Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by CHRLZ
I have a couple of VERY simple, and absolutely CRITICAL questions for anyone who wishes to debate the radiation issue.

If they cannot answer BOTH of these questions, then in simple terms (for simpletons), they are incapable of contributing.

1. DO YOU DISPUTE THE PUBLISHED APOLLO TRAJECTORY INFORMATION?

Ummm what published apollo trajectory information.
If you got that, please provide a link and share it.

history.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Tomblvd


There you go again Tomblvd, providing hard data that requires an understanding of mathematics. For anyone who wishes to play along, google "minimum energy transfer orbit" (often called the "Hohmann Transfer Orbit" after the mathematician who devised it theoretically). Using Apollo's parking orbit as the perigee, and the Moon's distance as the apogee, you will be able to confirm the data Tomblvd provided. You will also understand why the TLI burn took place on the "opposite side."

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

There you go again Tomblvd, providing hard data that requires an understanding of mathematics. For anyone who wishes to play along, google "minimum energy transfer orbit" (often called the "Hohmann Transfer Orbit" after the mathematician who devised it theoretically). Using Apollo's parking orbit as the perigee, and the Moon's distance as the apogee, you will be able to confirm the data Tomblvd provided. You will also understand why the TLI burn took place on the "opposite side."

Well I found the video he posted, and it's just a repost of the TLI animation that was posted earlier:

www.youtube.com...

now, with that in mind, read his post again:

Looking at the top down view on the top portion of the screen.
Now I ask, how long or wide do you think those belts look to you in relation to the Earth? Maybe 4 to 5 radii ?

thats about what 6371 km x 5 = 31,855 km

The belts go out to about 10 earth radii more than 60,000 km.
A third of the distance to the moon.
Its intense region is about 4 to 5 radii.

I want accuracy Tom.

He want us to look at the "top down" view because, I suppose, it looks like the trajectory goes through the VABs. He doesn't realize the two animations are the same!

< facepalm >

In October 1989, the Sun produced enough energetic particles that an astronaut on the Moon, wearing only a space suit and caught out in the brunt of the storm, would probably have died; the expected dose would be about 7000 rem. (Astronauts who had time to gain safety in a shelter beneath moon soil would have absorbed only slight amounts of radiation.) The astronauts on the Mir station were subjected to daily doses of about twice the yearly dose on the ground, and during the solar storm at the end of 1989 they absorbed their full-year radiation dose limit in just a few hours.

Wow... so astronauts in the Mir which was in LEO and had a shelter for solar flares, and whose hull is rated higher than the CM(?) absorbed their limit in a just a few hours.

And notice, they say that Astros on the moon would be dead, unless they went under the ground- not that they could run and hide in their LM, or fly back up and dock with the CM. So is this why they gave Apollo astros shovels?




expertester.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by FoosM

In October 1989, the Sun produced enough energetic particles that an astronaut on the Moon, wearing only a space suit and caught out in the brunt of the storm, would probably have died; the expected dose would be about 7000 rem. (Astronauts who had time to gain safety in a shelter beneath moon soil would have absorbed only slight amounts of radiation.) The astronauts on the Mir station were subjected to daily doses of about twice the yearly dose on the ground, and during the solar storm at the end of 1989 they absorbed their full-year radiation dose limit in just a few hours.

Wow... so astronauts in the Mir which was in LEO and had a shelter for solar flares, and whose hull is rated higher than the CM(?) absorbed their limit in a just a few hours.

And notice, they say that Astros on the moon would be dead, unless they went under the ground- not that they could run and hide in their LM, or fly back up and dock with the CM. So is this why they gave Apollo astros shovels?

expertester.wordpress.com...

Your're raving now.

I defy you to find a post on this thread where anyone has ever said an astronaut, in space or on the surface of the moon, would not suffer fatal exposure if caught in a solar storm if they were caught outside the spacecraft.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by CHRLZ
1. DO YOU DISPUTE THE PUBLISHED APOLLO TRAJECTORY INFORMATION?

Ummm what published apollo trajectory information.
If you got that, please provide a link and share it.

As I expected, he couldn't even get beyond question 1.

So that's a resounding NO from FoosM. In other words, his entire objection to the trajectory information is based on .. a complete lack of knowledge.

