Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 545

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

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    I'm having difficulty seeing the point. Given the difference in shielding, instrumentation and solar cycle, the difference between measured lunar-environment dose rates isn't remotely surprising, and would have had no discernible biological effect.
    Are you really suggesting that Apollo measurements in 1969 should exactly match measurements taken decades later?

    Grant Hutchison
    A couple of points. GCR is essentially unshieldable. GCR varies as a function of the solar cycle and the minimum is 1mrad/hr. Keeping that in mind then it is obvious that if Apollo 11 left the protection of the Van Allen Belt that as a minimum it would have 1mrad/hr exposure. It does not. This value should have been higher because any transit through any part of the Van Allen Belt would raise it. Orbiting the moon should raise it. Lunar operations should raise it. We have a number of empirical proofs of this. The Orion test in 2014 and the CHANDRAYAAN-1, India's first mission to Moon which was launched on October 22, 2008, noted outside the radiation belts (Cislunar Space), en-route to the Moon, the particle flux (~3 particle cm-2 s-1) and corresponding dose were very small (~12 µGy h-1 or .288 mgy/day) which further decreased slightly in the lunar orbit because of the shielding effect of the Moon. Average flux and dose in lunar orbit were ~2.5 particle cm-2 s-1 and ~10 µGy h-1 (.24 mgy/day) respectively at 100 km orbit. These increased to ~2.8 particle cm-2 s-1 and ~11 µGy h-1 (.264 mgy/day) respectively, at 200 km orbit. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.2014.pdf

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    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.
    Facts are a persistent thing. It would be suspicious if it changes.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I am not sure any man has ever entered or passed beyond the Van Allen Belt. If anyone of the Apollo missions are proven false then they all are in my mind. If a thing cannot be then it isn't.
    Here is a link to recent pics of the various Apollo landing sites made by the LRO. I had an argument with my conspiracy theorist friend about the Van Allen Belts precluding a manned mission beyond LEO. The short answer which I found was that the time in the belt and the part of the belt traversed leads to a minimal/safe exposure.

    https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...mageBasicHover
    The timeless ends of formless starts....all ends in dark and begins in light...

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    A couple of points. GCR is essentially unshieldable. GCR varies as a function of the solar cycle and the minimum is 1mrad/hr. Keeping that in mind then it is obvious that if Apollo 11 left the protection of the Van Allen Belt that as a minimum it would have 1mrad/hr exposure. It does not. This value should have been higher because any transit through any part of the Van Allen Belt would raise it. Orbiting the moon should raise it. Lunar operations should raise it. We have a number of empirical proofs of this. The Orion test in 2014 and the CHANDRAYAAN-1, India's first mission to Moon which was launched on October 22, 2008, noted outside the radiation belts (Cislunar Space), en-route to the Moon, the particle flux (~3 particle cm-2 s-1) and corresponding dose were very small (~12 µGy h-1 or .288 mgy/day) which further decreased slightly in the lunar orbit because of the shielding effect of the Moon. Average flux and dose in lunar orbit were ~2.5 particle cm-2 s-1 and ~10 µGy h-1 (.24 mgy/day) respectively at 100 km orbit. These increased to ~2.8 particle cm-2 s-1 and ~11 µGy h-1 (.264 mgy/day) respectively, at 200 km orbit. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.2014.pdf
    At 1 mrad/hr, 195 hours mission duration would produce 0.195 rad, compared to the recorded average of 0.18 rad for Apollo 11.
    But sixty hours of lunar orbit and lunar surface operations decreased that figure--while we can debate about the exact contribution from secondary radiation, there's no doubt that the moon screened out a good half of GCR. And, as it turns out, the partial shielding from GCR while at the moon pretty much compensates for the briefly increased dose rate while passing through the fringes of the VAB. There's no great mystery here.

    So basically we're down to your claim that the moon is so radioactive that it increases radiation dose above GCR, despite screening half of GCR. Please show your working.

