Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 545

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

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    We know as a matter of fact that all of the LEO missions have some component of radiation, We know that the Van Allen Belt surrounds the Earth and must be navigated. We know that space is radioactive and we know the moon is radioactive. We know that each of theses components summed would give us the total for a lunar mission. We also know anyone of then would give us a value greater the that received by the Apollo Lunar mission. We also know that NASA was surprised that the moon was a source of radiation. So here we are.
    Last edited by Lord Foul; 2021-Apr-16 at 08:30 PM.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    We know that each of theses components summed would give us the total for a lunar mission. We also anyone of then would give us a value greater the that received by the Apollo Lunar mission. We also know that NASA was surprised that the moon was a source of radiation. So here we are.
    No, we donít, and weíve been through this already. You were asked to show your calculations last night, and you admitted you couldnít. You havenít demonstrated a discrepancy with the Apollo 11 radiation record. Youíre just making the same unsupported claims over and over.

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

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

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    No, we don’t, and we’ve been through this already. You were asked to show your calculations last night, and you admitted you couldn’t. You haven’t demonstrated a discrepancy with the Apollo 11 radiation record. You’re just making the same unsupported claims over and over.
    Calculations? We don't need no stinking calculations. We have empirical data which is better than calculations.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    NASA thought the base line was .24 mg/day during the Apollo era. If you have some other value then please share it.

    Cosmic Rays
    Cosmic-ray fluxes have provided average dose rates of 1. 0 mr/hr in cislunar
    space and 0. 6 mr /hr on the lunar surface.
    [...]
    No, I don’t believe you really have that much difficulty with basic comprehension, especially since you point out the key issue yourself, we had discussed this previously, and I had pointed you to post #45 where I went over this in greater detail. I clearly used the phrase “mission baseline.” The mission baseline would be based on the average dose for that specific *mission*. That would be based on both the time astronauts spent in cislunar space at the 1.0 mr/hr figure and the lunar 0.6 mr/hr figure you mention yourself added together. You don’t get to ignore the time spent on and near the moon. That was part of the mission. That reduces the daily average.

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

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

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Calculations? We don't need no stinking calculations. We have empirical data which is better than calculations.
    Please show that your data is correct. Which would best be done by ...calculations.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Calculations? We don't need no stinking calculations. We have empirical data which is better than calculations.
    Nonsense. You need both evidence (which you also haven’t shown) and the calculations to compare to Apollo 11 records, if you are going to claim a discrepancy. Throwing out empty claims get you nowhere.

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

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

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Yes, you've just given me a link to the paper I quoted, and quoted the same information I provided.

    Grant Hutchison
    You asked me to.
    No, I asked you for a measurement of GCR dose in cis-lunar space which was simultaneous with the Chang'E-4 surface measurement, and made with similar instrumentation. Because then we could compare the free-space dose rate with the surface dose rate, and actually test your claim that radiation dose is higher at the lunar surface than in free space. Because comparing a recent measurement with a fifty-year-old measurement gets you nowhere, particularly given that one comes from a solar max and one from a solar min.

    Grant Hutchison

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,988
    Heck, just look at post #94 for an example of the importance of calculations on determining actual average dose and comparing it to the Apollo record.

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

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

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    This all sounds so very familiar - bandying the .24mgy/day figure about and the claims of GCRs and Moon radiation.
    https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1444.0

    Now that was some real painful reading, the penny of course never dropped.

    I'm particularly intrigued how it is ok to cite the LROC data, whilst implying that it has faked the images of Apollo hardware.
    Hello Clanger! Good to see you again. Thanks for the link, Iíll reserve my opinion of this discussion. However, that is a good point about the LRO - making claims based on radiation measurements from the same spacecraft that has imaged the Apollo landing sites and LM descent modules, with the radiation measurements supposedly contradicting the visible evidence shown in the images? Suuuuure.

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

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

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  10. #100
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    2,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying the reported mission dose of the Apollo mission cannot be correct and if it is then Apollo 11 never left LEO. If they lied about Apollo 11 than I am not convinced they did not lie about them all. That is what I am saying.
    OK thanks, I got ya - The Apollo missions were launched but never left orbiting the Earth.
    So if the trips to the moon were faked, were the added melodrama of #13 and the subsequent photos of rover tracks and remaining landing gear at the landing sites all bogus too? Along with the moon rocks which were/are being analyzed by laboratories around the world?

