Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 545

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

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,549
    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?
    You're now making your own opposing arguments, it seems.
    Yes, the GCR dose rate is now higher than it was in 1969, both in cis-lunar space and on the surface of the moon. It is therefore invalid to use a dose rate measured during a solar minimum (Change'E-4) to critique the dosimetry from a mission flown during a solar maximum (Apollo 11).
    The mission analysis from Apollo estimated a dose rate of 0.6 mrad/hr at the lunar surface, and predicted this would double at solar minimum. And, lo and behold, the Chang'E-4 data are approximately double the Apollo estimate. You can't compare the Chang'E-4 data directly with the 1 mrad/hr dose rate estimated fifty years ago, because the radiation environment of the entire inner solar system has changed. And if you're going to claim that the lunar surface dose rate is higher than the cis-lunar dose rate, you need to show us a contemporaneous cis-lunar dose measurement, not dig out inapplicable Apollo data.

    Apollo flew during a solar maximum; we're currently in an extended solar minimum. Comparing data from these two time periods is comparing apples and oranges.

    Grant Hutchison

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    If there were no Van Allen Belt at all, the minimum exposure for any space transit would be GCR background of .24mgy/day.
    Of course NOT, if there were no Van Allen Belts, there would still be the Earth's magnetosphere shielding of the radiation (thereby creating the VABs).
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    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.
    Of course, only a lunatic would go into space in their birthdaysuit (not considering temperature and vacuum in this case).
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    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.
    Averages are average. In the calculation of averages, lower and higher values make up the averages. That is why your continued reference to .24 as a minimum is wrong and invalidates your proposition. A11 just had a lower daily value. QED

    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.
    I have asked and you responded with "I don't know", so if you don't know then what you believe is nonsense in the real world. You have no way to substantiate your thoughts.

    Just because it "seems" low to you it must be fake, is a major logical fallacy.
    Last edited by bknight; 2021-Apr-17 at 12:29 PM. Reason: added "it must be fake,"

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    You're now making your own opposing arguments, it seems.
    Yes, the GCR dose rate is now higher than it was in 1969, both in cis-lunar space and on the surface of the moon. It is therefore invalid to use a dose rate measured during a solar minimum (Change'E-4) to critique the dosimetry from a mission flown during a solar maximum (Apollo 11).
    The mission analysis from Apollo estimated a dose rate of 0.6 mrad/hr at the lunar surface, and predicted this would double at solar minimum. And, lo and behold, the Chang'E-4 data are approximately double the Apollo estimate. You can't compare the Chang'E-4 data directly with the 1 mrad/hr dose rate estimated fifty years ago, because the radiation environment of the entire inner solar system has changed. And if you're going to claim that the lunar surface dose rate is higher than the cis-lunar dose rate, you need to show us a contemporaneous cis-lunar dose measurement, not dig out inapplicable Apollo data.

    Apollo flew during a solar maximum; we're currently in an extended solar minimum. Comparing data from these two time periods is comparing apples and oranges.

    Grant Hutchison
    What he said. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    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).
    And in fact they were different. For Apollo 11, the return journey was shorter in duration than the outward journey, and the return passage through the VAB was slightly more favourable (because Apollo returned through a higher geomagnetic latitude than its departure orbit):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2021-04-17 15_42_37-Nuclear Track Recordings of the Astronauts' Radiation Exposure on the First .jpg 
Views:	27 
Size:	136.8 KB 
ID:	26072
    (Graphic from Nuclear Track Recordings of the Astronauts' Radiation Exposure on the First Lunar Landing Mission Apollo XI)

    Grant Hutchison

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    And in fact they were different. For Apollo 11, the return journey was shorter in duration than the outward journey, and the return passage through the VAB was slightly more favourable (because Apollo returned through a higher geomagnetic latitude than its departure orbit):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2021-04-17 15_42_37-Nuclear Track Recordings of the Astronauts' Radiation Exposure on the First .jpg 
Views:	27 
Size:	136.8 KB 
ID:	26072
    (Graphic from Nuclear Track Recordings of the Astronauts' Radiation Exposure on the First Lunar Landing Mission Apollo XI)

