Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 480 of 545

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

  1. #451
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,183
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    No we do not need to know any more. NASA was "surprised" which means they did not know.
    Science means being constantly surprised.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  2. #452
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,703
    What is your work experience, if any, that you believe has led to your radiation conclusions?

  3. #453
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    These two values are close. The article that you quote gives one reason that the radiation was higher in A15

    A slightly different trajectory passing more of the the proton region of the VARB than A11 did.
    I find that interesting because the Orion passed through that very same region and got quite different numbers.

  4. #454
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    How quaint, your googling relies on the abstract from the journal and you have misinterpreted the article accordingly. The article itself points to active-dosimeters specifically designed to pick up on these emissions and that is what that quote refers to(see figures below in image).

    Question - be so kind as to answer this:

    What analysis have you done or researched to establish the comparative sensitivity between the active and passive dosimeters?

    In addition have you done any proper comparison between the Apollo multiple forms of dose gathering in a shielded cabin, with the modern fully functional ones you rely on?

    I'm sure you haven't read the full article, because there are numerous references to the TLI path of Apollo 11 or maybe you just didn't like that bit?



    Further:

    Finally, Fig. 13 shows the spectrum for solar maximum in Fig. 12 redrawn on a larger scale, with the section of the total flux escaping nuclear collision and leading to enders or thindowns indicated separately. Two facts concerning the ender flux are seen clearly in Fig. 13. Firstly, the ender flux represents only a small fraction of the total flux. Secondly, enders are almost completely excluded from near-Earth orbits of low inclination. Even at a geomagnetic latitude of 43 degrees, almost the entire ender flux is located to the left of the cutoff energy, i.e., in the forbidden energy interval. Since Apollo XI was flown closely to the maximum of the present solar cycle.

    So reiterating your failure at acknowledging the trajectory flightpath and the inevitable massive variation between Apollo exposure and the data you reference.

    Examining the article further we see that the analysis used specific parts of the overall dosimeter readings that are particularly sensitive to high energy protons - notice how small a section of the overall dose this study refers to:



    Then we have this conclusion:

    "The inherent shielding of vehicle frame and equipment of the Apollo Command and Service modules affords a very substantial protection especially against trapped protons in the radiation belt. Secondly, indirect appraisal of the astronauts' radiation exposure from data on fluxes and spectra of the radiation incident on the vehicle can never replace direct measurement with dosimeters on the astronauts themselves."

    Since you have repeatedly said the VAB is far worse than the GCR, we can assume that the shielding proven to be highly adequate for VAB transit is better for much less powerful GCRs (and at solar maximum 100% higher than YOUR data)!
    You sadly mistaken. It is not my opinion or my facts. I have shown you the facts that NASA itself promulgated. Don't blame me. I am just the messenger.

  5. #455
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Every aspect of this problem I've explored with you, I've caught you out in a fundamental gap or misapprehension in your knowledge--rocketry, orbital mechanics, dosimetry, the practicalities of CRaTER. So I can see why you might want to avoid discussing these "minutiae" (that is, the actual science). But falling back on a vague expression of surprise by "NASA" just doesn't remotely hack it. These are your minutiae, offered in evidence. It's your job to defend them.

    Here are my outstanding questions:
    Where is the contemporaneous cis-lunar free-space dose measurement that led you to conclude the moon is more radioactive than free space?
    In what way is the moon "30% or 40% more radioactive" than expected? What measure of radioactivity has increased? Who expected this not to be the case, why, and when?

    You've got a bunch of other stuff pending, too.

    Grant Hutchison
    What led me to conclude that the moon is more radioactive is the very statement made by the scientist that heads the CraTer Telescope. I have no opinion of my own. I rely on experts.

  6. #456
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    What is your work experience, if any, that you believe has led to your radiation conclusions?
    I am not sure my personal business is an appropriate subject of discussion for this forum. Let's just say I am an information analyst.

  7. #457
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    This is a partial sentence, no one can figure out what you are referring. So please complete the thought or just let it pass as much of your research indicates.
    The article claims that the Apollo 11 measured for neutron radiation and it was essentially undetectable so either they lacked the technology to do it properly in 1969 or it didn't exist in 1969 but exist today. Maybe they never went? Who knows.