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    No, I asked you for a measurement of GCR dose in cis-lunar space which was simultaneous with the Chang'E-4 surface measurement, and made with similar instrumentation. Because then we could compare the free-space dose rate with the surface dose rate, and actually test your claim that radiation dose is higher at the lunar surface than in free space. Because comparing a recent measurement with a fifty-year-old measurement gets you nowhere, particularly given that one comes from a solar max and one from a solar min.

    Grant Hutchison
    You are aware that the LRO is orbiting the moon aren't you? It was Orbiting the moon when the Change'e-4 recorded the surface radiation level. The LRO has two detectors pointing away from the moon to record cislunar radiation and two detectors pointed at the moon to record surface radiation. The LRO data correlates with the Chang'e-4 data.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    No, I don’t believe you really have that much difficulty with basic comprehension, especially since you point out the key issue yourself, we had discussed this previously, and I had pointed you to post #45 where I went over this in greater detail. I clearly used the phrase “mission baseline.” The mission baseline would be based on the average dose for that specific *mission*. That would be based on both the time astronauts spent in cislunar space at the 1.0 mr/hr figure and the lunar 0.6 mr/hr figure you mention yourself added together. You don’t get to ignore the time spent on and near the moon. That was part of the mission. That reduces the daily average.
    Do you understand that the GCR level of 1mrad/hr is the level at solar maximum and will only increase as solar activity diminishes. It is the lowest that it will ever be. When we compare it to the radiation the Apollo 11 received, it is the actual level in 1969 and just as important it is the lowest it will ever be. It is the most conservative value that could be used. You do understand that don't you?

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Please show that your data is correct. Which would best be done by ...calculations.
    I shared the source of the data and there were no calculations involved.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    I have decided that in order to move forward, I must provide calculations of my assertion or I will never be taken seriously. So here you go: Total mission dose = LEO dose + 2*VAB dose + 2*Cislunar dose +Orbital dose + Surface dose + SPE dose. the problem with this equation is a single component is greater than the Apollo 11 dose.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Do you understand that the GCR level of 1mrad/hr is the level at solar maximum and will only increase as solar activity diminishes. It is the lowest that it will ever be. When we compare it to the radiation the Apollo 11 received, it is the actual level in 1969 and just as important it is the lowest it will ever be. It is the most conservative value that could be used. You do understand that don't you?
    I understand that you are desperately trying to ignore the shielding effect on GCR by being on or near the Moon, and that you donít want to admit you canít support your claim about Apollo 11. But thatís okay, you havenít fooled anyone here.

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

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

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    You are aware that the LRO is orbiting the moon aren't you?
    Yes indeed. So the moon occupies a large part of its sky, shielding it from GRCs almost to the same extent as at the lunar surface. That's the whole point of LRO--that it has a really good view of the lunar surface. So, again, do you have concurrent data from cis-lunar space? Which is to say, somewhere between the Earth and Moon where neither body occupies a large proportion of the sky?
    Because a dose from half the sky is not the same thing as a dose from all the sky.

    Grant Hutchison

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Yes indeed. So the moon occupies a large part of its sky, shielding it from GRCs almost to the same extent as at the lunar surface. That's the whole point of LRO--that it has a really good view of the lunar surface. So, again, do you have concurrent data from cis-lunar space? Which is to say, somewhere between the Earth and Moon where neither body occupies a large proportion of the sky?
    Because a dose from half the sky is not the same thing as a dose from all the sky.

    Grant Hutchison
    I am having a difficult time understanding your concern. If we wanted to know what deep space radiation values are we could rely on the MRO Mars probe. If we want cislunar data then the LRO is the ticket. Could you ask for something specific as I am confused.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I understand that you are desperately trying to ignore the shielding effect on GCR by being on or near the Moon, and that you don’t want to admit you can’t support your claim about Apollo 11. But that’s okay, you haven’t fooled anyone here.
    The shielding does not have to be considered as they are reading actual shielded values. This is empirical data actually taken and not calculated. Do you believe actual readings should be modified to account for lunar shadowing? Is that what you are implying?
    Last edited by Lord Foul; 2021-Apr-17 at 02:46 AM.

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    We know that NASA said that GCR was 1 mrad/hr at solar maximum and they expected that value to double at solar minimum so we can set the baseline at 1mrad/hr. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf
    No you are incorrect. The paper does NOT state that the CGR was 1 mrad/hr, it clearly states
    average dose rates of 1. 0 mr/hr.
    There is no average in front of .6 but it is implied as all the reports that are written concerning radiation values including to you .24, that is an average number, not a minimum. There will be value higher and values lower. A11 just happened to have a lower value. I attempted to lead you there but you were getting the drift of my posts, and if you finally find the report where you used this number from it is an average.