    Grant Hutchison

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    Here is a link to recent pics of the various Apollo landing sites made by the LRO. I had an argument with my conspiracy theorist friend about the Van Allen Belts precluding a manned mission beyond LEO. The short answer which I found was that the time in the belt and the part of the belt traversed leads to a minimal/safe exposure.

    https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...mageBasicHover
    I am not sure anyone questions the fact that lunar landings have been made. China, Russia, the US and Japan have all made lunar operations. It is the manned missions that beg the question. No other nation has ever left LEO with a manned mission.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    At 1 mrad/hr, 195 hours mission duration would produce 0.195 rad, compared to the recorded average of 0.18 rad for Apollo 11.
    But sixty hours of lunar orbit and lunar surface operations decreased that figure--while we can debate about the exact contribution from secondary radiation, there's no doubt that the moon screened out a good half of GCR. And, as it turns out, the partial shielding from GCR while at the moon pretty much compensates for the briefly increased dose rate while passing through the fringes of the VAB. There's no great mystery here.

    So basically we're down to your claim that the moon is so radioactive that it increases radiation dose above GCR, despite screening half of GCR. Please show your working.

    Grant Hutchison
    We are not on the same page yet. Both the Indian mission and the LRO have demonstrated that orbital radiation is higher than cislunar space and the Chang'e-4 has demonstrated that lunar surface is higher than GCR alone. If the lunar surface is so radiated that it raise background radiation in the orbit around the moon then it is pretty radioactive. The Chang'e-4 lunar surface radiation reading of 1.369 mg/day is 5.7 times the cislunar GCR radiation level of .24mgy/day. https://www.firstpost.com/tech/scien...20daily%20dose.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Consider this article on moon dust and Apollo astronauts. https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...mellofmoondust
    The article concerns the smell of Lunar regolith, it does not indicate that the astronauts breathed any dust into their lungs. Now I grant you that dust will be a problem for long term missions, getting into everthing around the living quarters, but Apollo mission were short and the dust was a minor irritant. Longer term missions will need a method of regolith control.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Calculating doses in beyond my pay grade. My contention is Apollo 11's mission dosage is too low to have left LEO. If you doubt this simple fact then I can quote NASA's measurement for GCR during the Apollo era. If you can envision a radiation sink that removes radiation then I am all ears. This is not complicated. The baseline is .24mgy/day and Apollo was less than that.
    How do you know without calculating the value Or are you just reading garbage from some Hoax Believer (HB) post and quoting that post without the knowledge of the validity.

    Where did you arrive at the baseline value?

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    2,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    It seems the lunar surface is radioactive so could we have really landed on the moon and not have been aware of this fact?
    Hi Lord Foul, I'm going back to your OP for clarification. Are you saying that the 12 US astronauts who landed on the moon's surface should have shown signs of severe radiation sickness and/or death shortly after their return to the Earth? Assuming that is what you are suggesting, then since they survived for decades and there are many of them still alive today that they never really went to the moon?

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,757
    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.
    Ah yes, our submariner that knew all about radiation but could fathom average values contained a report. Lord Foul, please read the whole thread and see if anything answers your questions. The thread was painful to read/participate for sure.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    The article concerns the smell of Lunar regolith, it does not indicate that the astronauts breathed any dust into their lungs. Now I grant you that dust will be a problem for long term missions, getting into everthing around the living quarters, but Apollo mission were short and the dust was a minor irritant. Longer term missions will need a method of regolith control.
    The experience gave Apollo 17 astronaut Jack Schmitt history's first recorded case of extraterrestrial hay fever. "It's come on pretty fast," he radioed Houston with a congested voice. Years later he recalls, "When I took my helmet off after the first EVA, I had a significant reaction to the dust. My turbinates (cartilage plates in the walls of the nasal chambers) became swollen."

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    How do you know without calculating the value Or are you just reading garbage from some Hoax Believer (HB) post and quoting that post without the knowledge of the validity.

