Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by Tomblvd
If anybody was wondering why I was asking Foos to define the terms he was using, his most recent post is glaring example of why.

Add something to conversation or stay out of the conversation.

Originally posted by kinglizard
Certainly there would have been great motivation to accomplish moon missions with or without fakery. There was more on the line than inspiring a nation and fulfilling the wishes of a president. We needed to show the world our way of life was superior to the Russian way of life. A successful landing would solidify that and show everyone the US was the superior world power and more scientifically and technologically advanced. The world would invest with the US.

When you have so much on the line I would not doubt that if a true landing was not technologically possible other ways would have been worked out. Failure was not an option at the time.

edit on by kinglizard because: (no reason given)

And that would have given the USSR every reason to expose Apollo as a fraud. There was no way we could have kept something like that a secret from them.

Very strong evidence against the hoax.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd
If anybody was wondering why I was asking Foos to define the terms he was using, his most recent post is glaring example of why.

Add something to conversation or stay out of the conversation.

Still awaiting your definitions.........

As an important and highly relevant aside, I hope everyone noticed the new posting rule:

"Provide meaningful comments for links, pictures, and videos."

Heh, the "Jarrah White rule"....

Originally posted by FoosM
Now if you dont want make you cry behind your keyboard, watch your insults.

I think you mean "Now if you dont want me to make you cry behind your keyboard, watch your insults."

If it's any consolation though, you already make me cry. Sometimes I cry with laughter when reading your posts, sometimes I cry with the sheer frustration of having to accept how stupid some people are. But either way, don't worry, you have already made me cry

Add something to conversation or stay out of the conversation.

We've been waiting for you to add something useful to the conversation for 187 pages now, but nothing's happened. Maybe you should live up to your own standards.

If I have to learn how to read I wouldn't know what you wrote in your post, now would I?
Now besides that, I have no idea what you are trying to infer with the PFU scale.
I didnt ask for a PFU scale, I asked, at what point are SPE's considered major?

Sorry, you said:

Would you (all) accept
solar proton events with
a flux of over
8 particles (cm^2s ster)^-1 above 8 MeV
as major SPE's?

So I gave you a scale showing that your proton flux level did not even constitute as minor, nor would anything over it to a point. You obviously have some figure in mind, so why not just share Foos? You know, so we can pull your next idea to pieces. I assume you realise that 1 PFU is 1 Proton cm^2 s^-1 sr^-1 by the way? (Which is what I assume you were trying to write).

As you have problems understanding context, perhaps it would be easier if you explain what you consider to be a major SPE which several members have been asking of you for some time now. Because, frankly, we're not the ones having problems understanding it so it would be useful in helping us educate you if you actually explain what it is concerning you so we can set your mind at ease.
Help us to help you Foos, help us to help you.

So so far we have the Apollo 12 mission with 5 major flares, completely dispelling the notion that
major flares did not occur during Apollo. With that in mind:

No one has been able to provide any evidence on how windows in the CM, LM, or for the matter helmets afforded any protection against the various radiation found in interstellar space besides the kind you can stop with sunblock or paper.

We have no evidence of how Apollo film magazines afforded any protection against the various radiation found in interstellar space besides the kind you can stop with sunblock or paper.

We have also been able to determine radiation in space is omnidirectional.

Two criteria can be used to define when a flight is significantly impacted by an SPE. Criterion 1 says that a flight is impacted if an SPE occurs that reaches the "alert" (10 particles cm–2s–1sr–1) stage. Criterion 2—the "significant dose" criterion—says that it is impacted if an SPE occurs with an accumulated free-space dose of 108 particles cm–2 (omnidirectional fluence) and energies above 10 MeV.

So saying that rotating the space-craft to block the fluence of a major SPE would be like saying rotating a submarine while its submerged will make it less wet.

So far, we have no evidence that any Apollo mission was alerted to major solar flares and proton events.
read this:

Criterion 1 says that a flight is impacted if an SPE occurs that reaches the "alert" (10 particles cm–2s–1sr–1) stage...

When criterion 1 is met, the flight's ground support personnel must be placed in a state of radiation alert

, affecting decisions on when to launch, which astronauts to assign to which tasks, EVA schedules, and when to return.

Keep that in mind if I or someone else presents to you a major SPE occurring during an Apollo mission. As I said, the lack of warning proves the missions were fake. It doesn't matter if the flares or SPE's were actually deadly for any astronauts in interstellar space, what matters is that they occured and no steps were taken.

Its should become painfully clear to all readers that NASA focused their Apollo design to withstand HEAT and not RADIATION. their RADIATION measures were designed only for LEO.

Here is proof positive:

Apollo 7: 0.16 rad (Earth orbit) 10 days
Apollo 8: 0.16 rad ("moon flight") 8 days

One went to the moon, one stayed in Earth orbit.
Similar radiation exposure. How can interplanetary space
be similar in terms of radiation to LEO?

