Flags on the Moon

[TheBigDog]

I have to conclude the radiation expert on the documentary that stated they would not have made it back alive after even a few minutes in the Van Allen belts and that the Soviets cancelled their moon program when they found that out was not exaggerating at all.

He is not exaggerating. He is wrong. It is not a matter of opinion that men walked on the moon. It is a matter of fact. We are not debating the Patterson film, we are talking about perhaps the best documented achievement of mankind.

 

My dad used to drive nails through 2x4's with his bare hand (he actually held a handkerchief to protect his skin from the head of the nail). I saw him put a nail through an oak 4x4 one night at a party. You can believe this is impossible. You can do the math about the force required and the strength of the hand and the arm and the wood and conclude that it is impossible. But all the math in the world didn't stop the nail from going through that board powered by the shear force of his belief that he had already done it.

 

Go ahead and question how it happened, but don't doubt that it did.

 

Bill

[Tormod]

You were asked to respond to his question about whether your intention in this thread is:

• to determine how to calculate particle flux and energy from basic mechanical principles, or
  
• to assert and support the claim that the people who claim to have traveled to the moon in Apollo spacecraft did not actually do so, and are lying when they claim that they did (or were hypnotized, brainwashed, subjected to an elaborate spaceflight simulation, etc. to believe they did)?to assert and support the claim that the people who claim to have traveled to the moon in Apollo spacecraft did not actually do so, and are lying when they claim that they did (or were hypnotized, brainwashed, subjected to an elaborate spaceflight simulation, etc. to believe they did)?
  

 

You have already verified that it is #2 and that is why I am askin you to read our rules.

[silverslith]

Why have there been no other manned trips through the VA belts or polar orbits that intersect them if they are so safe?

Please try and stop basing your view of reality on unproven assumptions like the Moon trips actually happened.

I'm now going to go and calculate the proton density in the inner high energy VA belt in the Nasa diagram by assuming their unit of per cubic centimeter per second is the correct one. It will show a density far lower than the solar wind and this is obviously majorly wrong. Back soon.

[silverslith]

You were asked to respond to his question about whether your intention in this thread is:

• to determine how to calculate particle flux and energy from basic mechanical principles, or
  
• to assert and support the claim that the people who claim to have traveled to the moon in Apollo spacecraft did not actually do so, and are lying when they claim that they did (or were hypnotized, brainwashed, subjected to an elaborate spaceflight simulation, etc. to believe they did)?to assert and support the claim that the people who claim to have traveled to the moon in Apollo spacecraft did not actually do so, and are lying when they claim that they did (or were hypnotized, brainwashed, subjected to an elaborate spaceflight simulation, etc. to believe they did)?
  

 

You have already verified that it is #2 and that is why I am askin you to read our rules.

 

No I have not. I am experienced in radiation dose calculations.

The thread is Flags on the moon and it needs to be examined whether humans have put flags on the moon from a scientific view point. I'm not finding that emotional responses to science I am presenting are helping this.

 

I will happily re-read what rules you believe I am not respecting.

Please PM me with the link and post number and I will do this also before I return in ~30min.

[silverslith]

Maximum proton density in the inner high energy proton belt pictured in the Nasa diagram and graph is stated as 10e5 or 100000 per cubic centimeter per second of protons over 10MeV energy.

As this belt contains a proton distribution between 20MeV and 200MeV I’ll use an energy of 20MeV to calculate the velocity of the protons and get a maximum density per cubic centimeter independent of time.

 

Energy per proton in Joules is 20 million x 1.6e-19

= 3.2 e-12

Mass of proton is 1 / 6.022 e23 g = 1.67 e-24g

=1.67 e-27 kg

V = Sqrt( 2xEk/m)= sqrt(6.4e-12/1.67e-27)= sqrt(3.85e15)

=6.2e7 m/s = 62 000 000 m/s

= 6 200 000 000 cm/s

 

So protons per cubic centimeter of space = 100 000/ 6 200 000 000

=1.61 e-5

=0.0000161 protons per cubic centimeter

Of course as the average velocity is higher for protons with distribution 20MeV<Ek<200MeV the real figure would be even less.

As Nasa is claiming 10 per Cubic cm per second at the inner and outer edges of the belt these regions are supposed to contain at most 0.00000000161 protons per cubic centimeter. The density in the solar wind is average 7 per cubic centimeter.

Can you people see why I have issues with the chart and graph with provided units when it is clear that the density of protons in the van allen belts must be much higher than the solar wind?

[CraigD]

Energy per proton in Joules is 20 million x 1.6e-19

= 3.2 e-12 [J]

Mass of proton is 1 / 6.022 e23 g = 1.67 e-24g

=1.67 e-27 kg

V = Sqrt( 2xEk/m)= sqrt(6.4e-12/1.67e-27)= sqrt(3.85e15)

=6.2e7 m/s = 62 000 000 m/s

= 6 200 000 000 cm/s

With you so far.

