Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM


Maybe this has something to do with it!

IT APPEARS VERY LIKELY THAT SOLAR WIND GEOMETRY PRECLUDES ENERGETIC PROTONS FROM BEING DETECTED IN THE VICINITY OF EARTH

PRECLUDES def "to make impossible"

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM

 

Maybe this has something to do with it!

IT APPEARS VERY LIKELY THAT SOLAR WIND GEOMETRY PRECLUDES ENERGETIC PROTONS FROM BEING DETECTED IN THE VICINITY OF EARTH

PRECLUDES def "to make impossible"

And? Want to explain why the word "detected" is used?

reply to post by FoosM

Dont know what to expect, after successful Apollo missions? How does that make any sense?

Please tell me this is another cheap rhetorical trick. We've spent two pages trying to explain this to you. You cannot possibly be that thick.

NASA does not provide one.
If you have a certified version from NASA please do post.

As I have said, this has come up before on this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can find all the Apollo mission trajectories here:
history.nasa.gov...

Of course, you can reject them as obvious NASA lies without bothering to actually examine them.

Classic example of moving the goalposts. But just to be sure, unsheltered, what's your definition of this? Not being in the LM & CM, or not being 10 feet underground?

In what way is this moving the goalposts? I used the conditional, "could," and now I am speculating on the conditions. For example, even if they were in a deep underground bunker, a sufficiently large CME could damage their equipment, causing their life support systems to fail. Why not? We're speculating. The whole point is that the space radiation environment is continually variable, meaning that unexpected events will arise during long term missions, hence the anxiety for astronaut safety. Further, since radiation exposure is cumulative, more effective shielding will be necessary to mitigate even routine levels of radiation. That's why the radiologist leaves the room when they give you an X-ray. You are getting a tiny dose, but they have given dozens of those tiny doses all day... every day.

In other words, observatories on Earth, not space, recording SIDs are recording them
because their energy is reaching Earth. I conveniently even circled the (+3)
measurements which can mean BeV energy hitting our planet.
(1 to 2) can mean MeV to TeV is reaching the Earth.
Because LDE flares are associated with Solar Proton Events.
This cannot be denied.

Please re-read your source very carefully:

Solar flares of importance 3 or 3+ sometimes generate
energetic protons and heavier nuclei of Bev-energy range

Its called...

SDF NUMBER 450A

And it was a warning.
A warning that NASA did not heed.

The handwritten note puts the chance of a proton event at 25%. You might not like those odds, but you're not NASA material anyway.
ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov...

Originally posted by DJW001

Please tell me this is another cheap rhetorical trick. We've spent two pages trying to explain this to you. You cannot possibly be that thick.

No, your explanations and silly analogies simply suck.
They hold no water. They circle around creating a pool of nonsense.

You can find all the Apollo mission trajectories here:
history.nasa.gov...

Thats an injection, not a trajectory. Are you telling me they never adjusted their course? If not, then for sure that injection sent them into the hot zone of the VABs. Since they had to circle half the Earth

In what way is this moving the goalposts? I used the conditional, "could," and now I am speculating on the conditions. For example, even if they were in a deep underground bunker, a sufficiently large CME could damage their equipment, causing their life support systems to fail. Why not? We're speculating. The whole point is that the space radiation environment is continually variable, meaning that unexpected events will arise during long term missions, hence the anxiety for astronaut safety. Further, since radiation exposure is cumulative, more effective shielding will be necessary to mitigate even routine levels of radiation. That's why the radiologist leaves the room when they give you an X-ray. You are getting a tiny dose, but they have given dozens of those tiny doses all day... every day.

Great, so now you admit that Apollo 12 astronauts should be dead. Since they had many major solar flares spewing all types of radiation their direction. Again, here we agree.

Please re-read your source very carefully:

Solar flares of importance 3 or 3+ sometimes generate
energetic protons and heavier nuclei of Bev-energy range

Yeah, BeV, and if not, you still have MeV, TeV, & GeV. BeV is simply an outrageous scale.
But you only need MeV to cause problems to space vehicles and persons!