    Grant Hutchison
    Another excellent post to show Lord Foul, where his proposition fails.
    Lord Foul please not the trajectories and how they missed the more dense area of the VARB.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    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.
    The point you and the rest in this group fail to grasp is GCR is at the lowest point it will ever reach at Solar Maximum. I only gets larger as it moves toward Solar minimum. GCR is essential unshieldable, meaning it is a given in any space travel beyond the Van Allen belt. It is not a short term health hazard but it is high enough to record on dosimetry. That value of 1 mrad/hr or .24 mgy/day is greater than the Apollo's daily exposure. That can only be true if the Apollo 11 never left LEO. If the Apollo had left LEO we can judge by the ISS passing through the SAA that she would have received magnitudes higher exposure. I hope this explains this to you once and for all as I tire of repeating it.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The point you and the rest in this group fail to grasp is GCR is at the lowest point it will ever reach at Solar Maximum.
    WHICH solar maximum are you referring to? Are you suggesting they are all the same?

    GCR is essential unshieldable, meaning it is a given in any space travel beyond the Van Allen belt.
    Hogwash. The higher more energetic particles are very hard to attenuate, but the bulk of GCR are not in that bracket.

    It is not a short term health hazard but it is high enough to record on dosimetry.
    And you have been asked to verify how you have confirmed the absolute accuracy of the dosimeters.

    That value of 1 mrad/hr or .24 mgy/day is greater than the Apollo's daily exposure.
    It is a mean figure based on a different solar period.

    That can only be true if the Apollo 11 never left LEO.
    Or if you do not understand this subject at all and are quoting from ignorance.

    If the Apollo had left LEO we can judge by the ISS passing through the SAA that she would have received magnitudes higher exposure.
    The passage through the SAA bears no resemblance to any point of the Apollo missions.

    I hope this explains this to you once and for all as I tire of repeating it.
    Repeating your failure to properly apply the data is as tiring to read for others too.


    Now, kindly answer my questions:

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


    https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/ind...43817#msg43817
    "Interesting that you should mention this little nugget of information. The sata you are using to assume your baseline GCR was taken in 2012, during solar cycle 24. As it happens, this cycle was quite a subdued one as they go. If you look it up you can see that the sunspot number peaked around 2012 at about 75. The Apollo missions happened in solar cycle 20, and if you look at the sunspot number for that maximum you can see it was significantly higher than that for the entire duration of the lunar flight phase of the Apollo program (between 100 and 150). Have you factored this into your baseline? No, you just took the MSL data and presented it as a constant GCR background level that should be present in all missions beyond LEO."

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,805
    Lord Foul, if calculating doses are above your paygrade, why do you believe you have the understanding of radiation to say that the Apollo missions were impossible?
    _____________________________________________
    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!"

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    You're now making your own opposing arguments, it seems.
    Yes, the GCR dose rate is now higher than it was in 1969, both in cis-lunar space and on the surface of the moon. It is therefore invalid to use a dose rate measured during a solar minimum (Change'E-4) to critique the dosimetry from a mission flown during a solar maximum (Apollo 11).
    The mission analysis from Apollo estimated a dose rate of 0.6 mrad/hr at the lunar surface, and predicted this would double at solar minimum. And, lo and behold, the Chang'E-4 data are approximately double the Apollo estimate. You can't compare the Chang'E-4 data directly with the 1 mrad/hr dose rate estimated fifty years ago, because the radiation environment of the entire inner solar system has changed. And if you're going to claim that the lunar surface dose rate is higher than the cis-lunar dose rate, you need to show us a contemporaneous cis-lunar dose measurement, not dig out inapplicable Apollo data.

    Apollo flew during a solar maximum; we're currently in an extended solar minimum. Comparing data from these two time periods is comparing apples and oranges.

