It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 527
377
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:54 PM
Here is the issue I have with Bob.

Most attempts to illustrate the trajectories of the Apollo flights to the Moon are intended to show only the primary elements of the mission, with little attention to geometric accuracy and scale. One such example is shown below. Unlike these common not-to-scale drawings (www.braeunig.us...), this page takes a new approach. After determining the orbital elements of Apollo 11's translunar trajectory, I've calculated its position versus time and accurately plotted, in correct proportion and orientation, its flight path to the Moon. Furthermore, Apollo 11's trajectory through the region of the Van Allen Radiation Belts has been mapped to show how the trajectory was designed to bypass the most intense areas of the this potentially dangerous obstacle.

1. NASA has seemingly never provided an accurate to scale trajectory of the flights pre or post the flights.
2. Bob had to plot the path himself. So its not officially from NASA, he is not using their numbers.
3. The VABs are a dangerous obstacle that needed to be skirted.

Point two is important in this discussion.
Because the longer and deeper the craft would be in the belts, the more dangerous or deadly they would be for the astronauts. So the path had to reflect a short exposure time in the belts, and that it went through the less "hot" regions.

When I look at some of his numbers:

Bob has:
008:00:00 7/16/69, 21:32:00
Distance = 77,041,344 m = 47,871.2718 mi
vs
NASA's height = 43,795 mi.

032:00:00 7/17/69, 21:32:00
Distance = 237,706,030 m = 147,703.679 mi
vs
NASA's height = 145,357 mi.

013:00:00 7/17/69, 02:32:00
Distance = 121,598,510 m = 75,557.8111 mi
vs
NASA's height = 71,262 mi.

As you can see, Bob's numbers has the Apollo craft traveling faster by a few thousand miles.
Therefore allowing for the craft to spend less time in the belts and zones of the belt.

NASA's fun fact

The daily dosage of space radiation experienced by astronauts on the International Space Station is roughly equal to 8 chest X-rays per day.

www.braeunig.us...
web-hou.iapc.net...

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:32 PM

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Mate, he admits there are errors in his work..

It would only take a slight variation to increase radiation exposure dramatically..

Do you know his margin of error, cause he certainly doesn't tell us ??

The effect of the moon's gravity during the first 4 hours of the flight is pretty negligible. The closest the moon gets to the Earth is 363,104 km. The moon's mass is about 7.36*10^22 kg. Acceleration due to gravity is the gravitational constant ( 6.6726 * 10^-11 Nm2/kg2) times mass over the radius squared. That works out to an acceleration of 0.0000372556 m/s^2. So at the end of the first 4 hours, that works out to a maximum displacement of 3,863 m, or under 0.013% of his calculated distance. Of course the actual difference will be lower, since the moon wasn't at perigee, nor would it remain stationary the whole time. And the earlier in the flight, the less the maximum displacement would be (at 2 hours, it's 966 m for instance).

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:42 PM

It's not just that though..

How accurate do you think his trajectory is??

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:47 PM

Originally posted by FoosM

When I look at some of his numbers:

Bob has:
008:00:00 7/16/69, 21:32:00
Distance = 77,041,344 m = 47,871.2718 mi
vs
NASA's height = 43,795 mi.

032:00:00 7/17/69, 21:32:00
Distance = 237,706,030 m = 147,703.679 mi
vs
NASA's height = 145,357 mi.

013:00:00 7/17/69, 02:32:00
Distance = 121,598,510 m = 75,557.8111 mi
vs
NASA's height = 71,262 mi.

As you can see, Bob's numbers has the Apollo craft traveling faster by a few thousand miles.
Therefore allowing for the craft to spend less time in the belts and zones of the belt.

Bob's numbers are distance from the gravitational center of earth. NASA's numbers are altitude from the Earth's surface. Given Earth's radius is 3,963 miles, subtract that from his numbers and you'll see his numbers are very close to NASAs (and actually turn out to be slightly closer to Earth and slower on the translunar phase due to his ignoring the gravity of the moon)
edit on 31-7-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:50 PM

Originally posted by backinblack

It's not just that though..

How accurate do you think his trajectory is??
Pretty darn accurate in that first 4 hours, well within that 0.013% since the moon is the most significant perturbation the craft would experience (and it doesn't turn out to be much of a pertuberance, as we've seen).

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:54 PM

Is it just the way he draws up the trajectory or does the craft really turn almost 90 degrees once it leaves earth's orbit?

That would be odd as it would lose all forward velocity..

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:57 PM

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Mate, he admits there are errors in his work..

and it would be dishonest of him not to. Engineers are used to working with errors and tolerances.

It would only take a slight variation to increase radiation exposure dramatically..

