Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 360 of 545

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

  1. #331
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    Hogwash in the extreme, it would lower it to roughly 60% of daily GCR rate, 10% of that would has been attributed to the lunar radioactivity.
    Just a bit of a qualifier there: I believe the evidence is that most of the radiation coming from the Moon is due to secondaries produced by GCR particle impacts on the Moon’s surface. If there is evidence much came from lunar radioactivity (unstable nuclei spontaneously coming apart) I haven’t seen it.

    "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. #332
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Sure I can. We are obviously talking about two different things. If you believe the Apollo missions skirted the VAB as depicted by Bob B. then I want to sell you you some Game Stock futures.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    <snip>
    Lucy, you got some splaining to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    You cannot expect the blind to see or the deaf to hear.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    <snip> If you believe the transit through the VAB looks anything like the depiction then I want to sell you beach front property.
    I told you before to knock off the smart comments. Next one gets you infracted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    <snip>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 are going to claim such a conspiracy you will have to offer proof of it. If you are going to claim someone is a paid shill for NASA, you will have to offer proof of it. And proof of it is not "it disagrees with my statements".


    This entire thread is quickly going no where. Lord Foul, if you have nothing else to offer and continue to either ignore questions or just repeat your previous statements, this thread will be closed.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  3. #333
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Remind me. Did you check my math?
    Your reply has nothing to do with what I posted:
    Why not just look up the observations from multiple sources? Those things were widely tracked by telescopes all over the planet. Even from the Soviet Union, who would certainly not be party to any US Moon landing conspiracy and would have tried to discredit it if they could.
    That's still valid regardless of what your thought experiments say the answer "should" be.

    I'm freely admit I'm not qualified to judge your calculations as pure numbers, but then again you don't see me making outrageous claims about my math skills invalidating real life empirical evidence either. My knowledge does extend to this old saw, though: GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage out. Math based on faulty numbers going into it, is not going to produce valid results.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  4. #334
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Can someone check my math?

    1. The Proton Flux in the SAA ranges from 20 Protons/cm^2-sec to 400 protons/cm^2-sec depending on flight path.
    2. The Proton Flux in the VAB ranges from 1*10^4 to 2*10^8 or 25 to 500,000 times as high as the highest region of the SAA.
    3. More than two thirds of the ISS exposure is from the SAA.Citation required.
    4. The ISS’s Labs 1 & 2 have a nominal radiation shield thickness of 40 gms/cm^2.Citation required.
    5. The Apollo Lunar Craft had a nominal radiation shield thickness of 7 gms/cm^2 but let’s assume it was as high as 10 gms/cm^2.Why use 10 calculators work with 7
    6. The peak exposure rate on the ISS in the SAA is 370 ugy/hr.Citation required.
    7. The International Space Station travels in orbit around Earth at a speed of roughly 17,150 miles per hour (that's about 5 miles per second!). This means that the Space Station orbits Earth (and sees a sunrise) once every 92 minutes!
    8. 12:22 p.m.- Another firing of the third-stage engine, still attached to the command service module, boosts Apollo 11 out of orbit midway in its second trip around the Earth and onto its lunar trajectory at an initial speed of 24,200 miles an hour.Your times are incorrect, but the GET is correct
    9. 2:54 p.m. - The spacecraft is reported 22,000 nautical miles from Earth and traveling at 12,914 feet per second. Crew members keep busy with housekeeping duties.
    10. 10:59 p.m. - Because of the pull of Earth's gravity, the spacecraft has slowed to 7,279 feet per second at a distance of 63,880 nautical miles from Earth.
    11. 2:54 minus 12:22 equals 2:32 or 2.533 hrs. 22,000 miles/2.533 hrs = 8684.32 mph. That is to say the transit through the VAB was at a speed of 8684.32 mphThe velocity is not linear.
    12. Assuming the duration of the VAB Proton Belt is 6 earth radii then Earth Radii = 3949 miles. 3949 miles * 6 = 23754 miles. So there was roughly a 2.75 hour transit across the VAB.A much better value is available.
    13. Using the ISS exposure rate for peak SAA exposure of 400 protons/Cm^2 behind a 40 gms/cm^2 radiation shield and ratio it out to the lowest VAB path of radiation of 10^4 (Which is generous to a fault). We get: 370 μGy/hr /400 protons/Cm^2 * 10^4 protons/Cm^2 = 9250 μGy/hr.The craft passed the more dangerous proton region (Lower Belt) approximately .5 hr.
    14. 9250 μGy/hr * 2 trips *2.75 hr transit time = a mission dose of 50875 μGy or 50.875 mGy.The higher radiation for the Upper Belt is attenuated by the .25 in aluminum.
    15. So let’s recap If the ISS were to travel through the VAB with is greater shielding of 4 times the Apollo and it followed a path through the VAB that limited its proton flux rate to 1 * 10^4 protons/cm^2-sec then the mission dose would have been 50.875 mGy. The actual reported Apollo mission dose of 1.8 mGy = 28.6 times lower and this is without the GCR or lunar surface radiation components. Now because the Apollo had ¼ of the shielding of the ISS it is reasonable to assume it would get 4 times the exposure.
    There are so many errors in this group of assumptions the answer wasn't worth the time you used to produce it. Radiation absorption is not linear as you have been shown, but ignore. Your grade in class would likely be F.