The handwritten note puts the chance of a proton event at 25%. You might not like those odds, but you're not NASA material anyway.
ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov...

So thats like, for every four flares 1 will spew out protons?
And we have like, 10 LDE flares? Thats for sure 2 flares sending out protons.
And considering they are LDE flares, a good chance that all 10 did in some degree or another.
And like you said:

Further, since radiation exposure is cumulative, more effective shielding will be necessary to mitigate even routine levels of radiation. That's why the radiologist leaves the room when they give you an X-ray. You are getting a tiny dose, but they have given dozens of those tiny doses all day... every day.

Not to mention of course the Xrays, etc that all the flares will instantly send out.

If you are in space one week and you have 5 to 10 X class flares going off, guess what.
Staying out 1 week is TOO long! There is your dangerous LONG term mission. You dont need to stay out months or years to get an overdose of radiation, it only takes 1 Flare or 1 CME. And Apollo 12 had SEVERAL!

LOL, its proof that they didnt care about the flares.
When they occurred, did they go through emergency procedures?
No. Whats to worry if your only in LEO?

Like I said, either Solar Flares, CME's and other Proton events are not dangerous.
Or the CM, LM, have shields so advanced that NASA cant currently replicate them for future missions... or
the whole thing was fake.

And since you all agree that Solar Flares and CME's are dangerous, because you all want to buy into the fact that long term missions are dangerous due to radiation.
And since none of you have shown that the CM or LM could stop and Xclass flares, or CMEs.
(Heck, you guys cant even agree upon how long Apollo could stay in space based on their DOSE numbers)

I guess whats left is that the missions are fake.

reply to post by FoosM

No, your explanations and silly analogies simply suck.
They hold no water. They circle around creating a pool of nonsense.

You can lead a horse to water....

Thats an injection, not a trajectory. Are you telling me they never adjusted their course? If not, then for sure that injection sent them into the hot zone of the VABs. Since they had to circle half the Earth

The TLI's all took place below 200 nautical miles... around 300 kilometers. Their parking orbits were below the ERB's. The orbital inclination was about 30 degrees, which is optimal for passing through the belts. Please work out the actual math before making assertions. They each made a scheduled mid-course correction but that is irrelevant to their passage through the zone in question. Incidentally, you can plot the exact path of each mission using the elements provided in the table. I did this in High School using cross section paper, a protractor, a compass and a french curve. Try it; you will learn a great deal about spaceflight and astronomy. You can calculate the necessary delta V and compare it to the figures for the Saturn V's performance. Oh, wait... that would require work. (And undermine your belief that it was all a hoax.)

Great, so now you admit that Apollo 12 astronauts should be dead. Since they had many major solar flares spewing all types of radiation their direction. Again, here we agree.

Have you even read anything I've written?

Yeah, BeV, and if not, you still have MeV, TeV, & GeV. BeV is simply an outrageous scale.
But you only need MeV to cause problems to space vehicles and persons!

Depending on the fluence and duration. Despite what Jarrah would have you believe, they were not naked. The inside of the CM had a shielding rating of at least 8g/cm^2.

So thats like, for every four flares 1 will spew out protons?

That's not how probability works. Every flare would have the same probability. In any event, I believe the 25% risk assessment was for the mission as a whole. In other words, there was a 25% chance of a proton event during the course of the entire mission.

And since you all agree that Solar Flares and CME's are dangerous, because you all want to buy into the fact that long term missions are dangerous due to radiation.

Solar flares and CME's are dangerous. No-one has ever disagreed with you about that. Even without flares and CMEs prolonged exposure to the ordinary solar wind leads to cumulative effects, as does prolonged exposure to galactic cosmic radiation.