Really guys, why do you bother arguing with this completely uninformed time waster???? And why feed him the answers? If anyone with a genuine interest asks, by all means - but judging by the post-stars and lack of interest by others, this is merely foos (and exuberant backslapping, but cowardly avoiding getting involved).. It looks as if ppk is quite wisely withdrawing from the radiation claim.


For anyone interested, just google 'apollo trajectory' or 'apollo TLI'. And the ease with which you will find the information, will tell you about FoosM's motives. If you are *really* interested, google 'apollo trajectory orbiter simulation'. 'Orbiter' is an open source simulation program that allows you to emulate space missions.

So...

FoosM is NOT able to dispute the trajectory and is just ignorantly handwaving.

Anyone else?

[edit on 14-8-2010 by CHRLZ]

Originally posted by CHRLZ


Really guys, why do you bother arguing with this completely uninformed time waster???? And why feed him the answers? If anyone with a genuine interest asks, by all means - but judging by the post-stars and lack of interest by others, this is merely foos (and exuberant backslapping, but cowardly avoiding getting involved).. It looks as if ppk is quite wisely withdrawing from the radiation claim.



[edit on 14-8-2010 by CHRLZ]

I understand what you are saying, but I thought it almost surreal when he asked for that considering it was right in front of his face if he had actually bothered to go to Bob Braeunig's brilliant page and read something. But I knew that if he would have bothered to click the link, there would be no way he'd be able to wade throught the numbers.

Now we just have to wait until Foos gets his marching orders from whomever he's e-mailing (or however he gets his material).

This is really pathetic now. Declare victory and come home boys!

Foo -- Answer the questions Tomblvd and CHRLZ asked.

I am saying that you posted a paper as evidence of the alleged dangers of proton flux. However, in that same paper, the author says specifically that radiation and CMEs would not prohibit the Apollo missions. That completely contradicts what you are alleging. Now, instead of another cut-and-paste fest, just answer the question. Do you now admit your source is correct about the Apollo missions?

See, when you selectively pick out the stuff you like and leave out the inconvenient stuff, because it contradicts the point you are trying to make - that's an especially nasty kind of fallacy called special pleading.
It's basically a lie by omission in this case, and does not help your credibility. So, since you deemed the source trustworthy when it supported your claim, but then left out the part that contradicted your claim, Tom is challenging you to explicitly accept or reject the source. In either case, you lose.

You also seem to be completely unaware of some basic facts concerning radiation. When confronted with this fact, you resort to false authority, claiming knowledge you don't actually posses, or a semantic slight of hand.

These errors are not helping your case.

1. DO YOU DISPUTE THE PUBLISHED APOLLO TRAJECTORY INFORMATION? 2. IF SO, PROVIDE YOUR ALTERNATIVE FIGURES, OR AN EXPLANATION, IN ORBITAL MECHANICS TERMS, OF WHY THEY ARE INCORRECT.

A Very straight forward question, looking for a simple explanation to the problem you believe exists. Can you provide the answer? Either you can or you can't. If you are unable to produce a workable answer then it boils down to argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Again, either way you lose.

Originally posted by Tomblvd
I understand what you are saying, but I thought it almost surreal when he asked for that considering it was right in front of his face if he had actually bothered to go to Bob Braeunig's brilliant page and read something. But I knew that if he would have bothered to click the link, there would be no way he'd be able to wade throught the numbers.

Now we just have to wait until Foos gets his marching orders from whomever he's e-mailing (or however he gets his material).

Hi, Tom.

I wasn't having a specific shot at you - more of a general comment that there seems to be an awful lot of posting of countering information, when it is really only FoosM who is arguing. He has conclusively proven by his own admissions that his grasp of this stuff is at best 'tenuous', if not non-existent and he has a very obvious desire to mislead and misinform.

The best way to deal with such a person, is, imo, to simply ask the pertinent questions. If he cannot answer even basic questions about his claims, and proves (as he just did), that he doesn't have a clue, then I would suggest you don't waste your time.

It is 'his' claim but he cannot support it, even in the most basic form.

Game over.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by CHRLZ]

It is 'his' claim but he cannot support it, even in the most basic form.

Game over.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by CHRLZ]

Agreed.

It wasn't until I read your post a second time that I realized it was a setup.

