|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 12, 2009 13:05:18 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 10, 2009 22:29:22 GMT -4
Bear in mind there is not a viewpoint that would actually allow you to look along all the planes as they are shown in that diagram.Yes, that's really the only criticism that can be mounted against your drawing. It expresses enough of the important orientation relationships so that one can see the problem is not so easy as it seems. But the important planes -- seen edge-on in this drawing -- don't really share the line of sight in common. These things get very hard to draw in 3D.And very hard to conceptualize in real life. That's why the best way to deal with them practically is to think of orbits as purely abstract mathematical entities and simply trust the math.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 10, 2009 13:03:14 GMT -4
Im seeing it in 3D.No, you're seeing it in 1D. You consider only geodetic altitude. You are not even remotely considering either the transfer orbit or the belts as three-dimensional entities oriented variously in three dimensions. In other words, it doesn't help at all with my questions.Your questions all presume that your understanding of the geometry is complete and correct. It is not, and you resist all efforts to be educated. Lets make it simple...No, that's your problem: you're trying to make it simple. Let's make it correct instead. do any of you dispute the information I quoted from NASA that for about 4 to 5 hours the Apollo 11 craft was within the range of the Van Allen Belts?I dismiss any statement that includes the phrase "in range of the Van Allen belts." What is that supposed to mean from an astrophysics standpoint? Belts that circle our entire Earth except at the poles?No, I dispute "except at the poles," because it is inexact. Latitude, longitude, and geodetic altitude are the three most important variables that describe the exposure profile of the trapped radiation belts. There is an enormous amount of variance, and you are simply ignoring it. Sounds like a situation where the shortest distance between point A and B is a straight line.No orbit is ever a straight line. The inclinations of the translunar trajectories are published. The orbital elements are published. You may either use the exact publish figures, in which case you will have your answer regarding the Van Allen belts; or you may continue to embarrass yourself by handwaving about straight lines. Im just not seeing any evidence that the Apollo craft left Earth and made some big longitudinal curve to go over the belts...Then you need to study how orbits work. The translunar trajectory for each mission had a certain inclination. When you work that out and plot it against the positions of the Van Allen belts, then you will see it. Stubbornly trying to reduce the problem to your level of understanding does not produce evidence of fakery. ...thats should be easier to look at since it was basically a straight path, right?No. No orbit is ever a straight line. The return portion of the transfer orbit -- the transearth trajectory -- was largely the same as the departure trajectory. Thats more than 2 hours going through the VABs or 3 hours and 30 minutes if you want to use the 40.000 mile distance.No. You are still considering the problem only in the one dimension: geodetic altitude. That is as wrong as it can possibly be. Until someone can show me different...We've been doing nothing but that. You keep rejecting it and trying to substitute your own simplistic understanding. Please endeavor to learn something about orbital mechanics. Tell you the truth, I wouldn't be surprised if they found radiation belts around the moon as well.Since the Moon has no significant magnetic field, I can't imagine how that would occur. And that pretty much explains why you don't understand much about the geometry of Earth's trapped radiation belts. Talk about cherry picking quotes, comparing this to published...What about that quote is cherry-picked? It is Van Allen's direct, solicited response to you and your "hoaxers." ...show me where he published a scientific paper or article where he reverses his previous published claims prior to Apollo.He didn't reverse anything. You are the one cherry-picking quotes from his earliest papers and trying to claim that this means he believes Apollo couldn't have happened. It is you who draws the connection between Van Allen's pre-Apollo work and the feasibility of Apollo. Therefore it is to you that we turn to for justification. You have the burden to prove that all those quotes from the late 1950s are Van Allen trying to prove that Apollo was impossible. Since Van Allen worked on the Apollo project, I think you're going to have a hard time. where does he retract the dangers of the VABs in the quote?He doesn't retract the danger. He repudiates your understanding of the danger. That's the problem. You don't let the notion enter your head that you might just possibly be wrong about Van Allen's early (or later) work on the trapped radiation environment. This last quote from him is Van Allen gently correcting that understanding. But apparently you're too stubborn to be corrected by an eminent scientist. ...when every scientist says...Please give the