And since none of you have shown that the CM or LM could stop and Xclass flares, or CMEs.
(Heck, you guys cant even agree upon how long Apollo could stay in space based on their DOSE numbers)

We keep explaining to you that the CM was adequate for the conditions experienced during the Apollo missions, and your failure to understand the meaninglessness of your DOSE question reflects more on you than anyone else.

I guess whats left is that the missions are fake.

An olympic non-sequitur.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM

 

Maybe this has something to do with it!

IT APPEARS VERY LIKELY THAT SOLAR WIND GEOMETRY PRECLUDES ENERGETIC PROTONS FROM BEING DETECTED IN THE VICINITY OF EARTH

PRECLUDES def "to make impossible"

And? Want to explain why the word "detected" is used?

The important WORDS are before that ie FROM BEING DETECTED simple enough to explain Foosm.

Originally posted by FoosM

SDF NUMBER 450A ISSUED 0400Z 19 NOV 1969

So a warning was issued prior to Apollo 12 mission.
Due to the heavy number of solar flares being detected.
Yet the mission continued?
Why?

I've editted out most of your post so as to leave the part I need to have clarified. By "mission" what do you mean exactly ? Because as you can see the report was issued on 11/19/1969 and the Apollo 12 mission started on 11/14/1969. Are you trying to ask why the mission wasn't aborted ? If so I believe the criteria for aborts was previously given in this thread. Are you claiming that this criteria was meet and yet the mission was not aborted ?

As for your post prior to the one I'm responding to ... I'll try to get to that mess later tonight when I have a chance. But are you saying the astronauts should have been killed or injured by the radiation or just that there may have been radiation sufficiently intense to be dangerous ? Despite your Gish Gallop I seem to recall you acknowleding that the CM had adequate shielding from Xrays. So are you now asking about LM shielding in this regard ? Regarding your potential for SEPs with BeV energies ... were there any detected ? If so were they sufficient in quantity to pose a danger ? If you don't know that they were, what's your point ?

Lastly I think "precludes from being detected" means there aren't any protons expected. What spin are yout trying to put on this ? Do you think they were undetectable and yet still dangerous ?

EDIT : If one reads the 3'rd page of SDF 450 ... the part B issued later that day ,,, you see that protons were "very probably emitted" but "none have been detected in the near Earth environment". So at least on 19 Nov 1969 there was no actual SEP event affecting the Apollo 12 mission. And this would seem to indicate that the mission planning to wait until SEPs were detected to do something was reasonable. And that SEPs from flares are ...



wait for it



directional.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
You can find all the Apollo mission trajectories here:
history.nasa.gov...

Thats an injection, not a trajectory. Are you telling me they never adjusted their course? If not, then for sure that injection sent them into the hot zone of the VABs. Since they had to circle half the Earth

OK, perhaps Appendix B of this will be more FoosM-friendly.
link to PDF of Apollo 12 Mission Report : Trajectory Reconstruction and Postflight Analysis

If that doesn't work perhaps we can hire someone to spoonfeed the child.

And I'm still waiting to hear how FoosM knows the trajectory data seen previously is "wrong and biased" and just what he thinks is the true trajectory should have been in order to calculate the dosage received from transit throught the VABs.

Originally posted by FoosM
Yeah, BeV, and if not, you still have MeV, TeV, & GeV. BeV is simply an outrageous scale.
But you only need MeV to cause problems to space vehicles and persons!

I'll try to give a more substantive answer than this one to your other points raised in the post I pulled this from ... but I had to get this out of my system as I wouldn't be able to type properly (for that) due to all the belly laughing.

"BeV is simply an outrageous scale". Really ?!? Since you singled that one out to draw attention to it, how "outrageous" is it compared to a MeV scale ? Much more I'd have to believe. But is it more or less "outrageous" compared to a GeV scale ? And to a TeV scale ?

And if not BeV, I'd still have MeV and GeV and TeV "stuff" ?!? How much GeV "stuff" would I have if there were no BeV "stuff" ? A lot or just a little ?