(I'm slow that way)

But he did fall rather nicely into it. I just robbed you of your chance to stick it to him.

Anyway, I'm sure we're in store for another epic, but totally irrelevant post by him.

Originally posted by Tomblvd
..It wasn't until I read your post a second time that I realized it was a setup.

(I'm slow that way)

But he did fall rather nicely into it. I just robbed you of your chance to stick it to him.

It's quite amusing, in a sad sort of way, to watch FoosM, even when he is told what will happen, still walks headlong in to it.

In this case he simply CANNOT argue further about the trajectory, because you merely have to point back to that post where he admitted he didn't have the faintest clue what the trajectory should be, let alone was.

IMO, this is where mods should step in and intervene/warn people who are deliberately misusing the forums in this way.

Anyway, you most certainly haven't robbed me - on the contrary, it made it even better... And I still have yet to post the final episodes of the radiation analysis, may be a week or two before I get back to that, but these deniers aren't going to achieve anything in that time, let alone bring up anything vaguely interesting, or, heaven forbid, NEW...

FoosM has already failed at every step of the way on the topic of radiation (just like all the rest).


[edit on 14-8-2010 by CHRLZ]

Originally posted by FoosM


JW has made his calculations regardng the REM for all to see. So Im waiting for somebody to show us why JW is wrong. If nobody can show us this, then JW and others who have analyzed the data could be very much right.

I take it you mean the calculations in that ridiculous youtube video you posted. The one where he spells 'major' as 'magor'...i mean seriously...

As far as his "calculations" go, there are so many holes in his logic i dont know where to start.

The calculation is as follows: he states that during a major flare the radiation dose could be as high as 100rem/hour. He then proceeds to use this figure to calculate a rem per minute figure (1.66rem/minute). He then adds up the total time that a flare was active, uses the rem/minute figure and calculates this as the radiation exposure received by the crew of that Apollo mission.

So the issues with this calculation:

He confuses major solar flares with major solar particle events. Not all solar flares emit high energy (ie damaging) solar particles. There were no major solar particle events during Apollo missions. As an aside, this confusion is why he thinks NASA lies about solar flares during Apollo missions: NASA talks about the major particle events while JW talks flares.

As a result, he doesnt use the actual measured radiation emitted by any one flare, he uses a theoretical maximum figure (of course, simply an assertion without establishing the source) and assumes that any major flare emits this level of radiation. Obviously this is incorrect, as different flares will emit different amounts of radiation.

He doesnt take into account the type of radiation (particles) emitted, he assumes that all exposure for astronaust is identical for each flare. Obviously wrong again.

He doesnt take into account the fact that radiation discharged from solar flares is directional, and so the radiation exposure will vary over the duration of the flare.

He doesnt take into account the shielding of the spacecraft. This ties in with the type of radiation emitted; if you arent looking at the type of radiation and the shielding that is on the spaccraft you cannot even begin to calculate a figure for the radiation exposure received.

Basically, the numbers he has come up with do not resemble the actual radiation dose that the astronauts would have received. At all.

For those looking for real numbers, here are the results of NASA's measurements of the radiation dose received by the astronauts. You can see how completely off the planet JW's calculations are (click on table two in that paper):

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

So, what's your next diversion?

[edit on 14-8-2010 by zvezdar]

Here's the "fast forward" for those who have just skipped ahead. FoosM will cite the CFI to "prove" that "major" solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions. I will point out the limited usefulness of the CFI, stressing the subjectivity of some of its components. There will be a philosophical debate as to what "major" means anyway. Is 7 out of a possible 15 "major" or "median?" CHARLZ will cite data culled from the ESA. FoosM will link to a video from the Nuclear Disarmament movement, ca. 1968. Tomblvd will link to a table published on the Russian Academy of Science webpage. FoosM will counter with a lengthy filmography of Stanley Kubrick. Feel free to skip the next three pages.

(Sorry to be so blunt. but it's really hot and humid here and everyone is venting to the best of their ability. We need a thunderstorm. Bad,

Originally posted by DJW001
Here's the "fast forward" for those who have just skipped ahead. FoosM will cite the CFI to "prove" that "major" solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions. I will point out the limited usefulness of the CFI, stressing the subjectivity of some of its components. There will be a philosophical debate as to what "major" means anyway. Is 7 out of a possible 15 "major" or "median?" CHARLZ will cite data culled from the ESA. FoosM will link to a video from the Nuclear Disarmament movement, ca. 1968. Tomblvd will link to a table published on the Russian Academy of Science webpage. FoosM will counter with a lengthy filmography of Stanley Kubrick. Feel free to skip the next three pages.