Do you know his margin of error, cause he certainly doesn't tell us ??

No he doesn't - so feel free to calculate it - in the absence of calculation you really have no actual idea how much difference his admitted error makes, and you are guessing that it would be significant, then trying to tell us by implication that your guess is accurate!!

And we already know you are not all that accurate even when you DO have the facts, since you have said that he ignored the earth's gravity when he clearly did not, ignored all teh various diagrams that showed teh whole VAB, etc!

Sheesh!

edit on 31-7-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:00 PM
Yep. lets all just accept one guy has it perfect without question..

Though he freely admits to multiple omissions ..

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:05 PM

Originally posted by backinblack
Is it just the way he draws up the trajectory or does the craft really turn almost 90 degrees once it leaves earth's orbit?

That would be odd as it would lose all forward velocity..
Not sure what you're tailing about. The craft never leaves the Earth's orbit. it leaves low earth orbit, but it's always still in orbit around the Earth. And as you can see from his table, the flight path changes by about 70 degrees.over the course of the 72 hour trip there (most of the change coming in the first 4 hours, when it's closest to Earth and, as you would expect, most affected by Earth's gravity. Keep in mind that an object in low earth orbit changes its flight path by 360 degrees (1 orbit) over the course of about 90 minutes.

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:13 PM

Originally posted by backinblack
Yep. lets all just accept one guy has it perfect without question..

Though he freely admits to multiple omissions ..
It's not perfect. The guy even admits it's not perfect. It's pretty good, though, and a good illustration and exercise. I certainly don't accept it without question. He shows his math, so you're free to go along and check his work, just as I did, and make sure it's all consistent. If you can't or won't, that's certainly not his fault.

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:20 PM

Originally posted by backinblack
Yep. lets all just accept one guy has it perfect without question..

Feel free to do so, but personally I am happy to accept him as credible.

Though he freely admits to multiple omissions ..

So why would you say he should be accepted as perfect when he has freely admitted omissions??

Why don't you do the calculations to show how much effect his omissions would actually have instead of posing a ridiculous and illogical extreme?

edit on 31-7-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:59 PM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

When I look at some of his numbers:

Bob has:
008:00:00 7/16/69, 21:32:00
Distance = 77,041,344 m = 47,871.2718 mi
vs
NASA's height = 43,795 mi.

032:00:00 7/17/69, 21:32:00
Distance = 237,706,030 m = 147,703.679 mi
vs
NASA's height = 145,357 mi.

013:00:00 7/17/69, 02:32:00
Distance = 121,598,510 m = 75,557.8111 mi
vs
NASA's height = 71,262 mi.

As you can see, Bob's numbers has the Apollo craft traveling faster by a few thousand miles.
Therefore allowing for the craft to spend less time in the belts and zones of the belt.

Bob's numbers are distance from the gravitational center of earth. NASA's numbers are altitude from the Earth's surface. Given Earth's radius is 3,963 miles, subtract that from his numbers and you'll see his numbers are very close to NASAs (and actually turn out to be slightly closer to Earth and slower on the translunar phase due to his ignoring the gravity of the moon)
edit on 31-7-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)

"Height" is distance from the earth's (assumed by default) or moon's center

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 11:09 PM

Originally posted by FoosM

"Height" is distance from the earth's (assumed by default) or moon's center

Way to leave out the rest of that sentence:

From web-hou.iapc.net...

"Height" is distance from the earth's (assumed by default) or moon's center, minus

His numbers subtract the 3,963 mile radius of the Earth, Bob's don't.

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 11:16 PM

What an amazing display of dishonesty from FoosM!!

2nd......

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 11:51 PM

Originally posted by FoosM

1. NASA has seemingly never provided an accurate to scale trajectory of the flights pre or post the flights.
2. Bob had to plot the path himself. So its not officially from NASA, he is not using their numbers.
3. The VABs are a dangerous obstacle that needed to be skirted.

I want to next deal with issue three. Did Apollo simply skim the VAB's edges? Well it turns out NASA admits that at least one mission did not.

www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.braeunig.us...
web-hou.iapc.net...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

What an amazing display of dishonesty from FoosM!!

2nd......

No, just an example of doing too many things at once and rushing an answer without fully reading the material.
The numbers are closer. However, I just established that at least one mission did indeed go through the HEART of the VABs according to NASA. And I suspect that the other missions weren't that far off from there either.

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:53 AM

Why don't you do the calculations to show how much effect his omissions would actually have instead of posing a ridiculous and illogical extreme?

Why don't you quit the BS you seem to call others out for???

Exactly what "ridiculous and illogical extreme" did I pose??