    ETA: Your reference to the distance of the VARB 22000 nautical miles does not equate to miles but any seaman should know that. Another bad assumption. Quite a list of logical errors, wouldn't you say?
    Last edited by bknight; 2021-Apr-19 at 02:59 PM. Reason: Comment concerning nautical miles.

  5. #335
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,810
    So the short version appears to be that, no, nothing will convince Lord Foul that the errors are in his understanding.
    _____________________________________________
    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!"

  6. #336
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    So the short version appears to be that, no, nothing will convince Lord Foul that the errors are in his understanding.
    Good one

  7. #337
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    FYI: None of the Apollo orbits were Hohmann orbits.

    Grant Hutchison

  8. #338
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    FYI: None of the Apollo orbits were Hohmann orbits.

    Grant Hutchison
    Correct. They used a slightly faster version of it to cut down on mission time but for the life of me I can't remember the name of it, something like Half-orbit transfer or elliptical orbit transfer?

  9. #339
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    Correct. They used a slightly faster version of it to cut down on mission time but for the life of me I can't remember the name of it, something like Half-orbit transfer or elliptical orbit transfer?
    Doesn't ring a bell, sorry.
    Of the several reasons you don't use a Hohmann to get to the moon, one is because of ... well, the moon. Hohmanns are fine for transferring to another orbit, but not if there's a significant mass sitting in that orbit at the point where you arrive.
    Apollo 11 used a free-return trajectory, which was effectively a shot across the bows of the moon, arriving at the moon with enough velocity to wrap an orbit around the back and come out the other side aimed at the Earth, without using any delta-V.
    Subsequent Apollos used hybrid trajectories, setting out on free-returns but then modifying the orbit with a mid-course correction once they'd done all their system checkouts.
    As someone once said, a Hohmann gets you home again only if you don't encounter a significant mass; a free-return trajectory gets you home only if you do encounter a significant mass.

    Grant Hutchison

  10. #340
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    I have answered your questions. I have provided references for you to se and yet continue to belabor the point.

    Ignoring the data acquired while Yutu-2 was still piggybacked on the lunar lander module and while the TCS was active [11 January 2019 (14:41) to 3 February 2019 (07:53)], we measured an average total dose rate in silicon of 13.2 ± 1 and 3.1 ± 0.5 μGy/hour in silicon for neutral particles. The background due to the RTG and RHUs was measured in August 2018 (20), and the values reported above have been corrected accordingly; the corresponding errors are reported separately in Table 1. Thus, we find that neutral particles contributed a nonnegligible fraction of 23 ± 8% to the total dose (22). Subtracting the neutral contribution, we find that the average absorbed dose rate due to charged particles is 10.2 ± 1.1 μGy/hour in Si. After conversion of the LET spectrum to LET in water, as discussed in Introduction, we obtain an average quality factor of 〈Q〉 = 4.3 ± 0.7. After multiplication of the charged-particle absorbed dose rate (in water) measurement given above with 〈Q〉, we obtain the GCR dose equivalent rate of 57.1 ± 10.6 μSv/hour from charged particles.

    https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/39/eaaz1334

  11. #341
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    So the short version appears to be that, no, nothing will convince Lord Foul that the errors are in his understanding.
    That is not true. Make your case.