(Sorry to be so blunt. but it's really hot and humid here and everyone is venting to the best of their ability. We need a thunderstorm. Bad,

heehee!! Nicely done. But I must correct you on a minor issue. I rarely quote ESA.. but I DO have a very cool graph in regard to CME's which shows exactly when the big ones occurred in the period covering all the Apollo missions, and the missions themselves, all verifiable against independent statistics. But I'm saving it for later..

Actually, for the *genuine* investigative minds (that would be the non-deniers..) on this thread.. if you are interested in the whole radiation question as it applies to short v. long missions, eg Apollo v. Mars and would like to see a very comprehensive, yet relatively easy-to-digest (and very 'pretty'!) exposition thereof, U2U me and I'll send you a link that I suspect you will like...

(Sorry deniers - go find it yourselves, or wait until I finish my treatise..)

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by CHRLZ
I have a couple of VERY simple, and absolutely CRITICAL questions for anyone who wishes to debate the radiation issue.

If they cannot answer BOTH of these questions, then in simple terms (for simpletons), they are incapable of contributing.

1. DO YOU DISPUTE THE PUBLISHED APOLLO TRAJECTORY INFORMATION?

Ummm what published apollo trajectory information.
If you got that, please provide a link and share it.

history.nasa.gov...

whats this? TLI?
This is common knowledge.
Im looking for the trajectory, the actual path, the points plotted.
Where is that?

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by FoosM


JW has made his calculations regardng the REM for all to see. So Im waiting for somebody to show us why JW is wrong. If nobody can show us this, then JW and others who have analyzed the data could be very much right.

I take it you mean the calculations in that ridiculous youtube video you posted. The one where he spells 'major' as 'magor'...i mean seriously...

As far as his "calculations" go, there are so many holes in his logic i dont know where to start.

The calculation is as follows: he states that during a major flare the radiation dose could be as high as 100rem/hour. He then proceeds to use this figure to calculate a rem per minute figure (1.66rem/minute). He then adds up the total time that a flare was active, uses the rem/minute figure and calculates this as the radiation exposure received by the crew of that Apollo mission.

So the issues with this calculation:

He confuses major solar flares with major solar particle events. Not all solar flares emit high energy (ie damaging) solar particles. There were no major solar particle events during Apollo missions. As an aside, this confusion is why he thinks NASA lies about solar flares during Apollo missions: NASA talks about the major particle events while JW talks flares.

As a result, he doesnt use the actual measured radiation emitted by any one flare, he uses a theoretical maximum figure (of course, simply an assertion without establishing the source) and assumes that any major flare emits this level of radiation. Obviously this is incorrect, as different flares will emit different amounts of radiation.

He doesnt take into account the type of radiation (particles) emitted, he assumes that all exposure for astronaust is identical for each flare. Obviously wrong again.

He doesnt take into account the fact that radiation discharged from solar flares is directional, and so the radiation exposure will vary over the duration of the flare.

He doesnt take into account the shielding of the spacecraft. This ties in with the type of radiation emitted; if you arent looking at the type of radiation and the shielding that is on the spaccraft you cannot even begin to calculate a figure for the radiation exposure received.

Basically, the numbers he has come up with do not resemble the actual radiation dose that the astronauts would have received. At all.

For those looking for real numbers, here are the results of NASA's measurements of the radiation dose received by the astronauts. You can see how completely off the planet JW's calculations are (click on table two in that paper):

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

So, what's your next diversion?

[edit on 14-8-2010 by zvezdar]

Circular argument to use Apollo received doses. LOL

Back to the CFI
Why do you suppose JW has to use the 100 rem/hr number?
Where is NASA's data on the flares?
Where are their REM measurements?

Your just complaining that JW used 100rem/hr.
He could be wrong, he could be right.
Either way, you have not shown that he is wrong.

Originally posted by FoosM

history.nasa.gov...

whats this? TLI?
This is common knowledge.
Im looking for the trajectory, the actual path, the points plotted.
Where is that?