  8. #458
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I find that interesting because the Orion passed through that very same region and got quite different numbers.
    Except that isn't true. The Orion spacecraft had a very different trajectory than Apollo and was deliberately sent through higher radiation zones to test its performance.

    Here is a debunking website (aimed at Flat Earthers) that discusses it.

    Here is a NASA website discussing this radiation testing as a major goal of the Orion test flight.
    Traveling 15 times farther into space than the International Space Station will take Orion beyond the radiation protection offered by Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field. In fact, the majority of EFT-1 will take place inside the Van Allen Belts, clouds of heavy radiation that surround Earth. No spacecraft built for humans has passed through the Van Allen Belts since the Apollo missions, and even those only passed through the belts – they didn’t linger.

    Future crews don’t plan to spend more time than necessary inside the Van Allen Belts, either, but long missions to deep space will expose them to more radiation than astronauts have ever dealt with before. EFT-1’s extended stay in the Van Allen Belts offers a unique opportunity to see how Orion’s shielding will hold up to it. Sensors will record the peak radiation seen during the flight, as well as radiation levels throughout the flight, which can be mapped back to geographic hot spots.
    And no, I don't expect any of this to change your opinion Lord Foul, and no, I don't have a question for you, though feel free to address this if you like.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  9. #459
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I am just the messenger.
    Nope. You are the cherry picker who does not know the subject matter and misapplies the cherry picked data you have stumbled upon. That response to my post is pathetic - YOUR source
    shows you to be hopelessly wrong about your claims and you have completely ignored it. I am assuming you have no academic access to these reports otherwise you would have realised your errors. Now I've pointed out your errors, you ignore them.

    You seem to be doing this an awful lot, are you that worried about being wrong?

  10. #460
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Except that isn't true. The Orion spacecraft had a very different trajectory than Apollo and was deliberately sent through higher radiation zones to test its performance.

    Here is a debunking website (aimed at Flat Earthers) that discusses it.

    Here is a NASA website discussing this radiation testing as a major goal of the Orion test flight.


    And no, I don't expect any of this to change your opinion Lord Foul, and no, I don't have a question for you, though feel free to address this if you like.
    If you were to take a perspective of looking down onto the earth it becomes obvious that it does not matter which direction you travel as because the VAB incircles the earth then you must pass through it. If you shift your perspective to a side view then it also becomes obvious that the most important thing is the angle of inclination you take as you cross the VAB. That angle of inclination is the same for Orion and the Apollo missions.

  11. #461
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    If you were to take a perspective of looking down onto the earth it becomes obvious that it does not matter which direction you travel as because the VAB incircles the earth then you must pass through it. If you shift your perspective to a side view then it also becomes obvious that the most important thing is the angle of inclination you take as you cross the VAB. That angle of inclination is the same for Orion and the Apollo missions.
    The VARB has a torus sharp in which the poles have no belts above them. Apollo for the most party intersected this tours shape over the North pole. Grant had an excelent depiction which you will no doubt disagree with, bug it a fact. Orión did not take the same trajectory. Perhaps Grant will sharp it .again

  12. #462
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    What led me to conclude that the moon is more radioactive is the very statement made by the scientist that heads the CraTer Telescope. I have no opinion of my own. I rely on experts.
    And yet, when confronted by evidence that you've completely misunderstood the work of these experts, you suddenly decide that such "academic minutiae" are uninteresting, and all you have to fall back on is a little bit of quote mining about "NASA being surprised".

    Here are my outstanding questions:
    Where is the contemporaneous cis-lunar free-space dose measurement that led you to conclude the moon is more radioactive than free space?
    In what way is the moon "30% or 40% more radioactive" than expected? What measure of radioactivity has increased? Who expected this not to be the case, why, and when?

    You've (still) got a bunch of other stuff pending, too.