    Grant Hutchison
    I am not and did not compare 1969 to 2019 values. The Chang'e-4 found that Lunar surface was at 1,369 usv/day or 1.369 mgy/day. Interpretation
    To put the values reported here into context, we briefly summarize measurements by the Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER) on Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) (24). Incidentally, LRO flew over the location of Chang’E 4 at 01:30 on 2 February 2019. At this time, both LND and CRaTER saw identical heliospheric conditions, and CRaTER measured a dose rate of 13.29 μGy/hour (reported by the CRaTER team as converted to water and to the lunar surface) with its D1 and D2 detectors (25) while LND measured a dose rate of 10.2 ± 1.1 μGy/hour in silicon (13.2 ± 1.4 μGy/hour converted to water) for charged particles (26). CRaTER uses a factor of 1.33 to convert dose rate from Si to water (27); therefore, it is more convenient to compare the dose rate measured in Si by LND (10.2 ± 1.1 μGy/hour) and CRaTER (10.0 μGy/hour). These two values are equal within uncertainties. Thus, the differences in shielding by the instruments themselves and the two spacecraft (28) have no noticeable effect on their measured dose rates. NASA claims it had never measured lunar surface radiation so when it stated the expected surface radiation was .6 it was a calculated value based on the assumption that a significant portion of GCR would be shielded. They did not anticipate that the lunar surface was almost 6 times as radioactive as Space was.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Lord Foul, if calculating doses are above your paygrade, why do you believe you have the understanding of radiation to say that the Apollo missions were impossible?
    I lack access to the information I would need to calculate accurately the doses. If it were available then you guys would have produced these values to discredit my claims. I contend you do not need to compute a single dose because the stated value is much to low to have ever been a translunar trip. The only place levels that low are possible are in LEO.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The point you and the rest in this group fail to grasp is GCR is at the lowest point it will ever reach at Solar Maximum. I only gets larger as it moves toward Solar minimum. GCR is essential unshieldable, meaning it is a given in any space travel beyond the Van Allen belt. It is not a short term health hazard but it is high enough to record on dosimetry. That value of 1 mrad/hr or .24 mgy/day is greater than the Apollo's daily exposure. That can only be true if the Apollo 11 never left LEO. If the Apollo had left LEO we can judge by the ISS passing through the SAA that she would have received magnitudes higher exposure. I hope this explains this to you once and for all as I tire of repeating it.
    We're tracking your argument, and are equally tired of hearing it, I suspect. We just don't accept it because it's fundamentally flawed.
    Let's just set aside for the moment the fact that the uncertainty in measurements and variability of exposure makes 1 mrad/hr a ball-park figure in the middle of a wide range of possibilities, which has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
    So, for the sake of argument, take an assumed background dose rate of 1 mrad/hr in open space between Earth and Moon. Passage through the fringe of the VAB pushes the radiation dose rate above that level (though not nearly as much as you seem to assume). Time spent on the Moon reduces the dose rate below that level (because of the shielding of GCR by the body of the Moon).
    And it turns out, dosimetrically, that a couple of days in a lower-dose-rate environment, on or in the vicinity of the Moon, compensates for a couple of hours spent in a high-dose-rate environment in the fringes of the VAB. So the net effect can easily reduce the average dose rate below the assumed 1 mrad/hr rate.

    Your only argument against this is to claim that the Moon does not have a protective effect, which you attempted on the basis of Chang'E-4 data--unsuccessfully, because you're not comparing like with like.

    I'm sorry, but your argument is hopelessly uncompelling, even if we were to ignore all the other (non-radiation-based) evidence that Apollo really did go to the Moon.

    Grant Hutchison

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Averages are average. In the calculation of averages, lower and higher values make up the averages. That is why your continued reference to .24 as a minimum is wrong and invalidates your proposition. A11 just had a lower daily value. QED



    I have asked and you responded with "I don't know", so if you don't know then what you believe is nonsense in the real world. You have no way to substantiate your thoughts.