It just gets funnier!!! There's a sort of hilarious irony amongst this... which I'll come back to in a second..

First, for anyone new to orbital mechanics.. may I briefly explain?

(I may get shot for this by the purists, perhaps, but nevertheless...)

Orbital mechanics, when you boil it down to the absolute bones, provides a series of ellipses - the spacecraft will be on one elliptical* path (that would be.. an ORBIT!!), and then it is boosted by a rocket blast (the Trans Lunar Injection (TLI), in this case) into another elliptical* path (another ORBIT), and so on until it gets where it is supposed to. Each of those ELLIPSES is pretty simple to define. The numbers that FoosM was pointed at ARE those numbers. They define the ellipse. They ARE the trajectory! FoosM hasn't the first clue about this stuff! And yet he is still trying to argue???


Anyway, I was referring to the irony..

Earlier FoosM was desperately after the 'top-down' version - in 2D - of the trajectory - embarrassingly he then realised he was.. er.. looking at it.

NOW, when he is presented with what is, a 2D set of simple numbers (the ellipse is in fact on a 2d plane - you simply need the inclination to have it fully defined in 3D), he doesn't recognise it. Absolutely no idea.

Delicious, strawberry-coated irony.

If I was a denier, I would now be demanding FoosM be put off the team...


* - or parabola/hyperbola - I'm just tryin' to keep it simple..

Maybe he thinks flying in space is like the 'Planes in Space' physics in Battlestar Galactica or something? You shouldn't be too hard on him, you have to remember that when you can only gather information from videos then it's more than likely the only 'experience' he will have of space flight is watching the likes of BSG, ST or B5. All very fun but hardly realisitic.
I must admit though, when I logged on this morning and read that response I nearly choked on my tea LOL!

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by CHRLZ
I have a couple of VERY simple, and absolutely CRITICAL questions for anyone who wishes to debate the radiation issue.

If they cannot answer BOTH of these questions, then in simple terms (for simpletons), they are incapable of contributing.

1. DO YOU DISPUTE THE PUBLISHED APOLLO TRAJECTORY INFORMATION?

Ummm what published apollo trajectory information.
If you got that, please provide a link and share it.

history.nasa.gov...

whats this? TLI?

Yes, that is the TLI information. Why?

This is common knowledge.

Not to you, apparently.

Im looking for the trajectory, the actual path, the points plotted.
Where is that?

This is why I know you never bothered to look at Bob Braeunig's page. The actual lunar trajectory is plotted at least TEN TIMES. He even posts a "top down" view!!!

But I'm sure that if you did bother to hit the link, you saw all that math and you were completely confused and immediately left, without scrolling down to see the pretty pictures HBs like you so desperately need.

Now please, go look at his website, and be sure to SCROLL DOWN to see all the pictures you so vociferously demand. I refuse to post any more shots from his page because his site is so well done he deserves the traffic.

As an aside. To anybody who is interested in the actual calculations necessary to get a spacecraft to the moon, take a look at that site. While the math is complicated, it is something that can be written out on a single page of text. So the next time a hoax believer tells you the computer couldn't possibly handle the information necessary to fly the craft, remember, at the time the calculations could have been handled with a slide rule.



[edit on 15-8-2010 by Tomblvd]

[edit on 15-8-2010 by Tomblvd]

Here is the e-mail reply from Mr. Landis (emphasis mine):

Solar protons spiral around magnetic fields, which include the
interplanetary fields and also self-generated magnetic fields. Since
they're not all the same energy, they end up coming from different
directions. It's been ages since I've looked at any of the data (which is
all in old papers, not in easily accessable electronic form), but as I
recall, the flux is about 50% isotropic, with a wide directional peak in one direction (not necessarily directly toward the sun-- the trajectories are curved). So, while it's omnidirection in the sense radiation of coming from all directions, it's not uniform intensity in all directions.

The highest energy (and hence the most damaging) particles curve the least, though.

There's undoubtably better data around now-- what I had was pretty old, and is probably superceded by better information (and better models).

(Private correspondence)

As I suspected, most of the energy of a CME comes from sun-ward. The particles impinging from other angles would be of lower energy. Mr. Landis also points out in his e-mail that there were no CMEs during the Apollo missions... but we all already knew that, right FoosM?