    Grant Hutchison

  13. #463
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    If you were to take a perspective of looking down onto the earth it becomes obvious that it does not matter which direction you travel as because the VAB incircles the earth then you must pass through it. If you shift your perspective to a side view then it also becomes obvious that the most important thing is the angle of inclination you take as you cross the VAB. That angle of inclination is the same for Orion and the Apollo missions.
    Hmmm. You've suddenly developed an opinion of your own, I see, despite the earlier disclaimer that you are merely a conduit for unnamed experts.

    While the orbital inclinations were very similar (because they launched from the same location), you're completely wrong about what the "most important" thing is.
    Inclination is necessary, in that one cannot avoid the high-intensity VAB without using an orbit that's inclined to the geomagnetic equator. But what helps you avoid the highest intensity regions of the VAB is inclination combined with eccentricity.
    Apollo orbits were highly eccentric, with a perigee below the VAB, and an apogee beyond the moon. Which means that when they dropped back through the geomagnetic equator the were in peri-lunar space, nowhere near the VAB. They also traversed the fringes of the VAB during the fastest part of their orbit, near perigee
    Orion EFT-1 also had a perigee below the VAB, but an apogee within the VAB--so when it dropped through the geomagnetic equator, in the slowest part of its orbit, it passed through the heart of the radiation belts.

    The images I prepared to demonstrate the vital protective effect of a high-eccentrity orbit are on this thread.

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2021-Apr-21 at 06:51 PM.

  14. #464
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    How quaint, your googling relies on the abstract from the journal and you have misinterpreted the article accordingly. The article itself points to active-dosimeters specifically designed to pick up on these emissions and that is what that quote refers to(see figures below in image).

    Question - be so kind as to answer this:

    What analysis have you done or researched to establish the comparative sensitivity between the active and passive dosimeters?

    In addition have you done any proper comparison between the Apollo multiple forms of dose gathering in a shielded cabin, with the modern fully functional ones you rely on?

    I'm sure you haven't read the full article, because there are numerous references to the TLI path of Apollo 11 or maybe you just didn't like that bit?



    Further:

    Finally, Fig. 13 shows the spectrum for solar maximum in Fig. 12 redrawn on a larger scale, with the section of the total flux escaping nuclear collision and leading to enders or thindowns indicated separately. Two facts concerning the ender flux are seen clearly in Fig. 13. Firstly, the ender flux represents only a small fraction of the total flux. Secondly, enders are almost completely excluded from near-Earth orbits of low inclination. Even at a geomagnetic latitude of 43 degrees, almost the entire ender flux is located to the left of the cutoff energy, i.e., in the forbidden energy interval. Since Apollo XI was flown closely to the maximum of the present solar cycle.

    So reiterating your failure at acknowledging the trajectory flightpath and the inevitable massive variation between Apollo exposure and the data you reference.

    Examining the article further we see that the analysis used specific parts of the overall dosimeter readings that are particularly sensitive to high energy protons - notice how small a section of the overall dose this study refers to:



    Then we have this conclusion:

    "The inherent shielding of vehicle frame and equipment of the Apollo Command and Service modules affords a very substantial protection especially against trapped protons in the radiation belt. Secondly, indirect appraisal of the astronauts' radiation exposure from data on fluxes and spectra of the radiation incident on the vehicle can never replace direct measurement with dosimeters on the astronauts themselves."

    Since you have repeatedly said the VAB is far worse than the GCR, we can assume that the shielding proven to be highly adequate for VAB transit is better for much less powerful GCRs (and at solar maximum 100% higher than YOUR data)!
    If substantial protection by the 5 gms/cm^2 of the Apollo craft was afforded then the ISS with 40gms/cm^2 would have no problems protecting astronauts. No we cannot assume that the VAB offers less of a threat. NASA itself says 85% of mission exposure would be from the VAB.

  15. #465
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Hmmm. You've suddenly developed an opinion of your own, I see, despite the earlier disclaimer that you are merely a conduit for unnamed experts.

