Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 545

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

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    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.
    Most of my questions involved your claims that you made without supporting evidence or calculations, focusing on your general claim that the Apollo 11 radiation numbers were too low.

    For instance, you claimed that the lunar surface was radioactive and suggested it was highly radioactive, something that would significantly affect astronauts’ radiation exposure even if encountered briefly and require astronauts to take special precautions in handling lunar rock or dust.

    I asked for you to characterize this claim. I do not ever recall receiving an answer. 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.

    If you want to withdraw this claim or can’t support it, please say so, otherwise I would like an answer to my question.

    Another ongoing issue is that you kept either ignoring or misunderstanding that an astronaut would receive a lower radiation dose near the moon due to shielding from GCR and you were claiming incorrectly that the radiation dose near the Moon would actually be higher than in cislunar space. Today, in post 162, I went over excerpts from an article you originally linked to, that showed very clearly that your claim had been wrong, and in fact the radiation dose would be lower near the Moon than in cislunar space, as I, Grant, and others have been explaining. Here is the link to that post:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...77#post2535477

    and I wrote another post also in regards to the same article showing that GCR (not, for instance, surface radioactivity) would be the main source of radiation affecting astronauts:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...95#post2535495

    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.

    And finally (for now):

    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?

    "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

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Most of my questions involved your claims that you made without supporting evidence or calculations, focusing on your general claim that the Apollo 11 radiation numbers were too low.

    For instance, you claimed that the lunar surface was radioactive and suggested it was highly radioactive, something that would significantly affect astronauts’ radiation exposure even if encountered briefly and require astronauts to take special precautions in handling lunar rock or dust.

    I asked for you to characterize this claim. I do not ever recall receiving an answer. 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.

    If you want to withdraw this claim or can’t support it, please say so, otherwise I would like an answer to my question.

    Another ongoing issue is that you kept either ignoring or misunderstanding that an astronaut would receive a lower radiation dose near the moon due to shielding from GCR and you were claiming incorrectly that the radiation dose near the Moon would actually be higher than in cislunar space. Today, in post 162, I went over excerpts from an article you originally linked to, that showed very clearly that your claim had been wrong, and in fact the radiation dose would be lower near the Moon than in cislunar space, as I, Grant, and others have been explaining. Here is the link to that post:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...77#post2535477

    and I wrote another post also in regards to the same article showing that GCR (not, for instance, surface radioactivity) would be the main source of radiation affecting astronauts:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...95#post2535495

    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.

    And finally (for now):

    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?
    You have misunderstood and mischaracterized what I said. I said NASA was unaware that the lunar soil was radioactive. I said they became aware of this fact when the LRO launched in 2009 revealed that GCR did not taper off as expected closer to the moon. They then realized that the surface was was radioactive because of activation caused by the GCR. I said because the soil was radioactive they would not have breathe and ingested the dust. I said that it is not possible to have gone to the moon and brought back the dust and not realized it was radioactive. It is said that all the astronauts were exposed to this dust.

    The shadowing of the moon on GCR flux is offset by the neutron and gamma flux such that the exposure is higher than would be expected. They thought it was 30 to 40% higher than expected. I hope this satisfies your questions.

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    You have misunderstood and mischaracterized what I said. I said NASA was unaware that the lunar soil was radioactive.
    I cannot believe you are repeating this statement when you have been given proof it was not true!

    I said they became aware of this fact when the LRO launched in 2009 revealed that GCR did not taper off as expected closer to the moon. They then realized that the surface was was radioactive because of activation caused by the GCR. I said because the soil was radioactive they would not have breathe and ingested the dust. I said that it is not possible to have gone to the moon and brought back the dust and not realized it was radioactive. It is said that all the astronauts were exposed to this dust.
    Basically this is excessive circular reasoning based on your misconceptions and poor subject matter knowledge.

    The shadowing of the moon on GCR flux is offset by the neutron and gamma flux such that the exposure is higher than would be expected.
    Nonsense. Higher than would be expected is not higher than cislunar. The Boots attenuate the short distance secondary and surface radiation.