names of three qualified, practicing, degreed astrophysicists who clearly state that the Apollo missions were fake and clearly state that it is the Van Allen belts that are the reason they must have been faked. Put up or shut up. Anyway, I have to give this to the hoaxers...And who elected you the arbiter of these principles? You clearly don't understand anything about the standard models of trapped radiation. You clearly don't understand anything about magnetic fields. You clearly don't understand anything about orbital mechanics. And you clearly don't accept the opinion of an eminent scientist in the field, speaking directly about your beliefs. You are as ignorant and biased as they come. Your awarding of points as if you are some dispassionate judge in the matter is just silly. (vague remark)The remark is not vague. It very clearly, very explicitly, very directly tells you that you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry, for me its the end of that discussion.As well it should be, if you're going to directly contradict the explicit statement of the man upon whose work you have attempted to make a case.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 10, 2009 3:34:56 GMT -4
I linked most of the places that I got the info.Unfortunately it is not possible to link to the source of your (mis)interpretation of that information, because that is you. And it is to you that we turn to receive a justification for the interpretation. I find the arugment that NASA would recklessly risk the lives of their astronauts is honestly a silly argument.It would be a silly argument if that's what was being made. NASA is "reckless" only because you either ignorantly or willfully exaggerate the risk. Maybe NASA (and the rest of the appropriately qualified scientific authorities) don't see the risk to be as great as you've made it out to be. So I doubt NASA would send anyone into a sea of radiation until they were absolutely sure that it was completely safe.There is middle ground between recklessness and timid caution. Crab fishing is not completely safe, yet there are people who risk their lives to do it just so you can have a tasty treat on the dinner table. Likewise there are people willing to shoulder a risk in order to expand the frontiers of knowledge, and to fly some really cool spacecraft. That does not absolve the engineers from their obligation to make it as safe as possible. But it was not nor will ever be "completely safe." When you run your own space program you can decide how much risk to take. Until then, your personal standards of risk do not apply. You cannot rationally use them to measure whether someone else achieved a certain thing or not. As for the American taxpayer, I'm pretty sure he understood the risk of space travel, and that this understanding had much to do with the ticker-tape parades and other accolades that were heaped upon the returning crews. You don't get to be a hero by waiting until you're absolutely sure it's perfectly safe. Well I thought the VAB issue was over. But I guess not, not for me at least.It is for Dr. Van Allen. He heard the hoax theories, especially the part about how the trapped radiation belts he discovered would have prevented travel to the Moon. He specifically repudiated those theories, called them "nonsense," and reiterated that nothing about the cislunar radiation environment would have prevented the Apollo missions. You seem to be one to urge others to take statements at what appears to be their face value. Dr. Van Allen cannot have stated the case any more succinctly. If you're not willing to accept what he plainly stated, then please have the courtesy to leave the subject alone. "Duration duration...." Yes I get it. But I disagree it solves the problem, it just asks for more clarification.Not to those properly qualified in health physics and space engineering. You are trying to impose protocols intended for longer missions upon short-term missions. You do not seem to understand that the risks to which you insist on handwaving are sufficiently mitigated by a shorter-term mission. The chances of lethal solar activity were miniscule. The threat from GCR was non-existent. First what was the duration that the craft was flying through the belts? I asked this in my last post but nobody commented. So I will ask again.The answer was given. It was that your question was too simplistic. You expect there to be a precisely-timed period for operation within "the belts." The trapped radiation environment is not that cut-and-dried. If you want to establish what you believe to be an acceptable lower threshold for absorbed dose, then it can be roughly determined how long the spacecraft was subjected to that level or greater. I would say that's below the Van Allen Belts. Safe area.No. I described why your formulation of the problem doesn't work. The interaction between an outbound translunar trajectory and the trapped radiation belts is a complexly three-dimensional problem. You're trying to reduce it to a mere geodetic altitude. The universe will not change its behavior simply so it can fit within your understanding of it. Now were they in the belts for a duration of 4 to 5 hours and if not, why not?Why not? Inclination. Please either take the time to learn something about orbital mechanics or stop arbitrarily deciding who is right and who is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 9, 2009 15:30:15 GMT -4
