Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Go back and brush up on your orbital mechanics. Inclination is just one parameter (element) that determines the path an object will take as is goes around the Earth. The longitude of the ascending (or descending) node, the argument of periapsis and of course the apogee will all determine where (if at all) that object passes through the VABs. That's because the VABs are aligned with the Earth's geomagnetic axis and not it's spin axis. Imagine a donut wrapped around the Earth but somewhat "tilted". If you had bothered to understand Braeunig's page on this ...

... since the VARB circle the geomagnetic equator rather than the geographic equator. We need to transform the coordinates to yet another reference plane. To do so, we must know the inclination and ascending node of the geomagnetic plane in relation to geographic equator. In 1969, the north geomagnetic pole was located at approximately 78.6o N and 70.2o W. The inclination angle is, therefore, 90 - 78.6 = 11.4 degrees. The longitude of the ascending node is 90o ahead of the north geomagnetic pole, or -70.2o + 90 = 19.8o E.

So wait a minute.
Are you, and Bob, saying that the VABs are not situated along the geographic equator?

And even if it was tilted higher or lower, what difference does it make when the VABs basically encircle the Earth! Their size would dwarf a small craft like Apollo. Not to forget that NASA stated that at least Apollo 14 went through the heart, or highest flux, of the belt.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by FoosM
[

The heart of the radiation belt, where fluxes peak

Cant be any clearer now, can it?

Excellent - and where is that from??

Do we know how long Apollo 14 spent in the "heart" to experience it's increased radiation?

And finally, of course, how is this at all relevant to your assertion that radiation is supposedly not actually a problem for long missions?

Dude, the first question you should be asking is, why are people saying that Apollo avoided the most intense parts of the belt in the first place!?

Originally posted by FoosM
So wait a minute.
Are you, and Bob, saying that the VABs are not situated along the geographic equator?

I don't know how it could be any clearer.

... since the VARB circle the geomagnetic equator rather than the geographic equator.

Yes if you circled the Earth about the equator (and at sufficient altitude) you'd be in the VABs. But their "strength" (flux) would vary as you went around the Earth due to their alignment with the magnetic axis.

Originally posted by FoosM
And even if it was tilted higher or lower, what difference does it make when the VABs basically encircle the Earth! Their size would dwarf a small craft like Apollo. Not to forget that NASA stated that at least Apollo 14 went through the heart, or highest flux, of the belt.

If you climb out away from the Earth at a "high angle" relative to the belts, then you can avoid going through the thickest part of the "donut". As I said earlier, my understanding of Apollo's general trajectory was to minimize the total exposure. The flight path nipped the edge of a region of high flux* but for a very short time (~5 mins) in order to NOT spend a much longer time going through larger, longer regions of lesser flux, which would have resulted in a larger TID. Imagine that tilted donut and the spacecraft climbing out and "up" where the donut is tipped "down". Apollo couldn't use a super high inclination so as to avoid all parts of the donut, that would have required too much fuel ... but Apollo could avoid having to go through the thickest part of the donut.

Apollo 11's TLI launch point was very close to the descending node of the geomagnetic plane, which is a very advantageous place to start. As the spacecraft swings around Earth and heads out toward the Moon, it travels in the direction where the geomagnetic plane slopes away from it. In fact, by the time Apollo 11 reaches a distance of about three Earth radii, the geomagnetic axis is tilted almost exactly in the direction of the spacecraft, resulting in maximum separation between Apollo 11 and the geomagnetic plane. This optimal alignment is maintained until the spacecraft is well beyond the limits of the VARB.

Or maybe it's a bagel.


*Again go look at Braeunig's page for A11. Look at the path through the proton belt. I tried to point you to this when I asked ...

Originally posted by myself
How much of the "heart" did A14 go through, a tiny slice or right down the middle ?

My GUESS is that's the "heart" being referred to. Every Apollo trajectory nipped it. If you had done the math you'd have seen this.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
So wait a minute.
Are you, and Bob, saying that the VABs are not situated along the geographic equator?

I don't know how it could be any clearer.

... since the VARB circle the geomagnetic equator rather than the geographic equator.