    They thought it was 30 to 40% higher than expected.
    And it was small to begin with!

    I hope this satisfies your questions.
    No it does not!

    Post #182 top of page 7 - next post please. I've asked these way too many times for you not to have seen them. Please stop claiming there are "too many" or you haven't seen them. You are deliberately avoiding counter evidence that makes a mockery of your entire claim.

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I had to try.
    You really didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    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.
    If you lack the ability to answer these direct questions knowledgably, then you come across as underqualified to make blanket statements about the technical details of Apollo missions and the radiation environment of space. Yet you continue to insist that you know enough about them to contradict all known records of well-determined events.

    Something's gotta give.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    We've already given you a link to the necessary calculations.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170821...VABraddose.htm

    Grant Hutchison
    Just reposting this @Lord Foul:

    Question: Do you accept the calculation conclusions? If not explain in detail why not. As can be seen they amount to around a tenth of the overall dosimeter dose.

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    You have misunderstood and mischaracterized what I said. I said NASA was unaware that the lunar soil was radioactive. I said they became aware of this fact when the LRO launched in 2009 revealed that GCR did not taper off as expected closer to the moon. They then realized that the surface was was radioactive because of activation caused by the GCR. I said because the soil was radioactive they would not have breathe and ingested the dust. I said that it is not possible to have gone to the moon and brought back the dust and not realized it was radioactive. It is said that all the astronauts were exposed to this dust.
    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.

    The shadowing of the moon on GCR flux is offset by the neutron and gamma flux such that the exposure is higher than would be expected. They thought it was 30 to 40% higher than expected. I hope this satisfies your questions.
    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.

    "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

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    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
    Yes, your attachment was raising the error message I showed you. Still is.
    Anyway, that's just another post of the same LRO surface data you invoked earlier, which doesn't help your case.

    You have had a few attempts now to come up with some actual data to support your claim that the radiation dose rate rises on approaching the moon, and you've come up empty. So I'm guessing that your original claim was based on no more than the words of an NBC journalist, given that you quoted that text earlier in this thread. Is that a fair characterization?

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2021-Apr-18 at 01:15 PM.

  8. #218
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul
    The shadowing of the moon on GCR flux is offset by the neutron and gamma flux such that the exposure is higher than would be expected.
    Nonsense. Higher than would be expected is not higher than cislunar. The Boots attenuate the short distance secondary and surface radiation.
    What’s really sad is I quoted from the Spence et al peer reviewed article (not NBC popular press stuff) that Lord Foul linked to in the first place and it made very clear the lunar dose would be lower than cislunar, if you just bother to read it. Ironically LF was the one that introduced it as evidence that has shown him to be wrong! I also wrote this post, with more quotes from the article, that characterize the radiation:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...95#post2535495

    A couple of key points:

    Near the Moon, we show that GCR accounts for ~91.4% of the total absorbed dose [...] Other lunar nuclear evaporation species contributing to the dose rate are positrons (1.5%), gammas (1.1%), and neutrons (0.7%).

    Do you see it? The gammas and neutrons he mentions above account for a whopping 1.8% increase to a near moon dose. There are actually better choices, but counting everything it just means instead of the near Moon dose being about 50% of cislunar it is closer to 60%.

    I recommend to LF again, and everyone else, read the article. Most of it is pretty easy to read, and will clear up misconceptions if you give it a chance. Link again:

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2013SW000995

    "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

  9. #219
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    What’s really sad is I quoted from the Spence et al peer reviewed article (not NBC popular press stuff) that Lord Foul linked to in the first place and it made very clear the lunar dose would be lower than cislunar, if you just bother to read it. Ironically LF was the one that introduced it as evidence that has shown him to be wrong! I also wrote this post, with more quotes from the article, that characterize the radiation:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...95#post2535495

    A couple of key points:

    Near the Moon, we show that GCR accounts for ~91.4% of the total absorbed dose [...] Other lunar nuclear evaporation species contributing to the dose rate are positrons (1.5%), gammas (1.1%), and neutrons (0.7%).