Of course this is your opinion. But regardless, he did make the statement.And if this were a court of law that might mean something. But it's not; it's science, and the science of cislunar radiation and magnetospherics is no mystery. Legions of professionally qualified scientists study this and are aware of what Apollo was and what it was meant to accomplish. Our knowledge of the radiation environment between Earth and Moon is complete enough that we can guarantee worldwide commercial activity in that region. Dozens of spacefaring nations operate spacecraft there. Do you really think NASA can hide those facts from the world? But along comes a conspiracy theorist and stumbles through a few basic calculations or tosses out a few diagrams, and interprets all that such that Apollo "must" have been faked. Isn't it simply more likely that all the world's experts are right, and that the novice and wrongly-motivated conspiracy theorist has made a mistake? And didn't Van Allen state in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid?Probably. And in about 2005 he stated explicitly that the hoax theories were nonsense and that cislunar radiation was not a show-stopper for Apollo. If you're going to invoke Dr. Van Allen, why don't you pay attention to the real man's work and the real science instead of trying to lay up a house of cards based on cherry-picked statements from decades ago. But here is the problem, who cares about skipping the VABs when space outside of the VABs is considered even more deadly, right?Wrong. The Van Allen belts represent a constant, quantifiable risk. The cislunar environment outside the trapped radiation belt is generally quiescent. GCR is significant only for exposures with durations measured in months or years. Solar activity is sporadic, but becomes a statistically greater risk as the duration of missions increases. There is no significant risk for a two-week mission. This should put the space craft within the range of the inner belt, right?Depends on the inclination. Now doesnt this put the vehicle in the outer belt?Depends on the inclination. You are oversimplifying the flight path. Where does the 1 hour through the belts figure come from then? Is that for when they returned?It's a bit more involved than that. An orbit is an elliptical path lying within a plane inclined at a certain angle and orientation with respect to its primary (Earth). The translunar trajectory is simply an elongated orbit. The exact interaction between any such orbit and the Van Allen belts transcends crude 2D diagrams or abstract altitudes. It is a fully three-dimensional problem. The exposure profile for transiting the trapped radiation belts must be derived and then integrated over time. The 1-hour figure derives from this profile, representing one hour of significant exposure along that profile. Fine, but it still: " "Secondaries" can be worse for astronauts' health than the original space radiation!" from materials "like aluminum or lead."Which? Aluminum or lead? They are not in the same class when it comes to generating secondary radiation. The only known way to stop cosmic rays safely is by providing a sufficient thickness of matter for them to be slowed down.No. The way to stop cosmic rays is to realize that they occur so infrequently that they can be safely ignored for a two-week mission. The attenuation situation you describe is for missions lasting years, where the accumulation of the occasional GCR becomes biologically significant. You cannot fake your way through this. You must consider the duration of the mission. Is that better? Because I dont see the difference. He said what he said.But he knows what he is talking about. Again, this is not a court of law. You don't get to say "Gotcha!" when the witness seems to slip up. You're trying to discover the truth, not fool a jury into deciding in your favor. If you don't know what he's talking about, you don't get to pretend that it's relevant to your claims. GCR is composed of very rare, but very powerful particles. In two weeks you will not absorb enough of them or their secondary effects to have a biological effect. However, for missions lasting several months or years, the accumulated effect of GCR is something we need to think about. To attenuate that level of exposure down to where it poses no biological effect on those long missions, we need to provide more effective shielding. You really think they would trust what the Soviets were saying about their data?The Soviets were publishing scientific data in the usual journals. You dismiss it as "propaganda." Why? Do you have any evidence that the Soviet scientific publications were erroneous or fabricated? So why now and not then?Because we are contemplating different durations and types of missions now than we were then.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 7, 2009 4:25:51 GMT -4