  12. #342
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I have answered your questions. I have provided references for you to se and yet continue to belabor the point.

    Ignoring the data acquired while Yutu-2 was still piggybacked on the lunar lander module and while the TCS was active [11 January 2019 (14:41) to 3 February 2019 (07:53)], we measured an average total dose rate in silicon of 13.2 ± 1 and 3.1 ± 0.5 μGy/hour in silicon for neutral particles. The background due to the RTG and RHUs was measured in August 2018 (20), and the values reported above have been corrected accordingly; the corresponding errors are reported separately in Table 1. Thus, we find that neutral particles contributed a nonnegligible fraction of 23 ± 8% to the total dose (22). Subtracting the neutral contribution, we find that the average absorbed dose rate due to charged particles is 10.2 ± 1.1 μGy/hour in Si. After conversion of the LET spectrum to LET in water, as discussed in Introduction, we obtain an average quality factor of 〈Q〉 = 4.3 ± 0.7. After multiplication of the charged-particle absorbed dose rate (in water) measurement given above with 〈Q〉, we obtain the GCR dose equivalent rate of 57.1 ± 10.6 μSv/hour from charged particles.

    https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/39/eaaz1334
    Yes, we've all seen this. Several times already.
    It's entirely non-contributory to your claims, however.

    Grant Hutchison

  13. #343
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    370ugy/hr citation:https://www.longdom.org/open-access/...19.1000102.pdf
    More than two thirds of the ISS exposure is from the SAA, citation:https://www.swsc-journal.org/article...swsc150037.pdf
    The ISS’s Labs 1 & 2 have a nominal radiation shield thickness of 40 gms/cm^2. Citation: https://www.swsc-journal.org/article...swsc150037.pdf
    No one claimed the velocity was constant. It is obvious that it is slowing from the moment the rocket ceased to fire. Velocity =change in displacement/change in time.
    The transit time is a function of the size of the VAB and since that changes with solar activity. For the purposes of this illustration this value will work.
    "The higher radiation for the Upper Belt is attenuated by the .25 in aluminum." Please provide a citation for this because I do not believe it is correct.

  14. #344
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Just a bit of a qualifier there: I believe the evidence is that most of the radiation coming from the Moon is due to secondaries produced by GCR particle impacts on the Moon’s surface. If there is evidence much came from lunar radioactivity (unstable nuclei spontaneously coming apart) I haven’t seen it.
    It's an important consideration, isn't it?
    Moon dust will stop emitting secondary neutrons and gammas as soon as you take it out from under the sky sources of irradiation.
    There will also be short-lived radionuclides in the regolith, maintain at some sort of equilibrium population by the irradiation from above, and their population will decline quickly on removal from the radiation source that breeds them--I recall the receiving labs noting that, because of the biological quarantine on Apollo 11 rocks, they were unable to look for any of the very short-life isotopes that might be in the lunar rocks.

    Grant Hutchison

  15. #345
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Can someone check my math?

    1. The Proton Flux in the SAA ranges from 20 Protons/cm^2-sec to 400 protons/cm^2-sec depending on flight path.
    2. The Proton Flux in the VAB ranges from 1*10^4 to 2*10^8 or 25 to 500,000 times as high as the highest region of the SAA.
    Issues with every step, but let's start here. You appear to be comparing values for 100 MeV protons in the SAA (step 1) to 1 MeV protons along the Apollo flight path (step 2). Apples and oranges.