Yes if you circled the Earth about the equator (and at sufficient altitude) you'd be in the VABs. But their "strength" (flux) would vary as you went around the Earth due to their alignment with the magnetic axis.

But I thought the VABs where aligned along the magnetic equator.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
So wait a minute.
Are you, and Bob, saying that the VABs are not situated along the geographic equator?

I don't know how it could be any clearer.

... since the VARB circle the geomagnetic equator rather than the geographic equator.

Yes if you circled the Earth about the equator (and at sufficient altitude) you'd be in the VABs. But their "strength" (flux) would vary as you went around the Earth due to their alignment with the magnetic axis.

But I thought the VABs where aligned along the magnetic equator.

They are. The donut (or bagel) of the VABs circle around the Earth's magnetic axis, which is tilted with respect to the Earth's spin axis. That's why there's a SAA.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
So wait a minute.
Are you, and Bob, saying that the VABs are not situated along the geographic equator?

I don't know how it could be any clearer.

... since the VARB circle the geomagnetic equator rather than the geographic equator.

Yes if you circled the Earth about the equator (and at sufficient altitude) you'd be in the VABs. But their "strength" (flux) would vary as you went around the Earth due to their alignment with the magnetic axis.

But I thought the VABs where aligned along the magnetic equator.

They are. The donut (or bagel) of the VABs circle around the Earth's magnetic axis, which is tilted with respect to the Earth's spin axis. That's why there's a SAA.

But there is a difference between the geomagnetic equator, and the magnetic equator.

Originally posted by deathlord
Lunar laser ranging experiment

i know it is wikipedia but search anywhere for more info on it. didn't take the time to go through all 528 pages on this but every time i see debates on moon landing all the conspiracy theorists never bring this up or try to refute it. It's a man made laser reflector put on there by apollo 11 and since then has given extremely accurate measures of the moons distance. go to any of the observatories that can check it with their equipment, they will show you shooting the laser to any part of the moon results in no return signal, but put in the coordinates from where apollo 11 placed the reflector and what do you know you get a returned signal.

sorry if anything like this has been posted before, but every time i see stuff about the moon landings being a hoax there is never any mention about this. how else would a man made object perfectly get placed and set up on the moon in the 1960's?

It has been addressed by the CTs. Their response is generally to claim it could've been planted by robots, without evidence, and then to change the subject as quickly as possible. An, on occasion, as Mac said, the bouncing lasers without the retroreflector thing.

Originally posted by FoosM
Why should I define what NASA means by "heart" ?
Why doesn't NASA?
This is all part of the vague games they play.

You tried this on Pg 182 with "major" flares/SPEs. When pressed, you spent several pages avoiding the definition of "major" and then changed the subject.

Except, of course, this time you used the term "heart" repeatedly, yet when asked to define it, act like it was NASA's definition, except you're calling out NASA for not defining their definition. So you've been using a term you're not sure of the meaning of.

Originally posted by lestweforget
Mainly only Americans believe they landed men on the moon, is an accurate statement, i believe. Americans would be very surprised to find out exactly how few non Americans believe in the moon landings.

I believe in them, and am not American. So do most people.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
But I thought the VABs where aligned along the magnetic equator.

They are. The donut (or bagel) of the VABs circle around the Earth's magnetic axis, which is tilted with respect to the Earth's spin axis. That's why there's a SAA.

But there is a difference between the geomagnetic equator, and the magnetic equator.

OK I didn't catch your distinction, let's be very specific then. The VABs circle the geomagnetic equator. The geomagnetic equator is orthgonal to the geomagnetic axis, which runs between the north magnetic pole and the south magnetic pole. The intersection of this axis and the plane in which the geomagnetic equator lies is somewhat due north of the geocentric center of the Earth. Some variation in the belt symmetry should be expected due to the solar wind's effect on the Earth's magnetic feild.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
But I thought the VABs where aligned along the magnetic equator.

They are. The donut (or bagel) of the VABs circle around the Earth's magnetic axis, which is tilted with respect to the Earth's spin axis. That's why there's a SAA.

But there is a difference between the geomagnetic equator, and the magnetic equator.