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I have decided that in order to move forward, I must provide calculations of my assertion or I will never be taken seriously. So here you go: Total mission dose = LEO dose + 2*VAB dose + 2*Cislunar dose +Orbital dose + Surface dose + SPE dose. the problem with this equation is a single component is greater than the Apollo 11 dose.
    Which part? And by how much? What are all the values? How did you arrived at these values?

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    No you are incorrect. The paper does NOT state that the CGR was 1 mrad/hr, it clearly states There is no average in front of .6 but it is implied as all the reports that are written concerning radiation values including to you .24, that is an average number, not a minimum. There will be value higher and values lower. A11 just happened to have a lower value. I attempted to lead you there but you were getting the drift of my posts, and if you finally find the report where you used this number from it is an average.
    Why does it matter that it is average? Sure it changes and some times it is lower and some time it is higher. In the real world most physical things are analog. When you are dealing with days then milliseconds are not important.

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Which part? And by how much? What are all the values? How did you arrived at these values?
    The GCR part. We keep going over this time and time again. GCR is greater that the daily mission dose of the Apollo 11. I do not know what the the other values are but we can assume they are a positive value and would raise the total of the overall mission exposure.

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    We still have yet to discuss the elephant in the room. The radiation exposure in the Van Allen Belt. There is no value that one could provide that would not raise the exposure by magnitudes. We know this because ISS passes through the SAA regularly.

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    !969 was at or near solar maximum and the GCR level is stated. We do not have to guess. All we need to understand is the Apollo 11 mission dose is lower than the lowest GCR levels. That is my point in a nutshell.
    This was all painfully explained in the forum thread I previously quoted - I believe the participant in that thread also failed to see the obvious flaws in their claim.

    Please could you tell me why you highlight that Apollo 11 was at solar maximum, a period when GCR's at are at their minimum.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The shielding does not have to be considered as they are reading actual shielded values.
    Are you finally admitting the actual Apollo radiation figures were valid, then? Of course, the shielding issue needed to be considered with the invalid claim you previously made, where you insisted on making a comparison of the Apollo 11 radiation measurements against a number that ignored the Moonís shielding effect.

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

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

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    We still have yet to discuss the elephant in the room. The radiation exposure in the Van Allen Belt. There is no value that one could provide that would not raise the exposure by magnitudes. We know this because ISS passes through the SAA regularly.
    No, we don’t know that a short time on a carefully chosen trajectory through the Van Allen belt, chosen to minimize radiation exposure would “raise exposure by magnitudes.” Rather, that is still another of your unsupported claims. Show us the specific and relevant evidence to the Apollo 11 mission and your calculations in detail to support your claim, or admit you cannot and that your claim is unsupported. Thank you.

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

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

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I have not calculated the exposure from a Van Allen Belt transit
    Uhuh.

    but I am pretty sure it would add to the background radiation of space
    Maybe if you could understand that the first part of your statement invalidates the second, that might help you.

    If there were no Van Allen Belt at all, the minimum exposure for any space transit would be GCR background of .24mgy/day.
    Why? I mean the figure quoted is a mean figure, so how do you equate that to all days and all times? You further compound your uninformed generalisation by suggesting that the lower energy and flux components of GCR do not contribute significantly to the overall figure. Whilst it is very difficult to attenuate the higher energy / flux GCR, lower GCRs are quite comfortably stopped.

    https://three.jsc.nasa.gov/articles/...appell0512.pdf
    "We show that statistically significant improvements in GCR risk reduction relative to aluminum shielding can be obtained with hydrocarbon materials with significant hydrogen content."

    Do I need to interpret this for you? Improvements suggest that there are reductions already. Whilst long term space flight is concerned at the high energy protons from GCR's, short term flight is not.

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I have decided that in order to move forward, I must provide calculations of my assertion or I will never be taken seriously. So here you go: Total mission dose = LEO dose + 2*VAB dose + 2*Cislunar dose +Orbital dose + Surface dose + SPE dose.
    How have you determined the dose behind the Apollo shielded Command Module? How have you determined the VAB dose is higher, when you haven't done any calculations?

    the problem with this equation is a single component is greater than the Apollo 11 dose.
    How have you determined the full accuracy of the Apollo dosimeters within a shielded compartment, compared to purpose built instruments? The dose you quoted is a mean dose encompassing all fluxes and all energies.