  16. #346
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    Issues with every step, but let's start here. You appear to be comparing values for 100 MeV protons in the SAA (step 1) to 1 MeV protons along the Apollo flight path (step 2). Apples and oranges.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SAA Proton Flux.png 
Views:	14 
Size:	277.4 KB 
ID:	26086
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	proton Flux.png 
Views:	15 
Size:	119.5 KB 
ID:	26087
    https://www.spenvis.oma.be/help/back...ad.html#TRPPOP
    It might be confusing when the legend 100 mev protons > 1 mev. The spenvis AE8 proton map shows the regions of the SAA compared to the rest of the VAB.
    Last edited by Lord Foul; 2021-Apr-19 at 05:48 PM.

  17. #347
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SAA Proton Flux.png 
Views:	14 
Size:	277.4 KB 
ID:	26086
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	proton Flux.png 
Views:	15 
Size:	119.5 KB 
ID:	26087
    Yes, those are 1 MeV and 100 MeV charts that cannot be directly compared. Should I interpret that reply as acknowledgement of your error?

  18. #348
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    It's an important consideration, isn't it?
    Moon dust will stop emitting secondary neutrons and gammas as soon as you take it out from under the sky sources of irradiation.
    There will also be short-lived radionuclides in the regolith, maintain at some sort of equilibrium population by the irradiation from above, and their population will decline quickly on removal from the radiation source that breeds them--I recall the receiving labs noting that, because of the biological quarantine on Apollo 11 rocks, they were unable to look for any of the very short-life isotopes that might be in the lunar rocks.

    Grant Hutchison
    An interesting thought. I am pretty sure spallation occurs and the neutrons produced may die off immediately but I am not sure that the neutron flux does not create radioactive isotopes. The Chang'e-4 radiation detectors were not capable of separately identifying GCR radiation from secondary radiation and lumped it all together. It could identify separately neutron radiation.

  19. #349
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    370ugy/hr citation:https://www.longdom.org/open-access/...19.1000102.pdf
    More than two thirds of the ISS exposure is from the SAA, citation:https://www.swsc-journal.org/article...swsc150037.pdfIdentical link, no 40 gms/cm^2 cited, see below.
    The ISS’s Labs 1 & 2 have a nominal radiation shield thickness of 40 gms/cm^2. Citation: https://www.swsc-journal.org/article...swsc150037.pdfNo where in this paper is 40 gms/cm^2 nor ISS labs cited.
    No one claimed the velocity was constant. It is obvious that it is slowing from the moment the rocket ceased to fire. Velocity =change in displacement/change in time.
    The transit time is a function of the size of the VAB and since that changes with solar activity. For the purposes of this illustration this value will work.
    "The higher radiation for the Upper Belt is attenuated by the .25 in aluminum." Please provide a citation for this because I do not believe it is correct.
    What you believe and what is fact are two different statements, from Bob B
    The maximum range, R, that an electron can penetrate in a material can be computed from an empirical formula (given by L. Katz and A. S. Penfold),

    (10a) R = 0.412 × E1.265 – 0.0954 ln(E)
    where 0.01 ≤ E ≤ 2.5 MeV
    (10b) R = 0.530 × E – 0.106
    where E > 2.5 MeV
    I leave the task of checking out the formula to you.

    You're not very good at research.

    ETA: What you believe and what you are able to prove is at the heart of this issue. You have proved nothing with the exception of poor research coupled with poor posting. What you have not done is to answer questions put to you.
    Last edited by bknight; 2021-Apr-19 at 06:20 PM. Reason: Belief vs proving

  20. #350
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,560
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    It's an important consideration, isn't it?
    Moon dust will stop emitting secondary neutrons and gammas as soon as you take it out from under the sky sources of irradiation.
    There will also be short-lived radionuclides in the regolith, maintain at some sort of equilibrium population by the irradiation from above, and their population will decline quickly on removal from the radiation source that breeds them--I recall the receiving labs noting that, because of the biological quarantine on Apollo 11 rocks, they were unable to look for any of the very short-life isotopes that might be in the lunar rocks.
    Which has significance recently pointed out by the second author on the Chang'E-4 paper:
    “Radiation levels should be pretty much the same all over the Moon, except near the walls of deep craters. Basically, the less you see of the sky, the better. That’s the primary source of the radiation,” study coauthor Robert Wimmer-Schweingruber of the Christian-Albrechts-University in Kiel, Germany, told Associated Press.
    (my bold)