Apollo 9: 0.20 rad (Earth orbit) 10 days
Apollo 10: 0.48 rad ("moon flight") 8 days
Apollo 11: 0.18 rad ("moon flight") 8 days

Apollo 11, even after landing on the moon, has less radiation
exposure to Earth orbit missions.

Apollo 12: 0.58 rad ("moon flight") 10 days
Apollo 13: 0.24 rad ("moon flight") 5 days
Apollo 14: 1.14 rad ("moon flight") 9 days
Apollo 15: 0.30 rad ("moon flight") 12 days
Apollo 16: 0.51 rad ("moon flight") 11 days
Apollo 17: 0.55 rad ("moon flight") 12 days

Now compare Apollo to Gemini:

Gemini 3 23 millirads 4 hrs
Gemini 4 46 millirads 4 days - Apollo 13: 0.24 rad ("moon flight") 5 days
Gemini 5 176 millirads 7 days - Apollo 14: 1.14 rad ("moon flight") 9 days
Gemini 7 164 millirads 13 days - Apollo 17: 0.55 rad ("moon flight") 12 days

I would submit that Apollo probably had improved shielding over Gemini as how the Shuttle had
better shielding than Apollo:

Shuttle (Average Skin Dose) ~433 mrem/mission (LEO)
Apollo 14 (Highest Skin Dose) 1,400 mrem / mission (probably LEO)
Skylab 4 (Highest Skin Dose) 17,800 mrem/mission (LEO-based on Apollo technology)

Does anyone see any radiation doses that would be commiserate to traveling out of LEO ?
No.


www.nap.edu...
www.astronomycafe.net...

Originally posted by FoosM
So so far we have the Apollo 12 mission with 5 major flares, completely dispelling the notion that
major flares did not occur during Apollo.

Please provide evidence of these 'major' flares complete with data.

No one has been able to provide any evidence on how windows in the CM, LM, or for the matter helmets afforded any protection against the various radiation found in interstellar space besides the kind you can stop with sunblock or paper.

We have no evidence of how Apollo film magazines afforded any protection against the various radiation found in interstellar space besides the kind you can stop with sunblock or paper.

I was going to start writing up a response to this, but then you haven't read it before and you won't read it now. So why bother?

We have also been able to determine radiation in space is omnidirectional.
....
So saying that rotating the space-craft to block the fluence of a major SPE would be like saying rotating a submarine while its submerged will make it less wet.

Foos does it again, you claim you can read.. But maybe the question should be do you read?

Cast your.. ahem.. mind back to pages 175 and 176 of this pantomime where I gave actual, recent, data.

SPEs were observed by MARIE that were not observed by sensors near Earth, confirming that SPEs are directional.
en.wikipedia.org...

Emphasis mine.

Now read it, study it.. take a break.. Come back and read it again. Keep doing this until it sinks in Foos.

I can't even be bothered to write anything else. Everything you have brought up has been addressed again and again and again. You ignore it, then come back later and announce that you are correct in the hope that people will just take your word for it without checking.

And for the millionth time, what exactly constitutes a 'major' SPE in your opinion Foos? One that would be a danger? You seem to be avoiding the issue, what's the matter?

Go and sit in the corner Foos and put your hat on, it's the one shaped like a cone with a big 'D' on it.

This now a certified farce.

The figure FoosM gave for his 'major' event was simply inutterably ridiculous. It puts his whole radiation argument into perspective, namely he hasn't got the remotest clue - it is stuff that doesn't even merit a waste paper basket. A sewer, perhaps...


King Lizard, do look over the entire thread. Good luck! And if you find any argument particularly compelling, and have at least a passing understanding of that subject, do come back and put your case.

To have someone take up the topic with a little common sense, and exposure to science, would be a refreshing change. And if you argue your points without the 'FoosM' approach (ie dodging, weaving, changing the subject, ignoring facts, repeating long debunked claims and pretending you know what you are talking about....) you'll find your reception is quite kind..


Lastly, FoosM, I'm really surprised at you. You forgot the prime rule of the tinfoilhat brigade.

NEVER, EVER produce a figure that you don't fully understand, in the hope that you accidentally get it right. Because if you get it wrong (and oh boy, did you ever miss the ballpark there, by many many orders of magnitude) it will remain a pointer to your ignorance on this topic henceforth.

Originally posted by FoosM
So so far we have the Apollo 12 mission with 5 major flares, completely dispelling the notion that
major flares did not occur during Apollo. With that in mind:

If by "in mind", you mean "I imagined". Because, to put it mildly, you are assuming facts to be true that are not in evidence. To be a little less polite, you're making crap up, this time in a big way.