    Do you see it? The gammas and neutrons he mentions above account for a whopping 1.8% increase to a near moon dose. There are actually better choices, but counting everything it just means instead of the near Moon dose being about 50% of cislunar it is closer to 60%.

    I recommend to LF again, and everyone else, read the article. Most of it is pretty easy to read, and will clear up misconceptions if you give it a chance. Link again:

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2013SW000995
    Sometimes you actually have to lift the text and place it in sight (selective blindness "misses" it):

    "Finally, we note that when considering the lunar radiation environment, although the Moon blocks approximately half of the sky, thus essentially halving the absorbed dose rate near the Moon relative to deep space, the secondary radiation created by the presence of the Moon adds back a small, but measurable, absorbed dose (~8%) that can and should be now accounted for quantitatively in radiation risk assessments at the Moon and other similar exploration targets."

    @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.

  10. #220
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Attachment 26076
    You can see by this graph that GCR is not shielded by aluminum and the Apollo had no shielding that would attenuate it.

    There is no need to scream.
    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

  11. #221
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Attachment 26077
    Is this a good illustration to calculate an expected radiation dose through the Van Allen Belt? What do you think?
    Yes, that is a good place to start. Now notice the red dots? They mark the approximate location every ten minutes from the end of TLI. Cane you work it out now?

    ETA: Remember that this is the outbound trajectory. Look At Bob Braeunig's work and colored graphs for the in bound trajectory.
    Last edited by bknight; 2021-Apr-18 at 02:38 PM. Reason: Added TLI sentence

  12. #222
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,814
    Lord Foul, what would convince you that the problem is not NASA but your failure to understand the numbers?
    _____________________________________________
    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!"

  13. #223
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Lord Foul, what would convince you that the problem is not NASA but your failure to understand the numbers?
    I imagine if you could lead me to information that reveals GCR was less than the Apollo daily dose and proof that they did not transit through the VAB or that the Apollo craft had shielding that could completely block out the proton flux of the VAB, then that would convince me.

  14. #224
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I imagine if you could lead me to information that reveals GCR was less than the Apollo daily dose and proof that they did not transit through the VAB or that the Apollo craft had shielding that could completely block out the proton flux of the VAB, then that would convince me.
    Completely block out? Do you not believe lower doses are less dangerous than higher ones, that you need a total cessation of all particles?

    Or did you just mean that hyperbolically?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  15. #225
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    Sometimes you actually have to lift the text and place it in sight (selective blindness "misses" it):

    "Finally, we note that when considering the lunar radiation environment, although the Moon blocks approximately half of the sky, thus essentially halving the absorbed dose rate near the Moon relative to deep space, the secondary radiation created by the presence of the Moon adds back a small, but measurable, absorbed dose (~8%) that can and should be now accounted for quantitatively in radiation risk assessments at the Moon and other similar exploration targets."

    @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.
    I am not sure that you realize it but we have actual readings from the lunar surface taken in 2019. We know for a fact that GCR is 10ugy/hr and spallation neutrons contribute 3.1ugy/hr for a total of 13.1 ugy/hr. which is roughly 3 times as much as expected. You claim the VAB transit through the VAB amounts to 1/10 of overall dose on specimen analysis for Apollo 11. Please cite your reference for this because I do not believe it is true. this statement is ridiculous "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!" and makes no sense. Finally do you understand that the lunar soil is radioactive? It was known that GCR flux reached the surface of the moon. It was not know that the GCR Flux was irradiated the soil. I find it difficult to follow your convoluted logic.

  16. #226
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Completely block out? Do you not believe lower doses are less dangerous than higher ones, that you need a total cessation of all particles?

    Or did you just mean that hyperbolically?
    Sigh...If it adds anything to the total then it is too much as GCR alone can account for the .22mgy/day dose of the Apollo mission.