At this point I'm tempted to try to morph the skit about 'airspeed velocity of a swallow' into 'kinetic energy of a mosquito' and post it here but what would be the point.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Dont know what to expect, after successful Apollo missions? How does that make any sense?

Please tell me this is another cheap rhetorical trick. We've spent two pages trying to explain this to you. You cannot possibly be that thick.

Got any evidence to support that conclusion??

I've collected a bunch of FoosM-isms to respond to in a single post.

Originally posted by FoosM
A low dose flare would, for example, require 9 inches of aluminum to bring it down to 1.5 rads.
A high dose, in the BeV range, would require, like five feet of structure to shield against.

Where did these numbers come from ? Does this purport to represent the dosage from the X rays or particles or ?? after shielding ? Given your inability to comprehend the meaning of SI prefixes, I find I have no faith in your ability to comprehend radiation shielding effectiveness. Can we please see where they came from inorder to judge for ourselves that you haven't misunderstood the context and their derivation. And this is the 1'st time I've heard of "low" and "high dose" ratings for flares. What are these ratings exactly ?

Originally posted by FoosM
And for those people that keep insisting that the radiation from the flares was not heading towards Earth, and consequently the moon. I specifically provided evidence that it did. It comes down to, of course their energy hit the Earth, how else do you think they made measurements from the Earth!

The measurements made are due to the UV and X rays from the flare, not from any particle emission. Are you saying that these UV and (soft) X rays are the problem ? If you're done trying to convince the world the dangerous proton events happened during Apollo, is it time to now talk about X rays ? Because they're 2 different hazards.

Originally posted by FoosM
In other words, observatories on Earth, not space, recording SIDs are recording them because their energy is reaching Earth. I conveniently even circled the (+3) measurements which can mean BeV energy hitting our planet. (1 to 2) can mean MeV to TeV is reaching the Earth. Because LDE flares are associated with Solar Proton Events. This cannot be denied.

"Can" is the operative word. Can = might, not = did. Proton emission does not happen with every flare, even LDE flares. And when it does occurs, those protons may not even be directed towards the Earth. Your own sources (SDF 450 + Solar Longitude links you provided) confirm this. You do understand that the ionic disturbances are caused by the UV and X rays hitting the Earths atmosphere ... don't you ?

BTW you think "BeV" (???) is reaching the Earth with a 3 rating but "TeV" is with only a 2 rating ? Why don't you Google the SI prefixes for M, G (=B) and T and see what they mean because you're obviously clueless in this regard. Here, I've done it for you.
Wiki on SI prefixes

Originally posted by FoosM
Even the "M" class flares can be dangerous in this regard.

Yes, even M class flares might produce SEPs. So did those flares actually do so ? Looking at the link you provided ... the answer is no. (see next response)

Originally posted by FoosM
This is a clear-cut case of Solar Protons and X-class x-rays directed to the Earth and occurring during Apollo. So again, how did Apollo shielding block all this radiation? And if they could block CME's, X-class flares, then there is no radiation problem for long term missions.
But wait, lets take it further.
If you go to the The Solar Longitude Dependence of Proton Event Delay Time You will see that there was indeed a Proton Event measured during Apollo 12. That begs the question, where is all the information on SPEs during Apollo? Why cant we see them?

When did those protons arrive ? From your link there was a flare on 11/24/69. Looks potentially bad doesn't it ? But if you'd bothered to read Table 1 you'd have seen that from the time of the measured radio and x ray emissions to the time the protons arrived (the onset time) was some 1000 minutes. Given the start time of ~9:13 AM for the detected radio emissions from this flare, that places the protons hitting the Earth some 16 hrs and 40 mins later, just after 1:45 AM the next day ... some 2+ hours after splashdown. So how were these protons a threat ? And why doesn't this table show any other proton events during the Apollo 12 mission ? Because there were none. Once again you've cited a source that disproves your claims ! Bravo !!