    Just because it "seems" low to you it must be fake, is a major logical fallacy.
    I cannot believe you are grasping at "average" straws. Your point would make sense if they were sampling at yearly or greater intervals but if was something more reasonable then it makes no sense at all.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    And in fact they were different. For Apollo 11, the return journey was shorter in duration than the outward journey, and the return passage through the VAB was slightly more favourable (because Apollo returned through a higher geomagnetic latitude than its departure orbit):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2021-04-17 15_42_37-Nuclear Track Recordings of the Astronauts' Radiation Exposure on the First .jpg 
Views:	27 
Size:	136.8 KB 
ID:	26072
    (Graphic from Nuclear Track Recordings of the Astronauts' Radiation Exposure on the First Lunar Landing Mission Apollo XI)

    Grant Hutchison
    It really does not matter what path you choose to believe the Apollo took through the VAB, any radiation at all is too much for its reported mission doses. You should know that the Orion and the Apollo missions had almost identical flight paths.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I am not and did not compare 1969 to 2019 values. The Chang'e-4 found that Lunar surface was at 1,369 usv/day or 1.369 mgy/day. Interpretation
    To put the values reported here into context, we briefly summarize measurements by the Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER) on Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) (24). Incidentally, LRO flew over the location of Chang’E 4 at 01:30 on 2 February 2019. At this time, both LND and CRaTER saw identical heliospheric conditions, and CRaTER measured a dose rate of 13.29 μGy/hour (reported by the CRaTER team as converted to water and to the lunar surface) with its D1 and D2 detectors (25) while LND measured a dose rate of 10.2 ± 1.1 μGy/hour in silicon (13.2 ± 1.4 μGy/hour converted to water) for charged particles (26). CRaTER uses a factor of 1.33 to convert dose rate from Si to water (27); therefore, it is more convenient to compare the dose rate measured in Si by LND (10.2 ± 1.1 μGy/hour) and CRaTER (10.0 μGy/hour). These two values are equal within uncertainties. Thus, the differences in shielding by the instruments themselves and the two spacecraft (28) have no noticeable effect on their measured dose rates. NASA claims it had never measured lunar surface radiation so when it stated the expected surface radiation was .6 it was a calculated value based on the assumption that a significant portion of GCR would be shielded. They did not anticipate that the lunar surface was almost 6 times as radioactive as Space was.
    Yes, you keep repeating that, but it doesn't say what you claim it says.
    1) The Chang'E-4/LRO dose rate of 13 μGy/hour is merely double the Apollo estimate of 0.6 mrad/hr.
    2) That's exactly what the Apollo radiation analysis predicted would happen at solar minimum.
    3) You're comparing the current radiation environment to the radiation environment in 1969 every time you compare the Chang'E-4 dose-rate to the Apollo dose-rate.

    Grant Hutchison

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I lack access to the information I would need to calculate accurately the doses. If it were available then you guys would have produced these values to discredit my claims.
    We've already given you a link to the necessary calculations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    It really does not matter what path you choose to believe the Apollo took through the VAB, any radiation at all is too much for its reported mission doses. You should know that the Orion and the Apollo missions had almost identical flight paths.
    That's simply, demonstrably wrong. Apollo went to the Moon; Orion went to the VAB. Completely different orbits.

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2021-Apr-17 at 05:34 PM.

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    WHICH solar maximum are you referring to? Are you suggesting they are all the same?



    Hogwash. The higher more energetic particles are very hard to attenuate, but the bulk of GCR are not in that bracket.



    And you have been asked to verify how you have confirmed the absolute accuracy of the dosimeters.



    It is a mean figure based on a different solar period.



    Or if you do not understand this subject at all and are quoting from ignorance.



    The passage through the SAA bears no resemblance to any point of the Apollo missions.



    Repeating your failure to properly apply the data is as tiring to read for others too.