BTW, why can't we get the actual trajectory from NASA rather than this guy basing his on "one" set of figures then NOT allowing for ANY course changes as he clearly states ??

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 10:48 AM

Originally posted by backinblack

Why don't you do the calculations to show how much effect his omissions would actually have instead of posing a ridiculous and illogical extreme?

Why don't you quit the BS you seem to call others out for???

Exactly what "ridiculous and illogical extreme" did I pose??

BTW, why can't we get the actual trajectory from NASA rather than this guy basing his on "one" set of figures then NOT allowing for ANY course changes as he clearly states ??

I believe the extreme is the implication that the approximations used would have any significant effect on the end results. If HB'ers are going to hang their hat on the trajectories used would = death, then they can take the orbital parameters listed, use the known laws of physics and come up with their own predictions. Vary the parameters within reasonable tolerances and see what the trajectory deviations are.

Frankly I don't see where this is going to go though, HB'ers don't believe we went to the Moon. Any trajectory listed by NASA that doesn't result in death by VAB radiation will be automatically gainsaid. Small perturbations from the safe trajectory given won't be believed. The purpose of Braeunig's reconstruction wasn't to determine the radiation does to 3 decimal places but rather show that the flight path purported did not equal death. Again if you think any approximations or errors would change this conclusion ... go ahead and do the math and show the results. Just be sure you don't approximate pi with 3.14159 or even 3.1415926535897932384626433832795 because some nitpicker will cry "ERROR ERROR".

BTW if you wanted to be spoonfeed the trajectory data in 10 min increments back "in the day", it was available. See the foreward in the link I previously provided.

Perhaps if your Google-fu is strong enough you can find MSC-01855 supplement1, volume 2 today.
edit on 1/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: Added pic of MSC-01855 foreward

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:15 PM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

BTW if you wanted to be spoonfeed the trajectory data in 10 min increments back "in the day", it was available. See the foreward in the link I previously provided.

Perhaps if your Google-fu is strong enough you can find MSC-01855 supplement1, volume 2 today.
edit on 1/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: Added pic of MSC-01855 foreward

therefore, the spacecraft traveled through the heart of the trapped radiation belts.

Explain it.

Most Apollo enthusiasts do not know the exact trajectory or how it relates to the location of the Van Allen belts. But they know that they don't know this, and so they frequently do their computations assuming the astronauts passed through the densest parts, and therefore err on the side of overestimating the exposure.

And people like Bob falling for it.

Furthermore, Apollo 11's trajectory through the region of the Van Allen Radiation Belts has been mapped to show how the trajectory was designed to bypass the most intense areas of the this potentially dangerous obstacle...(Although we've been dealing specifically with Apollo 11, all Apollo missions flew similar trajectories.)

This is what I have stated long ago.
NASA shoots themselves in the foot.

www.xmission.com...

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:44 PM

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

BTW if you wanted to be spoonfeed the trajectory data in 10 min increments back "in the day", it was available. See the foreward in the link I previously provided.

Perhaps if your Google-fu is strong enough you can find MSC-01855 supplement1, volume 2 today.
edit on 1/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: Added pic of MSC-01855 foreward

therefore, the spacecraft traveled through the heart of the trapped radiation belts.

Explain it.

What's to explain ? How much of the "heart" of the VAB did Apollo 14 traverse ? My understanding of the general trajectory taken during Apollo was that they spent a short amount of time in a "high" zone of flux rather than a long amount of time in lower zones of flux so as to reduce the cumulative exposure.

BTW it would help if you would place the link to the text you're using so people don't have to search through a list at the end of your post to see where you've gotten the material.

ie -

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by FoosM

Most Apollo enthusiasts do not know the exact trajectory or how it relates to the location of the Van Allen belts. But they know that they don't know this, and so they frequently do their computations assuming the astronauts passed through the densest parts, and therefore err on the side of overestimating the exposure.

And people like Bob falling for it.

Furthermore, Apollo 11's trajectory through the region of the Van Allen Radiation Belts has been mapped to show how the trajectory was designed to bypass the most intense areas of the this potentially dangerous obstacle...(Although we've been dealing specifically with Apollo 11, all Apollo missions flew similar trajectories.)

What did Bob fall for ? Computing the trajectory from the elements provided for by NASA ? Wasn't that the very idea ... to see what NASA said the trajectory was ? Didn't Bob then use the AP-8 maps to overlay his trajectory on ... vs just going by what was claimed ?

Originally posted by FoosM
This is what I have stated long ago.
NASA shoots themselves in the foot.
www.xmission.com...

So where relative to the "heart" of the VABs did A14 go ? What, using your vast knowledge of orbital mechanics and radiation would have been the resulting dose ?

top topics

377