No one has been able to provide any evidence on how windows in the CM, LM, or for the matter helmets afforded any protection against the various radiation found in interstellar space besides the kind you can stop with sunblock or paper.

See what happens when you don't read other people's posts?

We have no evidence of how Apollo film magazines afforded any protection against the various radiation found in interstellar space besides the kind you can stop with sunblock or paper.

I was going to post a link on the experiments done examining the best ways to transport film in space, but really, why? You won't read it anyway.

We have also been able to determine radiation in space is omnidirectional.

Two criteria can be used to define when a flight is significantly impacted by an SPE. Criterion 1 says that a flight is impacted if an SPE occurs that reaches the "alert" (10 particles cm–2s–1sr–1) stage. Criterion 2—the "significant dose" criterion—says that it is impacted if an SPE occurs with an accumulated free-space dose of 108 particles cm–2 (omnidirectional fluence) and energies above 10 MeV.

So saying that rotating the space-craft to block the fluence of a major SPE would be like saying rotating a submarine while its submerged will make it less wet.

After all the posts and discussion, you STILL don't understand the basics of radiation. Some radiation is omnidirectional and some is unidirectional.

If the opposite were true, why don't we suffer the effects of every solar flare or CME produced by the sun? It has to be pointed in OUR DIRECTION. Hence, not omnidirectional.

Here is proof positive:

Apollo 7: 0.16 rad (Earth orbit) 10 days
Apollo 8: 0.16 rad ("moon flight") 8 days

One went to the moon, one stayed in Earth orbit.
Similar radiation exposure. How can interplanetary space
be similar in terms of radiation to LEO?

I guess we throw out all those posts of yours about the dozens of flares a day? Guess what? There are different levels of radiation in space everyday.

Geez, isn't that the entire point of all these pages about "major" flares?????

Can we call Foos a troll now?

Originally posted by FoosM

blah blah blah

Two criteria can be used to define when a flight is significantly impacted by an SPE. Criterion 1 says that a flight is impacted if an SPE occurs that reaches the "alert" (10 particles cm–2s–1sr–1) stage. Criterion 2—the "significant dose" criterion—says that it is impacted if an SPE occurs with an accumulated free-space dose of 108 particles cm–2 (omnidirectional fluence) and energies above 10 MeV.

blah blah blah

Couple of points, in the above extract where it says 108 particles cm2 it is actually 10^8. So for anyone that isn't comfortable with exponents thats

100,000,000 Particles / cm^2

And secondly as Foos doesn't like to credit his quotes this is at least one source of the document.

Solar Particle Events and the International Space Station

So you're comparing modern practices and the LEO environment to Apollo? Why Foos? At least the data is useful though. Another clue for you Foos, look into the 'South Atlantic Anomaly' and the radiation levels involved with flying through it, which the ISS does every day.. Several times.. I assume you realise the SAA is part of the 'deadly' inner Van Allen belt that comes very close to Earth at that point?

reply to post by FoosM


What does the protocol for radiation precautions for the ISS have to do with Apollo? The ISS crews are in space for a very long time, a great deal more is known about the nature of solar radiation and there are a great many more sophisticated instruments watching the Sun now than in 1969. Are you implying that because Apollo never implemented protocols that weren't around for another few decades, that it must have been a hoax?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

What does the protocol for radiation precautions for the ISS have to do with Apollo? The ISS crews are in space for a very long time, a great deal more is known about the nature of solar radiation and there are a great many more sophisticated instruments watching the Sun now than in 1969. Are you implying that because Apollo never implemented protocols that weren't around for another few decades, that it must have been a hoax?

Weren't you the one who provided the protocols for Apollo ?
If not, what makes you think Apollo had no protocols for SPE's and Sun Flares?
Thats your defense?

Originally posted by AgentSmith

We have also been able to determine radiation in space is omnidirectional.
....
So saying that rotating the space-craft to block the fluence of a major SPE would be like saying rotating a submarine while its submerged will make it less wet.

Foos does it again, you claim you can read.. But maybe the question should be do you read?

Cast your.. ahem.. mind back to pages 175 and 176 of this pantomime where I gave actual, recent, data.

SPEs were observed by MARIE that were not observed by sensors near Earth, confirming that SPEs are directional.
en.wikipedia.org...

Emphasis mine.

Now read it, study it.. take a break.. Come back and read it again. Keep doing this until it sinks in Foos.

Has nothing to do with what I said.
Follow your own advice and think about it.

reply to post by FoosM


What defense? What you did was the equivalent of citing the launch procedures for a Harrier jump jet and claiming it proved that there was no Battle of Midway.

reply to post by FoosM


So Foos, where is this "show stopper" radiation data you were promising 6 pages ago?

Or was that colossal "PLONK" on the last page it?