  17. #227
    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.
    Everything is not radioactive. To be radioactive an unstable element must emit a a particle. Most elements are stable. The salient question is does the lunar soil have sufficient radioactive content to pose a serious health hazard if ingested? The answer would dependent on the type of radiation present, Alpha particles being the most deadliest. I tell you with emphasis that I do not know the answer but I will tell you also that only a fool would ingest radioactive soil of any detectable amount. I have provided references for any claim I have made and I am willing to search for additional references if you are unable to do so on your own. It should be know that I will retract any claim I have made if proof of my error is provided but be informed I do not accept opinions as proof.

  18. #228
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I am not sure that you realize it but we have actual readings from the lunar surface taken in 2019. We know for a fact that GCR is 10ugy/hr and spallation neutrons contribute 3.1ugy/hr for a total of 13.1 ugy/hr. which is roughly 3 times as much as expected.
    Could you equate all that to the overall dose? Provide flux and energy, because all you are doing is spewing data and thinking yuou know what it means!

    You claim the VAB transit through the VAB amounts to 1/10 of overall dose on specimen analysis for Apollo 11. Please cite your reference for this because I do not believe it is true.
    This is utterly pathetic and proof you are not reading replies. You were given it pages back by GH and ignored it and a few posts above #215 that you have also ignored. A person called Timfinch making identical claims to yours on Apollohoax.net was given it and fired back an ad-hominem - I hope you have the integrity to actually respond with something more intelligent.

    this statement is ridiculous "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!" and makes no sense.
    YOU yourself claimed that the VAB attenuates 99% of GCR, so how can you add this dose over and above any hourly rate! Do you seriously need me to explain how your own claim shoots this down?

    Finally do you understand that the lunar soil is radioactive? It was known that GCR flux reached the surface of the moon. It was not know that the GCR Flux was irradiated the soil. I find it difficult to follow your convoluted logic.
    Diversion noted. You have failed to answer 90% of my post and seem afraid to be wrong.

  19. #229
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Yes, your attachment was raising the error message I showed you. Still is.
    Anyway, that's just another post of the same LRO surface data you invoked earlier, which doesn't help your case.

    You have had a few attempts now to come up with some actual data to support your claim that the radiation dose rate rises on approaching the moon, and you've come up empty. So I'm guessing that your original claim was based on no more than the words of an NBC journalist, given that you quoted that text earlier in this thread. Is that a fair characterization?

    Grant Hutchison
    If you want current Cislunar GCR dosages then this is the link. If the link does not work directly then cut and paste it into your browser. Or you can take my word. https://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/produc...G111=doserates

  20. #230
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I imagine if you could lead me to information that reveals GCR was less than the Apollo daily dose
    Given and ignored by you!

    Evidence showing the daily mean average incorporates SPEs that elevate it and evidence showing Period 20 to be 33%-100% more powerful.

    and proof that they did not transit through the VAB or that the Apollo craft had shielding that could completely block out the proton flux of the VAB
    90% blocked and evidence provided and ignored

    , then that would convince me.
    Nope - nothing will convince you. Hard evidence provided is not even addressed by you!

  21. #231
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    Just reposting this @Lord Foul:

    Question: Do you accept the calculation conclusions? If not explain in detail why not. As can be seen they amount to around a tenth of the overall dosimeter dose.
    No, I do not accept the calculation conclusions. The whole article is based on false premises and out right lies. It's a paid shill pandering to the uninformed to promote a deception. If you believe the transit through the VAB looks anything like the depiction then I want to sell you beach front property.
    Last edited by Lord Foul; 2021-Apr-18 at 04:18 PM.

  22. #232
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    If you want current Cislunar GCR dosages then this is the link. If the link does not work directly then cut and paste it into your browser. Or you can take my word. https://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/produc...G111=doserates
    Nope, it doesn't matter how often you post the link, they still haven't magically turned into cis-lunar doses. We've been through this multiple times before.