    I can just imagine the "let's fake 7 missions" meeting, where they discuss what to release to the public! It is ludicrous to suggest that they are smart enough to carry out this impossible and repeated hoax but dumb enough to release stuff they "aren't sure about".

    Consider those questions a formal request for answers.


    https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/ind...topic=1444.210
    "Let me try to put this is layman's terms for you., since you seem to not understand

    Imagine that you have to go into an area (in order to perform some task) where there are 10,000 people shooting with shotguns from some distance; not close enough to blow a hole in you, but far enough away so that you will be constantly showered with pellets. However, in among those shooters are a some people armed with .22 cal rifles each firing one round per minute, a couple with a 7.62 mm rifle who will shoot once every 10 minutes, and finally a shooter armed with a 20mm cannon, who will be firing once per hour.. None of these shooters are actually aiming at you, but they are shooting in the general direction of where you are going to be.

    What these shooters will be firing at you represents a spectrum of missiles.... at the less dangerous end of the spectrum are the shotgun pellets, huge numbers and frequency, and at the more dangerous end, the 20mm cannon; far more dangerous but far less frequent.

    If you go in unprotected, the shotgun pellets will do you serious damage
    If you wear minimal protection, say, heavy leather coveralls, they will protect you from the shotgun pellets but not from anything else
    If you wear a lightweight bullet proof vest, it will protect you from the pellets and the 22 cal.
    If you go for full Kevlar body armour, that will protect you from everything except the 20mm cannon.
    If you wear a suit made of one inch armour plate, it will protect you from the 20mm cannon.

    You may choose the full protection, but that is going to compromise your ability to carry out whatever task you need to carry out.

    The Apollo missions (and indeed all space missions) are designed and built such that shielding is incorporated into design. This protects the spacecraft (and its occupants) from the vast majority of the radiation (the shotgun pellets, and possibly, the .22 cal). The exposure to the higher end particles (the 7.62 and the 20mm cannon) is the risk they take, but even then, there are procedures put in place to use the existing shielding to help with protection, such as, in the case of a CME, orienting the spacecraft to put the maximum amount of its mass between the crew and the Sun. (not sure of the was a plan on Apollo, I'll leave other more knowledgeable people to answer that) "
    Last edited by Clanger; 2021-Apr-17 at 09:44 AM.

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I have decided that in order to move forward, I must provide calculations of my assertion or I will never be taken seriously.
    Quite true. You also need to take care to use valid evidence based data, of course, but your bare assertions get you nowhere.

    So here you go: Total mission dose = LEO dose + 2*VAB dose + 2*Cislunar dose +Orbital dose + Surface dose + SPE dose. the problem with this equation is a single component is greater than the Apollo 11 dose.
    What? Where are the calculations you promised? I see an equation which already appears questionable and lacks detail (presumably by “2*VAB dose” and “2*Cislunar dose” you are assuming doses for these segments going to and returning from the Moon would be the same, but you haven’t established that). I see no numbers for the doses, let alone sources for the data or how you calculated doses for each separate variable, no results at all *and yet* you still claim a conclusion on the basis of absolutely nothing.

    As you understand, I don’t take you seriously at this point. Frankly, I don’t understand why you would talk about doing a calculation and then leave it undone. Please do the calculations you claimed you would.

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

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

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I am having a difficult time understanding your concern. If we wanted to know what deep space radiation values are we could rely on the MRO Mars probe. If we want cislunar data then the LRO is the ticket. Could you ask for something specific as I am confused.
    I've already asked, quite precisely.
    There is no "per steradian" term in the definition of absorbed radiation dose--it's just energy deposition per mass. It doesn't care if the radiation is coming from a single powerful source subtending half a degree, or from all around you--the absorbed dose (rads, Grays) is just a measure of how much energy is deposited in your tissues by radiation as a result of that exposure.
    Because LRO is in orbit around the moon, its dosimeter only "sees" a little over half the Galactic Cosmic Rays it would see if it were in free cis-lunar space (the exact proportion will vary, because it's in an elliptical orbit). So the dose it measures is not the dose that it would receive further from the Moon, with a better view of the sky. This is clearly stated in the LRO/CRaTER reports, like this one:
    We did not correct the observed dose rate for the changing amount of solid angle blocked by the Moon in Figure 1 as one would need to do to derive an interplanetary rate.
    So again, please tell us the contemporaneous (that is, not fifty years old, from a different solar cycle) measured dose in cis-lunar space (that is, not on the surface of or in orbit around the Moon) on which you base your idea that the dose rate at the Moon's surface is higher than the dose rate in cis-lunar space.

    Grant Hutchison

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
  •