Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
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.

Is that were he got the idea from ? So the Sun's magnetic field, which primarily determines the geometry of the solar wind near the Sun, precluded protons from being sent in our direction. I'm sure we'll now be treated to links and graphics of solar wind and Parker spirals all while FoosM doesn't realize he's undermining his original premise.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
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.

edit on 28-7-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: add diagram

Could you find a more biased, misleading site??
That diagram you posted is BS, cropped and resized (by them,not you) to suit their agenda..

Originally posted by backinblack
Could you find a more biased, misleading site??

In what way is the site biased or misleading? He doesn't work for NASA. He's a civil engineer who is also a space enthusiast.

That diagram you posted is BS, cropped and resized (by them,not you) to suit their agenda..

Could you supply any evidence that it's been resized and that it was done on purpose to suit some sort of an agenda?

Also did you read the caption near the bottom?

From the above we can estimate the theoretical radiation dose received; however, we must do some extrapolation because, for a time, Apollo 11's flight path strayed outside the mapped area. I've done my best to estimate how long Apollo 11 was in each of the colored zones, thereby allowing a calculation of the radiation dose. Be advised, however, that the above map is just an average representation of the VARB. In fact, the VARB are not uniformly distributed around Earth, being compressed on the sunward side and elongated on the opposite side. Furthermore, the radiation intensity varies depending on solar activity. The actual geometry and intensity of the VARB at the time and direction of Apollo 11's flight may be different than that shown.

So there is no perfect diagram of the VARB. It's not a static shape. It's always changing depending on what's going on. He just used an average representation of the VARB.

reply to post by jra


Come on jra, even the article says he resized it, I didn't make that up..

Also he cuts out much of the colored blocks on that diagram to give the impression that they pass through less of the VAB than they actually do..

Biased and altered as charged.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jra

 

Come on jra, even the article says he resized it, I didn't make that up..

Also he cuts out much of the colored blocks on that diagram to give the impression that they pass through less of the VAB than they actually do..

Biased and altered as charged.

Huh? He produced a graph of the flight path. Then he resized a diagram of the VABs so it was at the same scale and overlaid his graph on it. How is that "altered?" The X-Y relationships of the two graphs remain the same.

Also, how do know any of the "colored blocks" were cut out? He specifically mentions that his graphed path goes outside the extent of the plotted data for that particular illustration.

reply to post by nataylor


Please be reasonable and call a spade a spade..

His diagram shows that apollo NEVER entered any area other than blue or green blocks.
Given that he himself admits the VAB is NOT constant, do you not find that an extremely biased view?

Also, it's ridiculous to believe he has not removed blocks when you see the diagram has orange blocks at the enter edge.
Would there not be green and blue areas beyond those??
Why has he removed these??

As I stated.
He has made it appear the craft were within the VAB for as little time as he could doctor to suit..

reply to post by nataylor

How is that "altered?" The X-Y relationships of the two graphs remain the same.

That is wrong..
If you look at his original view of the VAB, it takes up more than 90% of the earth by scale.
In the later diagram shown it takes up around 50%..

To scale you say.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nataylor

 

Please be reasonable and call a spade a spade..

His diagram shows that apollo NEVER entered any area other than blue or green blocks.
Given that he himself admits the VAB is NOT constant, do you not find that an extremely biased view?

Also, it's ridiculous to believe he has not removed blocks when you see the diagram has orange blocks at the enter edge.
Would there not be green and blue areas beyond those??
Why has he removed these??

As I stated.
He has made it appear the craft were within the VAB for as little time as he could doctor to suit..

He's overlaying his graph on someone else's work. The source of the plotted data simply didn't include the data that far out. Here's the plot where he used:



This is a plot of data from the CRRES satellite. So no, he didn't remove any of the plotted data.

This is a plot of data from the CRRES satellite. So no, he didn't remove any of the plotted data.

Sorry, he chose an image that leaves out much of the details..
The diagram he used came from Aerospace Corps, not NASA and obviously does not show the full extent of the VAB..

Same result though..

Hard to deny it gives the impression that apollo spent little time in the belt and only in very low dose areas..
This is impossible to confirm due to the erratic nature of the belt..

I still call biased.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nataylor

 

How is that "altered?" The X-Y relationships of the two graphs remain the same.

That is wrong..
If you look at his original view of the VAB, it takes up more than 90% of the earth by scale.
In the later diagram shown it takes up around 50%..

To scale you say.

What are you talking about?