OK I didn't catch your distinction, let's be very specific then. The VABs circle the geomagnetic equator. The geomagnetic equator is orthgonal to the geomagnetic axis, which runs between the north magnetic pole and the south magnetic pole. The intersection of this axis and the plane in which the geomagnetic equator lies is somewhat due north of the geocentric center of the Earth. Some variation in the belt symmetry should be expected due to the solar wind's effect on the Earth's magnetic feild.

Alright, is there a difference between the geomagnetic equator and the equatorial equator?
And how many degrees from the ecliptic plane is the geomagnetic equator and the equatorial equator if its not the same?

Originally posted by ProphecyPhD
[yvid]wEIqa8_ZSyY[/yvid

Since crews needed the software for training at least 6 months before the mission, and some buffer had to be allowed for last-minute glitches and their solutions, software designs for the AGC, developed at MIT, had to be available a full year before a flight, a very difficult schedule to meet at the time22. As a result of this study and the continued concern of the Apollo Spacecraft Project Office, W. B. Goeckler of the Systems Engineering Division of the program [277] asked James L. Raney of Computational Analysis to do a feasibility study of using a DDP-224 to simulate the AGC23. Goeckler thought it might be possible to make the Honeywell computer think it was the MIT computer and execute the MIT code, thus eliminating the need for rewriting the programs and solving the time problem.

Despite Raney's careful evaluation of the situation and proposed solution, many Apollo project personnel opposed it, simply feeling it was unworkable25. In desperation, NASA approved the attempt at an interpretive simulator and bought the modified computers. In the end, [278] the simulation within a simulation was spectacularly successful. Even though Raney and his team took care to time the subroutines so that they matched execution of the actual Apollo code, the simulated computer was faster than the real article. Following the Apollo 9 earth-orbiting mission that tested the command module and lunar module rendezvous techniques, pilot Dave Scott complained that he had up to 12 seconds less time to react when the computer signaled for a maneuver to begin. This was adjusted for later flights.

history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
OK I didn't catch your distinction, let's be very specific then. The VABs circle the geomagnetic equator. The geomagnetic equator is orthgonal to the geomagnetic axis, which runs between the north magnetic pole and the south magnetic pole. The intersection of this axis and the plane in which the geomagnetic equator lies is somewhat due north of the geocentric center of the Earth. Some variation in the belt symmetry should be expected due to the solar wind's effect on the Earth's magnetic feild.

Alright, is there a difference between the geomagnetic equator and the equatorial equator?
And how many degrees from the ecliptic plane is the geomagnetic equator and the equatorial equator if its not the same?

Yes, there's a difference. The "equitorial" equator is what we all normally think of when someone says "equator" (at least that's what I think you meant). It lies in a plane defined as being orthogonal to the Earth's spin axis and passing through the center of the Earth (let's call this the geocentric plane). The Earth's spin axis and the Earth's magnetic axis are offset by about 11 deg (last I checked). Therefore the geocentric and geomagnetic planes are also offset by about 11 degrees. Additionally the magnetic axis doesn't intersect the spin axis at the center of the Earth. The plane containing the geomagnetic equator intersects the spin axis a few hundred miles north of the center of the Earth, that's why the innermost VAB is closer to the Earth's surface in the south Atlantic region, hence the SAA.

As for ecliptic plane ... if you mean the plane defined by the Earth's orbit ... the Earth's spin axis is tilted about 23.5 degrees with respect to the ecliptic plane. That's why we have seasons.

FYI : The orbit of the Moon lies in a plane that's tilted about 5 degrees from the geocentric plane.

Man, that's a lot of geometry to envision in one sitting !

reply to post by FoosM


What is it about the word "simulation" that gets you barking? The astronauts needed to train on a simulator in order to learn how to do all their various tasks properly. There was a slight delay in hardware development at MIT (solved, if memory serves, by re-writing the software so that less active CPU space was required) so it was necessary to rig the simulator to a different type of computer that was able to simulate the behavior of the actual in-flight computer. It was indeed a simulation within a simulation. Fortunately, MIT had the actual computer and software finished in time, and the rest is history: the Apollo missions successfully traveled to the Moon and back.