    Grant Hutchison

  21. #351
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I have answered your questions. I have provided references for you to se and yet continue to belabor the point.
    Who is that statement directed to? Because you certainly have not answered mine. There is no room for ambiguity, here - you haven’t come anywhere near answering the questions I asked. I usually avoid the “l” word - it’s one thing to simply be wrong, but it’s another thing to be deliberately stating an untruth. However, if this statement was directed to me, I can’t see how your statement could be anything other than a lie, since this has been extensively and repeatedly discussed. It’s also quite obvious there are other questions from other posters you have not answered.

    But as for mine, again, three questions here, please answer them:

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

    "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

  22. #352
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,560
    And, still on the topic of secondary radiation, we know that the Apollo dosimeters had a fairly limited detection range for neutrons. Another reason why it's fatuous to use data from modern detectors to critique Apollo dosimetry.

    Grant Hutchison

  23. #353
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Not sure why you are fixated on this - your math is simplistic and filled with assumptions and figures you don't give references for. It is a textbook example of rushed, poorly structured back of envelope calculation.

    Some issues:
    Points that need references: 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12
    Point 11 you are actually working with mean speed but use peak flux - you ignore any concept of the spatial variation. So your calculation basically assumes that the mission spent all of its time in the area of maximum flux.
    Point 13 you use the exposure rate for the ISS which is not relevant - but you've had this pointed out several times so I'm sure you will ignore this.
    Point 15 you have assumed linear attenuation despite the graphs previously posted.

    Essentially you have made a series of unrealisic approximations using an overly simplistic model and got a wrong answer. I'd suggest that either you use the calculations others have supplied or spend more time making a much better model with better referenced input parameters.
    My intent is simple. It is to demonstrate that if the technology to shield protons flux existed then we would have used it in the ISS. More importantly it is to highlight the fact that proton fluxes would not have been shielded out by the aluminum structure. It can be seen that if the ISS went through the VAB it would receive exposure much greater than reported by the Apollo,. As a hypothetical I used a uniform VAB of the lowest region in the VAB to demonstrate that the most conservative estimation is still magnitudes higher than the Apollo actual exposure.

  24. #354
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,523
    Thread closed, pending moderator discussion.

    In the meanwhile, Lord Foul, don't start any new threads.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  25. #355
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Can someone check my math?

    1. The Proton Flux in the SAA ranges from 20 Protons/cm^2-sec to 400 protons/cm^2-sec depending on flight path.
    2. The Proton Flux in the VAB ranges from 1*10^4 to 2*10^8 or 25 to 500,000 times as high as the highest region of the SAA.
    3. More than two thirds of the ISS exposure is from the SAA.
    4. The ISS’s Labs 1 & 2 have a nominal radiation shield thickness of 40 gms/cm^2.
    5. The Apollo Lunar Craft had a nominal radiation shield thickness of 7 gms/cm^2 but let’s assume it was as high as 10 gms/cm^2.
    6. The peak exposure rate on the ISS in the SAA is 370 ugy/hr.
    7. The International Space Station travels in orbit around Earth at a speed of roughly 17,150 miles per hour (that's about 5 miles per second!). This means that the Space Station orbits Earth (and sees a sunrise) once every 92 minutes!
    8. 12:22 p.m.- Another firing of the third-stage engine, still attached to the command service module, boosts Apollo 11 out of orbit midway in its second trip around the Earth and onto its lunar trajectory at an initial speed of 24,200 miles an hour.
    9. 2:54 p.m. - The spacecraft is reported 22,000 nautical miles from Earth and traveling at 12,914 feet per second. Crew members keep busy with housekeeping duties.
    10. 10:59 p.m. - Because of the pull of Earth's gravity, the spacecraft has slowed to 7,279 feet per second at a distance of 63,880 nautical miles from Earth.
    11. 2:54 minus 12:22 equals 2:32 or 2.533 hrs. 22,000 miles/2.533 hrs = 8684.32 mph. That is to say the transit through the VAB was at a speed of 8684.32 mph
    12. Assuming the duration of the VAB Proton Belt is 6 earth radii then Earth Radii = 3949 miles. 3949 miles * 6 = 23754 miles. So there was roughly a 2.75 hour transit across the VAB.
    13. Using the ISS exposure rate for peak SAA exposure of 400 protons/Cm^2 behind a 40 gms/cm^2 radiation shield and ratio it out to the lowest VAB path of radiation of 10^4 (Which is generous to a fault). We get: 370 μGy/hr /400 protons/Cm^2 * 10^4 protons/Cm^2 = 9250 μGy/hr.
    14. 9250 μGy/hr * 2 trips *2.75 hr transit time = a mission dose of 50875 μGy or 50.875 mGy.
    15. So let’s recap If the ISS were to travel through the VAB with is greater shielding of 4 times the Apollo and it followed a path through the VAB that limited its proton flux rate to 1 * 10^4 protons/cm^2-sec then the mission dose would have been 50.875 mGy. The actual reported Apollo mission dose of 1.8 mGy = 28.6 times lower and this is without the GCR or lunar surface radiation components. Now because the Apollo had ¼ of the shielding of the ISS it is reasonable to assume it would get 4 times the exposure.
    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.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  26. #356
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    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.