The calculation is therefore... No, that's not what I was asking. You compute the theoretical shadow length that would occur if the ground were perfectly flat and level. That's fine, albeit fairly meaningless in any real world analysis that must accommodate surface contour. But what I was asking was how you estimated the length of the actual shadow in the photograph. You seem to compare the shadow in the photograph with what you compute would have to be the shadow length. Please explain how you estimated the actual shadow length.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 2, 2009 20:45:40 GMT -4
Yep, the same old video from the Viral Factory keeps making the rounds. Even when people come right out and say, "This is not a real film, we just made it ourselves as a joke and video virus, and here's how we did it," there are some who will still not believe anything except what they first set out to believe.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 1, 2009 11:55:07 GMT -4
On the photos the area looks flat with no general preference for any inclination.Except, of course, for your "anomalies." In real photographic interpretation, that evidence would challenge the interpretation that the ground is flat. You're simply begging the question. With such a 15° sun inclination the shadow would be 40% longer compared to my estimation...I asked you how you derived your estimation. Please provide an answer. Otherwise it's just more question-begging. ...considering that there was no experience in making pictures on the Moon and transmitting videos from there:Apollo 8 send live television from lunar orbit. Explain why this is not relevant experience. 1. Best quality pictures – without any risk.But under the purported circumstances low quality images would be expected. You cannot say simultaneously that there was no experience and that there was the expectation of high quality. Your argument is a non sequitur. 2. There was most probably not enough time for such a picture series...Why not? 3. Pictures and video taken in the same studio fit perfectly together.Pictures and video taken together on the Moon fit together too. 4. No risk of interrupts in the “live” broadcast.Again, under the purported circumstances an interruption in television coverage would not be unexpected. You are proposing that steps were taken that would have resulted in an inappropriately high level of quality given your initial presumption.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 28, 2009 13:39:16 GMT -4
...the negatively charged dust particles kicked up by the LEM engine would then accelerate toward the spacecraft... No. The dust particles are not aerosolized as you suggest. There is no medium in which to aerosolize. They are instead entrained in an extremely high-velocity exhaust plume moving outward. Compared to that, electrostatic attraction is negligible.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 28, 2009 0:52:13 GMT -4
Would there be any copyright issue providing a link for people to download his work for free, rather than being conned into parting with their hard earned cash...Yes, there would be a copyright issue if it is currently being sold for a price. To provide it for free would undercut their ability to make money legitimately, so long as they are the legitimate copyright holder by succession, or have a license. It may be hogwash, but its owners still have the legal right to attempt to make money from it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 27, 2009 10:38:03 GMT -4
Fifty bucks!? Sheesh, I've got a PDF of it somewhere if anyone wants it. Not very helpful for fixing wonky tables, I admit. Butmuch cheaper. The book is 194 pages long, if anyone cares.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 26, 2009 12:00:18 GMT -4
Here the estimation is based on sound data: the horizontal distance is estimated according to the length of the shadowHow did you determine the length of the shadow? How does such a determination derive horizon distance without assuming complete flatness? All referenced pictures show an astronaut or the LM, which give a good reference for the tilt angle (or roll angle).No, those are poor references. Neither the LM nor the astronaut can be presumed to be upright in any photo. The oblique horizon makes the pictures suspicious.Not to me. You're begging the question. To sum up I am still convinced that the Apollo 11 pictures were made on the Earth.But your key evidence seems to be your estimation of the distance to horizon and your baffling expectation that the theoretical horizon has any meaning in photographic interpretation. None of that is a particularly sound argument; in fact none of it would rise to the level of attention for a real photographic analyst. You're simply inventing new methods that arrive and your predetermined conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 19, 2009 17:03:10 GMT -4
In a more or less flat area – as the sea of tranquillity...What is your evidence that the Sea of Tranquility was that flat and that your estimate of visibility is accurate for the landing site?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 15, 2009 18:10:17 GMT -4
My analysis of the landing film suggests that the LM footpads were in contact with the lunar surface with the engine still running. It looks like the LM does not move hardly at all after the engine cutoff.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 15, 2009 1:10:40 GMT -4
Someone else hands out the shirts. Ask at the front desk; they'll take care of you.
|
|