    Where did you arrive at the baseline value?
    I am not sure I understand the question. I know because the values are stated and I only have to compare values. I did not have to calculate anything. Most of the information was taking from official NASA material.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    Hi Lord Foul, I'm going back to your OP for clarification. Are you saying that the 12 US astronauts who landed on the moon's surface should have shown signs of severe radiation sickness and/or death shortly after their return to the Earth? Assuming that is what you are suggesting, then since they survived for decades and there are many of them still alive today that they never really went to the moon?
    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.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Consider this. In the SAA the highest flux is 400 protons/cm^2/sec and the lowest proton flux in all the rest of the VAB is 1 million protons/cm^2/sec which is 2500 times greater. The ISS receives 5 to 12 μ Gy (0.5 to 1.2 milli rads) per hour and has radiation shielding in the inhabitable quarter of 40gms/cm^2. If the ISS passed through the lowest radiation area of the VAB then we could expect it to receive 8.5ugy/hr/400 protons/cm^2-sec*1,000,000 protons/cm^2/sec = 21,250ugy/hr or 510 mgy/day. This would not be a lethal value but it indicates as a minimum what a VAB transit must be.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    We are not on the same page yet. Both the Indian mission and the LRO have demonstrated that orbital radiation is higher than cislunar space and the Chang'e-4 has demonstrated that lunar surface is higher than GCR alone. If the lunar surface is so radiated that it raise background radiation in the orbit around the moon then it is pretty radioactive. The Chang'e-4 lunar surface radiation reading of 1.369 mg/day is 5.7 times the cislunar GCR radiation level of .24mgy/day. https://www.firstpost.com/tech/scien...20daily%20dose.
    From the original report:
    We measured an average total absorbed dose rate in silicon of 13.2 ± 1 μGy/hour and a neutral particle dose rate of 3.1 ± 0.5 μGy/hour.
    So a total absorbed dose of 1.3mrad/hr. About double the Apollo estimate of 0.6mrad/hr.

    Do you have a simultaneous measurement of the cis-lunar radiation dose rate, using similar instruments? Because that's the only useful comparison. What you're doing at present is comparing measurements made half a century apart, and trying to draw inferences from a two-fold difference.

    Grant Hutchison

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I am not sure I understand the question. I know because the values are stated and I only have to compare values. I did not have to calculate anything. Most of the information was taking from official NASA material.
    Please link the document so that all of us may read what you have read. I think I know the answer, but I won't assume until I read it.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Consider this. In the SAA the highest flux is 400 protons/cm^2/sec and the lowest proton flux in all the rest of the VAB is 1 million protons/cm^2/sec which is 2500 times greater. The ISS receives 5 to 12 μ Gy (0.5 to 1.2 milli rads) per hour and has radiation shielding in the inhabitable quarter of 40gms/cm^2. If the ISS passed through the lowest radiation area of the VAB then we could expect it to receive 8.5ugy/hr/400 protons/cm^2-sec*1,000,000 protons/cm^2/sec = 21,250ugy/hr or 510 mgy/day. This would not be a lethal value but it indicates as a minimum what a VAB transit must be.
    How long does the ISS transit the SAA in 24 hours? How long was the Apollo CSM in the VARB?

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,757
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    From the original report:So a total absorbed dose of 1.3mrad/hr. About double the Apollo estimate of 0.6mrad/hr.

    Do you have a simultaneous measurement of the cis-lunar radiation dose rate, using similar instruments? Because that's the only useful comparison. What you're doing at present is comparing measurements made half a century apart, and trying to draw inferences from a two-fold difference.

    Grant Hutchison
    Yes and add whether the solar cycle is in the same relationship in both.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    How long does the ISS transit the SAA in 24 hours? How long was the Apollo CSM in the VARB?
    I don't know the answer to those two questions but the salient point is that travel through the SAA raises significantly the exposure rate and the VAB is magnitudes greater and would not be insignificant in mission dose.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Yes and add whether the solar cycle is in the same relationship in both.
    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

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,789
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Yes and add whether the solar cycle is in the same relationship in both.
    They were opposite.
    Apollo 11:
    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. These values are expected to double at the low point in the 11-year cycle of solar-flare activity (solar minimum) because of decreased solar magnetic shielding of the central planets.
    Chang'E-4:
    Because the Sun is currently still in an extended activity minimum, the dose rate from GCR reported here may be considered as an upper limit for human exploration of the Moon during conditions of low solar activity.
    (My bold throughout).
    Hence my inability to get excited about this.