    While the orbital inclinations were very similar (because they launched from the same location), you're completely wrong about what the "most important" thing is.
    Inclination is necessary, in that one cannot avoid the high-intensity VAB without using an orbit that's inclined to the geomagnetic equator. But what helps you avoid the highest intensity regions of the VAB is inclination combined with eccentricity.
    Apollo orbits were highly eccentric, with a perigee below the VAB, and an apogee beyond the moon. Which means that when they dropped back through the geomagnetic equator the were in peri-lunar space, nowhere near the VAB. They also traversed the fringes of the VAB during the fastest part of their orbit, near perigee
    Orion EFT-1 also had a perigee below the VAB, but an apogee within the VAB--so when it dropped through the geomagnetic equator, in the slowest part of its orbit, it passed through the heart of the radiation belts.

    The images I prepared to demonstrate the vital protective effect of a high-eccentrity orbit are on this thread.

    Grant Hutchison
    An eccentric orbit only is pertinent if it changes the inclination of the transit through the VAB. It is a time distance and exposure equation.

  16. #466
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    An eccentric orbit only is pertinent if it changes the inclination of the transit through the VAB.
    That's actually gibberish, in terms of celestial mechanics. You clearly don't understand the technical use of "inclination", or of "eccentricity", or both. That's a significant gap in your knowledge, if you're hoping to make any sort of successful defence of your position here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    It is a time distance and exposure equation.
    Sure is. Which is why eccentricity is key.

    Grant Hutchison

  17. #467
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    If substantial protection by the 5 gms/cm^2 of the Apollo craft was afforded then the ISS with 40gms/cm^2 would have no problems protecting astronauts. No we cannot assume that the VAB offers less of a threat. NASA itself says 85% of mission exposure would be from the VAB.
    No one has even hinted that the VARB were/are radiactive the problem you surfer from is the exposure time. Apollo has less than 2 tours in the belts while the ISS encounters the VARB MANY TIMES. You have yet to prove that the ISS has has 40 shielding.

  18. #468
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,183
    Lord Foul, you implied earlier in the thread that you could be convinced by evidence presented to you that showed your claim was wrong. Yet you have shown abundantly that this is incorrect.

    You constantly and consistently deny, contradict, misinterpret, and belittle anything or anyone that shows you to be incorrect or mistaken. You've been told very specifically, what you'd need to show to back your ideas up, but you keep repeating the same errors. You have moved the goalposts so far that no one can see them anymore, picked enough cherries to make a pie, and demonstrated almost textbook motivated reasoning. I would add confirmation bias but nothing you've linked to has actually confirmed your claims!

    It's clear that nothing said or shown will alter your steadfast beliefs. You are a rock, you are an island.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  19. #469
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    The VARB has a torus sharp in which the poles have no belts above them. Apollo for the most party intersected this tours shape over the North pole. Grant had an excelent depiction which you will no doubt disagree with, bug it a fact. Orión did not take the same trajectory. Perhaps Grant will sharp it .again
    imagine The Apollo circling the earth at an angle to the geographical equator. Now imagine along the circular path rockets are fired and the Apollo blast out into space. What forces acting on that rocket cause it to deviate from a straight line?

  20. #470
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Lord Foul, you implied earlier in the thread that you could be convinced by evidence presented to you that showed your claim was wrong. Yet you have shown abundantly that this is incorrect.

    You constantly and consistently deny, contradict, misinterpret, and belittle anything or anyone that shows you to be incorrect or mistaken. You've been told very specifically, what you'd need to show to back your ideas up, but you keep repeating the same errors. You have moved the goalposts so far that no one can see them anymore, picked enough cherries to make a pie, and demonstrated almost textbook motivated reasoning. I would add confirmation bias but nothing you've linked to has actually confirmed your claims!

    It's clear that nothing said or shown will alter your steadfast beliefs. You are a rock, you are an island.
    What is this commentary about? Belittling me is not an argument against any point. If you have facts that counter any point I have raised then present it.

  21. #471
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    imagine The Apollo circling the earth at an angle to the geographical equator. Now imagine along the circular path rockets are fired and the Apollo blast out into space. What forces acting on that rocket cause it to deviate from a straight line?
    One word gravity.

    ETA: I believe I should have included orbital dynamics, a consequence of gravity.
    Last edited by bknight; 2021-Apr-21 at 07:36 PM. Reason: Orbital dynamic

  22. #472
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Maybe I am not looking at this right. Maybe if I could understand why when looking from a 2d side perspective the path is not a straight line then I could understand this eccentricity you speak of. Could someone address this for me?