  27. #357
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    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.
    “His pants spontaneously burst into flame.”

    I note for the record your continuing a pattern of responding without answering. You were not asked about “identical” posts, so your denial is irrelevant. Look at how the question was actually worded. Your established pattern of this type of feeble disingenuous behavior inhibits your moon-hoax arguments being taken seriously. I await, with little hope, your providing actual answers to the several outstanding questions that remain unanswered by you, despite repeated requests (several of which included links). If you were to do so, that would be a welcome change from your transparent evasions. Otherwise, one might infer that you have no support for your beliefs.
    Last edited by Geo Kaplan; 2021-Apr-19 at 10:36 PM.

  28. #358
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    “His pants spontaneously burst into flame.”
    That really did make me laugh out loud!

    Meanwhile Lord Foul (not dionysus or timfinch at all) frantically avoids 90% of my posts!

    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!


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

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


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

    Questions:

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


    Oh, and I will keep on with this until you offer honest and satisfactory answers. And ones that don't evade the major issues.

  29. #359
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    “His pants spontaneously burst into flame.”

    I note for the record your continuing a pattern of responding without answering. You were not asked about “identical” posts, so your denial is irrelevant. Look at how the question was actually worded. Your established pattern of this type of feeble disingenuous behavior inhibits your moon-hoax arguments being taken seriously. I await, with little hope, your providing actual answers to the several outstanding questions that remain unanswered by you, despite repeated requests (several of which included links). If you were to do so, that would be a welcome change from your transparent evasions. Otherwise, one might infer that you have no support for your beliefs.
    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.

  30. #360
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    That really did make me laugh out loud!

    Meanwhile Lord Foul (not dionysus or timfinch at all) frantically avoids 90% of my posts!

    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!


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

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


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

    Questions:

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


    Oh, and I will keep on with this until you offer honest and satisfactory answers. And ones that don't evade the major issues.
    1. Since SPEs should be removed to give the TRUE GCR readings, why do you keep claiming it is 0.24 when it is a Range between 0.19896mGy/day and 0.083184mGy/day.
    The values you quote are not specific to the Apollo 11 and really have no bearing on it.
    2. Since this period applies to Period 24 and not 20 and since period 20 was 33% to 100% more solar activity, why do you keep ignoring this!?
    Apollo 11 occurred during Solar cycle 20 and the values of 24 do not apply to the Apollo 11 mission.
    3. Why have you assumed the GCR rate is the same close to and on/around the Moon?
    I do not. NASA indicates Lunar surface GCR was .6mrad/hr
    4. Why have you ignored the percentage of flight time actually in cislunar space?
    I have not. I made the case that if the entire flight had been in cislunar space 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.
    5. There were no SPEs during Apollo, so why do you think it isn't deceptive to keep these skewed readings?
    NASA provided the cislunar dose for the Apollo mission and I did not adjust it at all.

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
  •