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM
So so far we have the Apollo 12 mission with 5 major flares, completely dispelling the notion that
major flares did not occur during Apollo. With that in mind:

If by "in mind", you mean "I imagined". Because, to put it mildly, you are assuming facts to be true that are not in evidence. To be a little less polite, you're making crap up, this time in a big way.

Back up your response.

No one has been able to provide any evidence on how windows in the CM, LM, or for the matter helmets afforded any protection against the various radiation found in interstellar space besides the kind you can stop with sunblock or paper.

See what happens when you don't read other people's posts?

Back up your response.

We have no evidence of how Apollo film magazines afforded any protection against the various radiation found in interstellar space besides the kind you can stop with sunblock or paper.

I was going to post a link on the experiments done examining the best ways to transport film in space, but really, why? You won't read it anyway.

Im not the only one reading this thread.
You got proof that film magazines were radiation proof then post it.

We have also been able to determine radiation in space is omnidirectional.

Two criteria can be used to define when a flight is significantly impacted by an SPE. Criterion 1 says that a flight is impacted if an SPE occurs that reaches the "alert" (10 particles cm–2s–1sr–1) stage. Criterion 2—the "significant dose" criterion—says that it is impacted if an SPE occurs with an accumulated free-space dose of 108 particles cm–2 (omnidirectional fluence) and energies above 10 MeV.

So saying that rotating the space-craft to block the fluence of a major SPE would be like saying rotating a submarine while its submerged will make it less wet.

After all the posts and discussion, you STILL don't understand the basics of radiation. Some radiation is omnidirectional and some is unidirectional.

thanks for proving my point.

If the opposite were true, why don't we suffer the effects of every solar flare or CME produced by the sun? It has to be pointed in OUR DIRECTION. Hence, not omnidirectional.

LOL.

Let me spell it out, not only for you but also for whats his name who seems to have a difficulty understanding
what is being said.

We are discussing SPEs directed towards Earth & its moon. Not Mars, not Pluto.
If a spacecraft is in Earth or Moon orbit, will it be hit by the SPE?
Yes or No?

Here is proof positive:

Apollo 7: 0.16 rad (Earth orbit) 10 days
Apollo 8: 0.16 rad ("moon flight") 8 days

One went to the moon, one stayed in Earth orbit.
Similar radiation exposure. How can interplanetary space
be similar in terms of radiation to LEO?

I guess we throw out all those posts of yours about the dozens of flares a day? Guess what? There are different levels of radiation in space everyday.

Geez, isn't that the entire point of all these pages about "major" flares?????

Can we call Foos a troll now?

Tom, get to the point.
Explain how missions to moon have similar radiation exposures as missions in LEO.
Nobody cares about what you want to call me.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

What defense? What you did was the equivalent of citing the launch procedures for a Harrier jump jet and claiming it proved that there was no Battle of Midway.

Whatever.

Did you or did you not post Apollo protocols for flares and SPE's?
And if not, are you making the claim there were no protocols for such events?
And if not, why would NASA not have protocols for such events?
Were flares & SPE's not dangerous to the Apollo missions?

Originally posted by FoosM

Back up your response.

Give me one good reason.

Anybody reading this thread has had the answers to all the issues discussed long ago. You just ignore the posts and pretend nothing was said.

All the information is on this thread already. I'm done doing your work for you.

Originally posted by Tomblvd
reply to post by FoosM

 

So Foos, where is this "show stopper" radiation data you were promising 6 pages ago?

Or was that colossal "PLONK" on the last page it?

These excursions into cislunar space placed the astronauts at risk of receiving life threatening radiation exposures if a large SPE were to occur. Fortunately, no major solar proton events occurred during these missions.

srag-nt.jsc.nasa.gov...

Tell me, what did they mean by 'no MAJOR solar proton event"?
What is their definition?

If I provide a document with the exact same wording and it shows a MAJOR PROTON EVENT occurring during Apollo, what will you say about NASA's statement?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd
reply to post by FoosM

 

So Foos, where is this "show stopper" radiation data you were promising 6 pages ago?

Or was that colossal "PLONK" on the last page it?

These excursions into cislunar space placed the astronauts at risk of receiving life threatening radiation exposures if a large SPE were to occur. Fortunately, no major solar proton events occurred during these missions.

srag-nt.jsc.nasa.gov...

Tell me, what did they mean by 'no MAJOR solar proton event"?
What is their definition?

If I provide a document with the exact same wording and it shows a MAJOR PROTON EVENT occurring during Apollo, what will you say about NASA's statement?

As has been pointed out over and over and over, it would mean NOTHING, because the term "major" is not specific enough for what you are alleging.

From your earlier abortion of a post, it is obvious you know nothing about proton events and you are just looking for a specific word to substantiate your claim. Well science doesn't work like that. It uses numbers. And you showed very well how bad you are at numbers.

Now, post your "evidence" so we can tell you what it really means.