    Now, kindly answer my questions:

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


    https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/ind...43817#msg43817
    "Interesting that you should mention this little nugget of information. The sata you are using to assume your baseline GCR was taken in 2012, during solar cycle 24. As it happens, this cycle was quite a subdued one as they go. If you look it up you can see that the sunspot number peaked around 2012 at about 75. The Apollo missions happened in solar cycle 20, and if you look at the sunspot number for that maximum you can see it was significantly higher than that for the entire duration of the lunar flight phase of the Apollo program (between 100 and 150). Have you factored this into your baseline? No, you just took the MSL data and presented it as a constant GCR background level that should be present in all missions beyond LEO."

    The Apollo craft had no dedicated radiation shield such as can be found in the ISS. The Structure and equipment provided roughly 8 to 10 gms/cm^2 shielding compared to 40 gms.cm^2 for the ISS.
    when the ISS passes through the SAA, the the highest radiation area in the SAA is 400 protons/cm^2. The lowest proton region of the VAB is 10^6 protons/cm^2 a full 2500 times greater.

    GCR's pose a threat to Astronauts going to Mars because it takes so long and they are unshieldable to today's technology. The use of heavy metals produce much higher ionizing radiation than the GCR's themselves. They are not shieldable today and they were not shieldable in 1969.

    The Solar fluctuations are not important because we have actual values from the pertinent period. We are not calculating GCR levels, we are measuring them. We do know the possible ranges and using the lowest possible value is what I chose to do.

    The Apollo dosimetry data was registered by the National Council for Radiation Protection & Measurement (NCRP) in 1998

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I cannot believe you are grasping at "average" straws. Your point would make sense if they were sampling at yearly or greater intervals but if was something more reasonable then it makes no sense at all.
    https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/ind...44017#msg44017

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

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

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

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


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

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/ind...44017#msg44017

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

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

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

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


    You keep ignoring the majority of my posts - I wonder why?
    Careful there buddy. These guys get upset if you use data from any period but the Apollo period. Why would you remove SPE spikes?

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Careful there buddy. These guys get upset if you use data from any period but the Apollo period.
    No, we just point out the fallacy of comparing a solar max with a solar min.

    Grant Hutchison

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The Apollo craft had no dedicated radiation shield such as can be found in the ISS. The Structure and equipment provided roughly 8 to 10 gms/cm^2 shielding compared to 40 gms.cm^2 for the ISS.
    You say this as though it means the protection is 4 times better. It is not. The difference between the Apollo craft and the ISS is summarised in this graph:

    Attachment 26073

    when the ISS passes through the SAA, the the highest radiation area in the SAA is 400 protons/cm^2. The lowest proton region of the VAB is 10^6 protons/cm^2 a full 2500 times greater.
    Irrelevant.

    GCR's pose a threat to Astronauts going to Mars because it takes so long and they are unshieldable to today's technology.
    False.

    The use of heavy metals produce much higher ionizing radiation than the GCR's themselves.
    None were used.

    They are not shieldable today and they were not shieldable in 1969.
    False.

    The Solar fluctuations are not important because we have actual values from the pertinent period. We are not calculating GCR levels, we are measuring them. We do know the possible ranges and using the lowest possible value is what I chose to do.
    Arm waving and dismissal of significant data differences.

    The Apollo dosimetry data was registered by the National Council for Radiation Protection & Measurement (NCRP) in 1998
    So it is 100% accurate then? I mean could it be 80% or 90%? Could the Crater data be significantly different than cycle 20 given the massive variation in sunspot activities?
    Last edited by Clanger; 2021-Apr-17 at 05:54 PM. Reason: typo

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Careful there buddy. These guys get upset if you use data from any period but the Apollo period. Why would you remove SPE spikes?
    Nice evasion "buddy". Address the data because it shows quite clearly that the average is not relevant to a mission in THAT period, let alone one in a totally different period! You are cornered here, your own data shows quite clearly that the average is not a good indicator of a daily dose.

