a lot of questions and it is difficult to keep track.
    Here's mine:
    Where is the contemporaneous dose measurement in cis-lunar space that convinces you the Chang'E-4 surface dose rate is higher than the dose rate in cis-lunar space?

    (Hint: a decade ago is not "contemporaneous".)

    Grant Hutchison

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Let's clean the slate and start with me asking a simple question. In 1969 what was the cislunar GCR level? Anyone?

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Attachment 26074SAA Proton Flux Map.
    Last edited by Lord Foul; 2021-Apr-18 at 01:55 AM.

  14. #194
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Here's mine:
    Where is the contemporaneous dose measurement in cis-lunar space that convinces you the Chang'E-4 surface dose rate is higher than the dose rate in cis-lunar space?

    (Hint: a decade ago is not "contemporaneous".)

    Grant Hutchison
    Extrapolating from the graph, I am going to say it is approximately .24mgy/day
    Attachment 26075


    I erred in this calculation as the combined GCR + Neutron dose is 13.1ugy/hr.
    .6mrad/hr = 6ugy/hr = 144ugy/day expected level. Actual level 13.1ugy/hr = 314.4ugy/day/ 144ugy/day = 2.183 higher than expected?
    Now we know that the level of GCR reaching the lunar surface is 10ugy/hr. If we assume lunar shielding (1mr/hr/.6mr/hr)=1.6667 then 10ugy/hr * 1.666 = 16.6667ugy/hr or 1.6667mrad/hr
    This means an astronaut on the lunar service would receive 13.1ugyhr * 24 hr/day = 314.4ugy/day or .314mgy/day which is to say we should expect a lunar landing to add to the overall mission dose and not lower it.

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Let's clean the slate and start with me asking a simple question. In 1969 what was the cislunar GCR level? Anyone?
    Youíve already been given links and information on GCR and mission radiation doses. Anyway, this is your CT thread, you are the one that claimed the reported Apollo 11 radiation measurements were too low. You have even been asked to show your detailed calculations and evidence supported data you based the calculations on. This is your claim and responsibility. Look it up, review the discussion, research it, figure it out yourself.

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

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

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  16. #196
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Extrapolating from the graph, I am going to say it is approximately .24mgy/day
    Attachment 26075
    Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator
    Grant Hutchison

  17. #197
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Let's clean the slate and start with me asking a simple question. In 1969 what was the cislunar GCR level? Anyone?
    Um, what do you mean by "level"? GCR is a spectrum of energies and particle types. The absorbed dose will be different inside a pressure vessel than it will be unattenuated.

  18. #198
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    You’ve already been given links and information on GCR and mission radiation doses. Anyway, this is your CT thread, you are the one that claimed the reported Apollo 11 radiation measurements were too low. You have even been asked to show your detailed calculations and evidence supported data you based the calculations on. This is your claim and responsibility. Look it up, review the discussion, research it, figure it out yourself.
    If you cannot answer it then please say so.

  19. #199
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    Um, what do you mean by "level"? GCR is a spectrum of energies and particle types. The absorbed dose will be different inside a pressure vessel than it will be unattenuated.
    Not really. GCR is essential unshieldable with the slightest of attenuation by an Apollo craft.

  20. #200
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	GCR shielding.jpg 
Views:	29 
Size:	40.0 KB 
ID:	26076
    You can see by this graph that GCR is not shielded by aluminum and the Apollo had no shielding that would attenuate it.

  21. #201
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Grant Hutchison
    I don't understand. Are you saying that the graph would not display?
    Try this one:https://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/c..._allevents.png

  22. #202
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	proton Flux.png 
Views:	23 
Size:	119.5 KB 
ID:	26077
    Is this a good illustration to calculate an expected radiation dose through the Van Allen Belt? What do you think?

  23. #203
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Can we all agree that the SAA is the lowest proton flux region of the Van Allen Belt?

  24. #204
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    If you cannot answer it then please say so.
    I didnít say I couldnít. I even gave hints, itís not like GCR has been a foreign subject in this thread.

    But this is something you should do, since it is so much a part of your argument. Youíve repeatedly been asked for your evidence for your claims, which you generally donít have, and you often donít even seem to understand our questions. Itís like youíre asking us to do your homework for you.

    And most importantly, we, as other participants may answer questions you ask if we want to, but since we are not making the CT claim, are not obligated to do so.

    "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

  25. #205
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I didn’t say I couldn’t. I even gave hints, it’s not like GCR has been a foreign subject in this thread.

    But this is something you should do, since it is so much a part of your argument. You’ve repeatedly been asked for your evidence for your claims, which you generally don’t have, and you often don’t even seem to understand our questions. It’s like you’re asking us to do your homework for you.

    And most importantly, we, as other participants may answer questions you ask if we want to, but since we are not making the CT claim, are not obligated to do so.
    I am pretty sure you do not know and are deflecting. I will take that as a distinct " I have no idea".

  26. #206
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I am pretty sure you do not know and are deflecting. I will take that as a distinct " I have no idea".
    What you assume other posters know or do not know is not relevant to your claims. You took on the obligation of convincing others, so yours is the burden of proof.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  27. #207
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    You can see by this graph that GCR is not shielded by aluminum and the Apollo had no shielding that would attenuate it.
    Larger letters are not more convincing.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  28. #208
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Larger letters are not more convincing.
    I had to try.

  29. #209
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Let's clean the slate and start with me asking a simple question. In 1969 what was the cislunar GCR level? Anyone?
    No. Answer the outstanding questions. There are so many because you didnít provide timely answers as they were asked. Please start now.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  30. #210
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    I have answered any and all questions to the best of my ability. If you are not satisfied with my answer then let it be known that I do not know the answer. You might consider re-asking the question in a manner that the answer is obvious or foregoing that, in a different way.

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
  •