Originally posted by FoosM
Great, so now you admit that Apollo 12 astronauts should be dead. Since they had many major solar flares spewing all types of radiation their direction. Again, here we agree.

All types in their direction ? No, wrong. At best you have X rays in their direction.

Originally posted by FoosM
So thats like, for every four flares 1 will spew out protons? And we have like, 10 LDE flares? Thats for sure 2 flares sending out protons. And considering they are LDE flares, a good chance that all 10 did in some degree or another.

No again. The probability given in SDF 450A for protons on 11/19 was 25% (and 25%, or a bit higher, for the following days). Turned out the actual proton "probability" was 0% on 11/19, no SEPs were detected (450B). So do you have some measurement of how the a-priori probability actually turned out for the following days ? From your own source (the Solar Longitude link) it would seem nothing (proton-wise) happened until 11/25, after Apollo 12 had returned to Earth.

Originally posted by FoosM
If you are in space one week and you have 5 to 10 X class flares going off, guess what. Staying out 1 week is TOO long! There is your dangerous LONG term mission. You dont need to stay out months or years to get an overdose of radiation, it only takes 1 Flare or 1 CME. And Apollo 12 had SEVERAL!

And none of these flares produced SEPs, which are the major concern, while the mission was ongoing. So you're left with X rays as being the potential hazard to the astronauts. So how what dose, in rems or rads, are you saying should have been received by the astronauts from these X rays ?

Originally posted by FoosM
LOL, its proof that they didnt care about the flares.
When they occurred, did they go through emergency procedures?
No. Whats to worry if your only in LEO?

The mission plan was to measure the received dose and react if it was predicted (from these measurements) that a dose over the allowed looked likely. That didn't happen. Seems to me that it proves the mission planning was proper.

Originally posted by FoosM
Like I said, either Solar Flares, CME's and other Proton events are not dangerous.
Or the CM, LM, have shields so advanced that NASA cant currently replicate them for future missions...
Or the whole thing was fake.

Or you have no idea of what you're talking about and are flailng about like this guy ...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4ef0f0caff1a.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM

 

Maybe this has something to do with it!

IT APPEARS VERY LIKELY THAT SOLAR WIND GEOMETRY PRECLUDES ENERGETIC PROTONS FROM BEING DETECTED IN THE VICINITY OF EARTH

PRECLUDES def "to make impossible"

And? Want to explain why the word "detected" is used?

The important WORDS are before that ie FROM BEING DETECTED simple enough to explain Foosm.

edit on 27-7-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Weak reading comprehension on your part, or wishful thinking. Choose your poison.

What they are saying is that the Solar Wind is causing problems in detecting solar protons from flares.
Why? Because Solar Wind ALSO carries protons. Its not saying that Solar Protons from flares are not hitting the Earth. I know you would want to think that. LOL. Most likely this was due to a CME.

A coronal mass ejection (CME) is a massive burst of solar wind, other light isotope plasma, and magnetic fields rising above the solar corona or being released into space.

Which wasnt defined till after Apollo.

CME's are a sudden release of magnetized plasma caused by magnetic recombination. These explosions aren't nearly as noticeable as solar flares, because they release more radiation than visible light, but that radiation can deal a considerable amount of damage. In fact, CME's weren't even discovered until the 1970's because they were mistaken for solar flares

See, NASA didnt know what they were dealing with out in space.
A CME would be worse than a flare. So choose your poison.


en.wikipedia.org...
www.owlnet.rice.edu...

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
You can find all the Apollo mission trajectories here:
history.nasa.gov...

Thats an injection, not a trajectory. Are you telling me they never adjusted their course? If not, then for sure that injection sent them into the hot zone of the VABs. Since they had to circle half the Earth

OK, perhaps Appendix B of this will be more FoosM-friendly.
link to PDF of Apollo 12 Mission Report : Trajectory Reconstruction and Postflight Analysis

If that doesn't work perhaps we can hire someone to spoonfeed the child.