He took this image and overlaid his plot of the spacecraft location, scaled so that the Earth is the same size in both, on top to produce this image. He then does the same thing with other plots of the VABs. So yes, it's all to scale.

Originally posted by backinblack

Hard to deny it gives the impression that apollo spent little time in the belt and only in very low dose areas..

Yeah, that's the point because that's what the planned trajectory was meant to do.

reply to post by nataylor

What are you talking about?

I'm speaking facts..

Are you saying that is the full VAB to scale?
Are you saying it's even an accurate representation?

I'm saying he is using a 'best case scenario" to suit his agenda..
And using data that leaves much out to give a false perspective to people that don't understand what he has done..

Originally posted by backinblack
Are you saying that is the full VAB to scale?
Are you saying it's even an accurate representation?

I'm saying he is using a 'best case scenario" to suit his agenda..
And using data that leaves much out to give a false perspective to people that don't understand what he has done..

All those plots show where the highest intensity regions of the VABs are. The point is to show that the spacecraft skirted the edges of the VABs, staying far away from the highest intensity regions. He illustrates this with 4 different plots that show different aspects of the VABs.

reply to post by nataylor


IMO and it shows in his diagram, he is trying to give the impression that apollo spent very little time in the VAB..
His original link to wiki clearly shows apollo was in the belt the ENTIRE time..

That's misleading IMO and if the other side of this debate did something like that it would be attacked from all of you..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nataylor

 

How is that "altered?" The X-Y relationships of the two graphs remain the same.

That is wrong..
If you look at his original view of the VAB, it takes up more than 90% of the earth by scale.
In the later diagram shown it takes up around 50%..

To scale you say.

As nataylor has already addressed a point I was going to make, let me address the above. I agree that the colored diagram is misleading. It triggered my BS alarm. That said I don't think there was any intentional attempt to BS/deceive. As you mention above there are other diagrams on the site in question that more completely show Apollo's trajectory wrt the VABs. If there was malicious intent why would the author have published these ?

I'll link to the pics below ...







It's one thing to be properly sceptical, another to whip out the "spade card" so quickly.

So with this little distraction put aside, if only for the moment, does any of this speak to the question of radiation exposure ? Is the reported dose consistent, to the extent we can calculate with the available data, with the expected dose from these calculations ? If, given the uncertainties noted, it is ... then HB'ers must surrender the argument that astronauts must have died from transit through the VABs.

Or fall back to the ole standby ... everyone was "in on it" and the (VAB) data is faked.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nataylor

 

IMO and it shows in his diagram, he is trying to give the impression that apollo spent very little time in the VAB..
His original link to wiki clearly shows apollo was in the belt the ENTIRE time..

That's misleading IMO and if the other side of this debate did something like that it would be attacked from all of you..

Again, you don't seem to understand the nature of the VABs. There's no line you cross where you're in it or out of it. It's a gradient of particle flux. His plots illustrate the boundaries of various thresholds. The flux in the outermost layers is a tiny fraction of the flux in the highest intensity regions.

The CRRES plot gives actual radiation dosages of the regions as opposed to the other plots that just show particle flux. He clearly states that the flight path strays outside the mapped data for a period. But as an illustration of just how far away the flight path was from the highest flux and highest dosage regions of the VABs, these plots do a good job.

reply to post by MacTheKnife


Thanks for at least partially agreeing that it was misleading.

IMO he did show a "best case scenario" which does hint at his agenda.

As for whether the astronauts should have died, well I honestly think we'll never know because the radiation levels are ever changing and we didn't have enough data at the time of Apollo to give an accurate assessment..

NASA etc seem to be saying we are now in a time of heavier radiation and it is hindering space flight..
Is that true or spin? I really don't know.

reply to post by nataylor

His plots illustrate the boundaries of various thresholds. The flux in the outermost layers is a tiny fraction of the flux in the highest intensity regions.

BS, the diagram he CHOSE to use LEAVES OUT much of the actual belt..
I say it was deliberate to mislead, you can say whatever is your opinion..

Originally posted by backinblack
BS, the diagram he CHOSE to use LEAVES OUT much of the actual belt..
I say it was deliberate to mislead, you can say whatever is your opinion..

If you have a better plot of dosage rate in the belts, it would be easy to overlay his plot of the flight path on it.

I don't know how it can be misleading when he specifically calls out that the data in that one particular plot, out of the 4 he shows, does not fully cover the flight path. I'm not sure how you can be more forthcoming than that.