Originally posted by WWu777...astronomers appointed by NASA to debate the moon hoaxers such as Phil Plait of www.badastronomy.com, Jay Windley, the Mythbusters program...

Phil Plait is not an astronomer, he's just a blogger. Nobody at Mythbusters is an astronomer either, so far as I know. By the way, I made mincemeat of Phil Plait's moon hoaxing in an ancient Yahoo! group, leading him to claim he'd banned me from his Bad Astronomy forum long before I ever even used it. When I finally did try to use his forum many years later, once he found out who I was he banned me from the forum before I'd even made a single post. He's a pathetic internet troll/blogger. Calling himself a scientist is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated. I don't think he even understands the scientific method, let alone uses it.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

What is it about the word "simulation" that gets you barking?

A simulation is faking. To say that NASA didn't fake manned lunar landing ignores all the simulation aka faking that they did at the Langley Lunar Lander Research facility. I've been bringing this up for decades, that NASA absolutely did perform and film countless hours of fake manned lunar missions. Calling them "simulations" does nothing to negate the fact that NASA faked countless hours of manned lunar missions. The evidence is clear and in the public domain and NASA does not deny all the fake manned lunar missions they carried out. Anyone who says NASA did not fake countless hours of manned lunar missions is either ignorant or deliberately ignoring these facts. NASA DID fake countless hours of manned lunar missions and they are not shy about admitting it.

As for your assertion that the Apollo missions were about sending men to the moon, I have to say you're a bit of a pollyanna. The Apollo missions were ballistic missile tests. It's not a coincidence that the rockets used were identical to the first ICBM's. Since ICBM tests couldn't be hidden (for obvious reasons), the next best thing was to concoct a hoax to explain the battery of missile tests. It's also not a coincidence that the "warheads" they put on the tops of the rockets for the Apollo missions were virtually identical in size and weight to the nuclear warheads that now tip ICBM's.

NASA is now and always has been a military administrative organization, not an organization created to further space exploration or to do raw science. Anyone who believes otherwise, just take a look at the list of all the astronauts that have ever been, see what percentage of them were military men (and just lately women). Hell, the first astronauts were Air Force test pilots ffs. Grow up.

reply to post by StalkingGoogle


Sources for those. I call BS. As if he is a psychic who knows before hand what IP / handle you use.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by deathlord
how else would a man made object perfectly get placed and set up on the moon in the 1960's?

The smarter HB'ers will say it was done with an unmanned lander as the Russians did during the Apollo program. The stupider one's will go off on a tangent about how bouncing lasers of the Moon can be done w/o a retroreflector.

The Soviets did utilize many robotic probes, not just to land on the moon with instruments but also to return lunar regolith samples. Incidentally, virtually all of NASA's lunar regolith was stolen several years ago. The court-imposed price per gram combined with the total cost of the stolen material can be used to calculate that only a couple of kilograms of material exist, not the hundreds of kilograms claimed by the hoax believers.

Also, you can bounce lasers off the moon without a retroreflector. Here's a few things you might want to find out by doing a little research:

1) How closely can they aim the lasers from Earth at the point where the retroreflector is supposed to be? (kilometers would be fine)

2) How large is the dwell of a laser propagating from Earth when it impinges on the moon? (square kilometers would be fine)

3) How many photons per hour are returned from the moon during laser ranging, typically?

4) How many facilities capable of doing so have ever tried "laser ranging" of the moon by aiming at spots other than where the retroreflector is supposed to be?

5) Is laser rangefinding possible here on Earth without retroreflectors? (on a sniper rifle, for example?)

6) Are the laws of physics different on the moon or in space than they are here on Earth?

7) Does it leave a salty taste in your mouth when you lick my nutsack?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by StalkingGoogle

 

Sources for those. I call BS. As if he is a psychic who knows before hand what IP / handle you use.

Contact Phil Plait and ask him if he remembers Plautus.

So you admid that you have no sources? You're just making this stuff up as you go? Was nice talking to you.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
So you admid that you have no sources? You're just making this stuff up as you go? Was nice talking to you.

To be fair, you could argue the points before pointing to a lack of source..

Not every opinion needs a source..