Something you are well familiar with I suspect. Being fed your propaganda pablum like a good little baby boy...or girl.

I seriously doubt you even understand anything the document is presenting that you linked to.
Most likely you just read the title and hoped answers were in that document.
Why dont you point out the page that contradicts my assertion that the trajectory would have sent Apollo
through the hot spots and not the edge of the VABs?

reply to post by FoosM


Here's a document that specifically addresses Apollo 11 flying "around" the VAB's - www.braeunig.us...

One of hte several diagrams detailing the trajectory:


Is there any reason to assume Apollo 12 wold have done anything different?

Do you have any actual evidence to back up your claim?

it looks to me like you doing the ol' Argument from Ignorance thing again - making a claim, refusing to back it up with evidence ('cos you dont' have any) and challenging everyone else to prove you wrong.

Originally posted by FoosM
Something you are well familiar with I suspect. Being fed your propaganda pablum like a good little baby boy...or girl.

I seriously doubt you even understand anything the document is presenting that you linked to.
Most likely you just read the title and hoped answers were in that document.
Why dont you point out the page that contradicts my assertion that the trajectory would have sent Apollo
through the hot spots and not the edge of the VABs?

Page 74, Appendix B1. Now will you backup your assertion that A12's trajectory would have lead to deadly radiation and that the trajectory published is "wrong and biased" ? Or are you just going to rely on bald assertions and hope nobody calls you on it. And is this mission report sufficient proof that NASA did indeed publish the trajectory, counter to your prior claim ?

And the underlined is pretty amusing coming from someone who clearly didn't understand that BeV and GeV are the same thing. Bookmarked that wiki page yet ?

BTW : Is this the point where you'd insert these ...

Originally posted by FoosM
Yeah, BeV, and if not, you still have MeV, TeV, & GeV. BeV is simply an outrageous scale.

Originally posted by FoosM
Weak reading comprehension on your part, or wishful thinking. Choose your poison.

What they are saying is that the Solar Wind is causing problems in detecting solar protons from flares.
Why? Because Solar Wind ALSO carries protons. Its not saying that Solar Protons from flares are not hitting the Earth. I know you would want to think that. LOL. Most likely this was due to a CME.

So you're proposing that the protons from the solar wind somehow masked the protons associated from the flare ? How would they do that ? Are you trying to say that the weak solar wind was larger than the flare related release (of protons) ... in which case it wasn't much of a release was it ?

And yes they are saying no flare related protons hit the Earth. Otherwise they would have been detected. Perhaps you can explain why your other link made no mention of any increase in protons on 11/19. They were certainly interested in flares and subsequent proton releases.

And then you invent the "likelyhood" of a CME ? Wouldn't the protons from the CME have been detected ? Or would they have been hidden by the solar wind too ?

You really don't understand any of this do you ?

reply to post by FoosM

Why dont you point out the page that contradicts my assertion that the trajectory would have sent Apollo
through the hot spots and not the edge of the VABs?

Why don't you use the data provided to actually plot the trajectory and prove your own point? If that's too difficult, why not e-mail that young aussie genius, Jarrah and have him do it for you? After all, he is a genius, isn't he?

Why can't we just go back to the moon

Originally posted by notonsamepage
Why can't we just go back to the moon

Can you find me a majority of politicians willing to vote the spend the $$s to do it ? Or a majority of the public willing to pay for it ? I don't see either happening anytime in the near future so we'll do what we've been doing for the last 30 years ... make grand speeches and promises and plans that won't require whichever administration is in office to really do anything.

And I'm not sure that, in the near term, it's not the right thing to do.

reply to post by FoosM


Why don't you think again

IT APPEARS VERY LIKELY THAT SOLAR WIND GEOMETRY PRECLUDES ENERGETIC PROTONS FROM BEING DETECTED IN THE VICINITY OF EARTH

GEOMETRY def

is a branch of mathematics concerned with questions of shape, size, relative position of figures.

No mention of strength, energy or power.