    Grant Hutchison

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    From the original report:So a total absorbed dose of 1.3mrad/hr. About double the Apollo estimate of 0.6mrad/hr.

    Do you have a simultaneous measurement of the cis-lunar radiation dose rate, using similar instruments? Because that's the only useful comparison. What you're doing at present is comparing measurements made half a century apart, and trying to draw inferences from a two-fold difference.

    Grant Hutchison
    This article compares the results of Chang'e-4 with the LRO detectors. 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. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/39/eaaz1334

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    This article compares the results of Chang'e-4 with the LRO detectors. 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. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/39/eaaz1334
    Yes, you've just given me a link to the paper I quoted, and quoted the same information I provided.

    Grant Hutchison

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    They were opposite.
    Chang'E-4:
    Apollo 11My bold throughout).
    Hence my inability to get excited about this.

    Grant Hutchison
    !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.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The experience gave Apollo 17 astronaut Jack Schmitt history's first recorded case of extraterrestrial hay fever. "It's come on pretty fast," he radioed Houston with a congested voice. Years later he recalls, "When I took my helmet off after the first EVA, I had a significant reaction to the dust. My turbinates (cartilage plates in the walls of the nasal chambers) became swollen."
    You just said you don't believe any human has ever left LEO. So how did Jack Schmitt get a nose full of lunar dust after his first EVA? Are you saying NASA scripted a fake radio communication with fake congested voice just so they could pretend Jack Schmitt had been affected by lunar dust?

    If your answer is "yes", that was all a fake scripted event, it shows that NASA had a remarkable attention to detail to fake these multiple moon landings. You'd think somehow they'd get their reported dosimeter readings right, wouldn't you?
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,660
    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.
    A very interesting examination of "space weather" during the Apollo 11 mission, from a site run by the Royal Observatory of Belgium and the Belgium government (not NASA).

    The Apollo 11 mission took place in 1969, during the maximum of solar cycle 20 (SC20). That maximum was stronger than the one of the current, nearly finished, solar cycle 24 (SC24). Thus, it might be worthwhile to take a look at the space weather conditions during the 16-24 July flight to and back from the Moon, and evaluate the associated risks to which the astronauts were exposed. Solar activity, geomagnetic activity, and particle radiation environment will be considered.

    ...

    One can conclude that space weather conditions were really favorable to the Apollo 11 mission. There were only a few small sunspot groups present on the solar disk, resulting in little or no flaring and as a consequence no particular extra threats from particle radiation or geomagnetic storms.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    https://www.firstpost.com/tech/scien...20daily%20dose

    GCR background radiation was 1 mrad/hr (.24 mgy/day) during the Apollo missions to the moon. Ref. Page 7 under "Cosmic Rays". https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    You just said you don't believe any human has ever left LEO. So how did Jack Schmitt get a nose full of lunar dust after his first EVA? Are you saying NASA scripted a fake radio communication with fake congested voice just so they could pretend Jack Schmitt had been affected by lunar dust?

    If your answer is "yes", that was all a fake scripted event, it shows that NASA had a remarkable attention to detail to fake these multiple moon landings. You'd think somehow they'd get their reported dosimeter readings right, wouldn't you?
    It does not seem remarkable to me. I do not believe that NASA faked the dosimetry at all. I think they used actual numbers. I think the Apollo missions never left LEO and those are LEO readings. It is the very reason I got interested in this matter. I ran across a table of the mission doses of all the NASA mission and it confused me that the Space Shuttle and the Lunar missions exposures were almost identical. I started to research the matter and hear I am.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    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.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,602
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Yes and add whether the solar cycle is in the same relationship in both.
    in 1970 was the maximum of solar cycle 20
    in 2008 was the minimum at the end of solar cycle 23
    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

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
  •