    SPEs can of course be dismissed if none occur.

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I cannot believe you are grasping at "average" straws. Your point would make sense if they were sampling at yearly or greater intervals but if was something more reasonable then it makes no sense at all.
    Your conclusions are flawed. The point is yes A11 total was lower than the AVERAGE of .24, but this in no way makes A11s landing on the Lunar surface, the rate is within the average value.
    What part of average don't you understand?

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    We're tracking your argument, and are equally tired of hearing it, I suspect. We just don't accept it because it's fundamentally flawed.
    Let's just set aside for the moment the fact that the uncertainty in measurements and variability of exposure makes 1 mrad/hr a ball-park figure in the middle of a wide range of possibilities, which has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
    So, for the sake of argument, take an assumed background dose rate of 1 mrad/hr in open space between Earth and Moon. Passage through the fringe of the VAB pushes the radiation dose rate above that level (though not nearly as much as you seem to assume). Time spent on the Moon reduces the dose rate below that level (because of the shielding of GCR by the body of the Moon).
    And it turns out, dosimetrically, that a couple of days in a lower-dose-rate environment, on or in the vicinity of the Moon, compensates for a couple of hours spent in a high-dose-rate environment in the fringes of the VAB. So the net effect can easily reduce the average dose rate below the assumed 1 mrad/hr rate.

    Your only argument against this is to claim that the Moon does not have a protective effect, which you attempted on the basis of Chang'E-4 data--unsuccessfully, because you're not comparing like with like.

    I'm sorry, but your argument is hopelessly uncompelling, even if we were to ignore all the other (non-radiation-based) evidence that Apollo really did go to the Moon.

    Grant Hutchison
    I don't think you are paying attention. A direct comparison was made between the LRO and the Chang'-e's LND and they matched almost exactly and the measurements were made a day apart. The LRO confirms that the shielding effect is offset in lunar orbit by the radiation coming from the moon. The moon is almost 6 times as radioactive as the cislunar space. Either the subject matter is to complex for you to grasp or you don't want it to be true. I do not know but it is obvious to the casual observer that absolutely no passage of any sort could be made into the VAB without extensive shielding as indicated by the fact that the ISS crew has to enter special shielded rooms when passing through the SAA. The SAA is 2500 time less radioactive as the least radioactive part of the VAB.

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    It really does not matter what path you choose to believe the Apollo took through the VAB, any radiation at all is too much for its reported mission doses. You should know that the Orion and the Apollo missions had almost identical flight paths.
    This is yet another false claim. Orion was intentionally aimed at the ,more dense portion of the VARB while Apollo traversed the a less dense part, just look at trajectories that Grant provided you.

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Your conclusions are flawed. The point is yes A11 total was lower than the AVERAGE of .24, but this in no way makes A11s landing on the Lunar surface, the rate is within the average value.
    What part of average don't you understand?
    The radiation the Apollo received came from multiple sources and was cumulative. If GCR accounted for the totality then why did it receive no radiation from the Van Allen Belt or the Lunar Orbit or the lunar landing? Why does it mirror other LEO orbits? Who could even postulate that LEO radiation was equal to space radiation? That does not make sense at any level.

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Now, kindly answer my questions:

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

    6. I have provided you, from your own data, clear evidence that the daily exposure levels are significantly raised by SPEs, why have you not factored this in?

    So taking questions 5 and 6 together, we now have significant differences that you have blatantly not factored in.

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    This is yet another false claim. Orion was intentionally aimed at the ,more dense portion of the VARB while Apollo traversed the a less dense part, just look at trajectories that Grant provided you.
    The less dense parts are greater than the SAA and we know the hazards it poses.

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    This is yet another false claim. Orion was intentionally aimed at the ,more dense portion of the VARB while Apollo traversed the a less dense part, just look at trajectories that Grant provided you.
    I don't believe you. Please show me your reference. I believe the Orion mirrored the Apollo missions but I can change my mind.

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
  •