  23. #473
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Maybe I am not looking at this right. Maybe if I could understand why when looking from a 2d side perspective the path is not a straight line then I could understand this eccentricity you speak of. Could someone address this for me?
    Space is 3-D you have always had a problem with that, orbits are not straight, this ha been pointe out to you, but you are unable/unwilling to understand.

  24. #474
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    One word gravity.
    Gravity is a vector acting in opposition to the rocket thrust and motion. It is not a force acting to change the plane of travel.

  25. #475
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Space is 3-D you have always had a problem with that, orbits are not straight, this ha been pointe out to you, but you are unable/unwilling to understand.
    Perspective! an ellipse is a straight line when viewed in a 2d side perspective.

  26. #476
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Gravity is a vector acting in opposition to the rocket thrust and motion. It is not a force acting to change the plane of travel.
    Er, no.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  27. #477
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Maybe I am not looking at this right. Maybe if I could understand why when looking from a 2d side perspective the path is not a straight line then I could understand this eccentricity you speak of. Could someone address this for me?
    Read this. It explains the meaning of eccentricity, and how that is a completely independent orbital parameter from inclination.

    Here are my outstanding questions:
    Where is the contemporaneous cis-lunar free-space dose measurement that led you to conclude the moon is more radioactive than free space?
    In what way is the moon "30% or 40% more radioactive" than expected? What measure of radioactivity has increased? Who expected this not to be the case, why, and when?

    You've (still) got a bunch of other stuff pending, too.

    Grant Hutchison

  28. #478
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Perspective! an ellipse is a straight line when viewed in a 2d side perspective.
    Er , well when drawing an ellipse in 2D perspective, it stays an ellipse but the major axis moves away from the apparent width. But otherwise, yes the plane of the ellipse can be flat and thus a line seen from the side. So what?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  29. #479
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    What led me to conclude that the moon is more radioactive is the very statement made by the scientist that heads the CraTer Telescope. I have no opinion of my own. I rely on experts.
    Well no, the experts unanimously agree the historical Apollo record is substantially accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    If substantial protection by the 5 gms/cm^2 of the Apollo craft was afforded then the ISS with 40gms/cm^2 would have no problems protecting astronauts. No we cannot assume that the VAB offers less of a threat. NASA itself says 85% of mission exposure would be from the VAB.
    No they don't. You do realize GCR is predominantly protons too, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Maybe I am not looking at this right.
    Ya think.

    Maybe if I could understand why when looking from a 2d side perspective the path is not a straight line then I could understand this eccentricity you speak of. Could someone address this for me?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conic_section

    An orbit around a single point mass will be an ellipse. It will only appear as a straight line if viewed from the plane in which the ellipse resides. For example, a view orthogonal to the VABs will not be looking at the Apollo orbits edge-on.

    But it is more complicated than that. The VAB also are not stationary. They are approximately toroidal, with axial symmetry around earth's magnetic poles. They rotate with the earth around earth's geographical poles (imagine a spinning, wobbling plate). So any static 2-D view will be an approximation, or will hold the VAB in a stationary reference frame and distort the orbital ellipse of the spacecraft into a more complex 3-D curve that will not be flat when viewed from any angle.

    Inclination alone is not enough information to know an object's path through the VAB because these planes intersect at a pair of rotating nodes. You need to take longitude of the ascending node and timing into account as well. Then consider the eccentricity and semimajor axis to determine residence time within the belt.

    To restate another way: a given pass of an elliptical orbit inclined 45° to the equator could either go right through the heart of the belt or completely miss it, depending on its longitude.

  30. #480
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Er , well when drawing an ellipse in 2D perspective, it stays an ellipse but the major axis moves away from the apparent width. But otherwise, yes the plane of the ellipse can be flat and thus a line seen from the side. So what?
    In the 2d perspective of the AE8 proton map showing the path of the Apollo lunar mission is a curved line. How does that work?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	proton Flux.png 
Views:	11 
Size:	119.5 KB 
ID:	26092

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
  •