    Click on LEARN MORE.
    Click on DOSE RATES.
    Click through to the page headed "Correction Factors"
    Read the words "Altitude factor: Adjust dose rate to the lunar surface where 1/2 of sky is blocked."

    The LRO data have been processed to reflect the dose rate at the lunar surface. So feel free to stop posting the same pointless stuff over and over again.

    Grant Hutchison

  23. #233
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    Could you equate all that to the overall dose? Provide flux and energy, because all you are doing is spewing data and thinking yuou know what it means!



    This is utterly pathetic and proof you are not reading replies. You were given it pages back by GH and ignored it and a few posts above #215 that you have also ignored. A person called Timfinch making identical claims to yours on Apollohoax.net was given it and fired back an ad-hominem - I hope you have the integrity to actually respond with something more intelligent.



    YOU yourself claimed that the VAB attenuates 99% of GCR, so how can you add this dose over and above any hourly rate! Do you seriously need me to explain how your own claim shoots this down?



    Diversion noted. You have failed to answer 90% of my post and seem afraid to be wrong.
    I do not recall saying that the VAB attenuates 99% of GCR. I don't think it does so that is not something I would say. Where did I say that? The overall dose on the lunar surface is 13.1ugy/hr as reported by Chang'e-4 in 2019. No one, not a single person in this thread has ever provided a value for Cislunar GCR in 1969 except of course myself.

  24. #234
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Nope, it doesn't matter how often you post the link, they still haven't magically turned into cis-lunar doses. We've been through this multiple times before.

    Click on LEARN MORE.
    Click on DOSE RATES.
    Click through to the page headed "Correction Factors"
    Read the words "Altitude factor: Adjust dose rate to the lunar surface where 1/2 of sky is blocked."

    The LRO data have been processed to reflect the dose rate at the lunar surface. So feel free to stop posting the same pointless stuff over and over again.

    Grant Hutchison
    There seems to be a bit of confusion. Detectors D2-D2 look out into Cislunar Space. Here is the info on the detectors. https://crater.unh.edu/instrument.shtml

  25. #235
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    Given and ignored by you!

    Evidence showing the daily mean average incorporates SPEs that elevate it and evidence showing Period 20 to be 33%-100% more powerful.



    90% blocked and evidence provided and ignored



    Nope - nothing will convince you. Hard evidence provided is not even addressed by you!
    I will point out to you that SPE's are part of the overall radiation exposure and cannot be excluded. Why you keep bringing this up is confusing.

  26. #236
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    There seems to be a bit of confusion. Detectors D2-D2 look out into Cislunar Space. Here is the info on the detectors. https://crater.unh.edu/instrument.shtml
    There does indeed seem to be a bit of confusion. Read the words in LEARN MORE, which I quoted earlier. They're really clear.

    Grant Hutchison

  27. #237
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    There does indeed seem to be a bit of confusion. Read the words in LEARN MORE, which I quoted earlier. They're really clear.

    Grant Hutchison
    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?

  28. #238
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Yes, your attachment was raising the error message I showed you. Still is.
    Anyway, that's just another post of the same LRO surface data you invoked earlier, which doesn't help your case.

    You have had a few attempts now to come up with some actual data to support your claim that the radiation dose rate rises on approaching the moon, and you've come up empty. So I'm guessing that your original claim was based on no more than the words of an NBC journalist, given that you quoted that text earlier in this thread. Is that a fair characterization?

    Grant Hutchison
    That was not the words of a NBC journalist. "The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

  29. #239
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,577
    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?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    That was not the words of a NBC journalist. "The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."
    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
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2021-Apr-18 at 05:51 PM.

  30. #240
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I imagine if you could lead me to information that reveals GCR was less than the Apollo daily dose and proof that they did not transit through the VAB or that the Apollo craft had shielding that could completely block out the proton flux of the VAB, then that would convince me.
    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.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

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
  •