So protons per cubic centimeter of space = 100 000/ 6 200 000 000

=1.61 e-5

=0.0000161 protons per cubic centimeter

I follow that, Assuming that all the protons were moving in the same direction, and the number of them counted in 1 second in a cm^3 of the highest-energy region of the proton belt is 100000, and they are uniformly spaced, this would by the density of protons.

The density in the solar wind is average 7 per cubic centimeter.

After some initial mistakes :shrug: (which I’ve edited out of this post), I’m able to get pretty good agreement with this figure, starting with the wikipedia article “solar wind”’s figures for the ejected mater rate and velocity. From the calculations in post #167, I get a solar wind density at 1 AU of 6.68 atoms/cm^3.

Can you people see why I have issues with the chart and graph with provided units when it is clear that the density of protons in the van allen belts must be much higher than the solar wind?

Honestly, my greatest issue with the charts at vanallen is that I can’t make out the units, and am too unfamiliar with them to make good guesses. I’m on the trail of their source data, but must wait for my registration at spenvis.oma.be to be verified (a process which apperantly takes a little while) before I can access the source it cites.

[CraigD]

IMHO, what’s most fascinating and compelling about “faked Apollo missions” claims is what it illustrates about how people arrive at their beliefs. I believe the Apollo program was not faked for many reasons, among them: because I saw it on TV; because my parents told me it happened (Like many kids born in the early 1960s, I sometimes needed adult assistance separating movies like 1968’s 2001: A Space Odyssey from news broadcasts, such as 1969’s Apollo 11 landing); because most of my peers believed it; because, years later, I met Buzz Aldrin, and didn’t get the impression that he was a liar. I’ve not met anyone who believes the missions were faked who has been able to present a convincing case using the level of physics to which I’ve been educated, and have encountered many who’s arguments were flawed in ways I was able to show.

 

The “fatal radiation in the Van Allen belts / cislunar space” variation of the “faked Apollo missions” claim is interesting, because the physics is complicated. A decade before Apollo 11, effectively no person expected to find the Van Allen belts, and to this day, exactly where it gets its protons and electrons – the Earth’s atmosphere, the solar wind, elsewhere - is the source of considerable scientific debate. Although I’ve worn film dosimeters and been around Geiger counters since I was young, exactly what they measure, how, and how it relates to the simplistic physics I actually understand, is somewhat beyond my understanding – I essentially trust that someone understands them, so if my badge isn’t black, I haven’t received a dangerous dose of radiation. I understand the basics of the instruments flown on spacecraft for the past half century, and accept the maps of the Van Allen belts and the solar wind derived from the data they collected, without actually having built and flown these spacecraft or seen their raw data myself.

 

It’s also interesting because it could be true. Theory and observation suggests that, if additional charged particles were injected into them (for example, by an atomic bomb, such as 1962’s Starfish Prime test), the Van Allen belts can hold many more particles than they currently do.

 

So I’d really like to say, with the confidence that comes from hands-on experience, that I’m sure of information such as that I’ve referenced in this thread, but, for lack of technical skill, can’t. Interestingly, many people with far more and more specialized education in these subjects appear in a similar position – a truly expert grasp of everything from astrophysics to spacecraft instrument design is not, it seems, common, even among the professional scientists and technologists who write for the scientifically interested public.

 

I’d like to be able to. So what I intend to do is find and study the engineering and physics of the particle flux and energy counters flow on Explorer program and similar spacecraft, locate and study the data from these missions, see how they were used to produce current models of the Van Allen belts and the solar wind, and learn more about film dosimeters and the effects of radiation on humans and animals.

 

In so doing, it’s possible (but, I think, exceedingly unlikely), that I’ll uncover a vast scientific and political hoax. Far more likely, I’ll either reach a level of understanding sufficient to convincingly explain flaws in the “fatal radiation in the Van Allen belts / cislunar space” claim, or fall short of my study goals (which, alas, has happened to me on previous occasions).

 

I invite all interested people to join me in this study. If we truly understand this rather complicated science, I’m confident we’ll agree with reasonable precision on physical reality as it affects manned spaceflight, and that the Apollo missions were not impossible (or, a remote possibility, that they were not). Until we have such an understanding (possibly with the kind assistance of members who already do, or are closer than us), I think the cause of forum peace and goodwill is best served if we refrain from endorsing any individuals or organizations advancing claims that the Apollo missions were faked.

[silverslith]

Heres my reference for the solar wind at 1 AU.

Like you craig I've been disturbed by the difficulty in getting meaningful answers on the proton density in the VA belts. where normally I'd spend less than 10 min getting information like this 20 hrs of wearying searches have been fruitless. The energy distributions are easy to find and its not difficult to see how they are more energetic than the solar wind itself. The boston university magnesphere pdf I've attached seems the most informative I found in 20hr and apart from the omission of any density figures I've found it most informative.

7 protons per cubic centimeter for the solar wind is a figure I find easy to accept as its very thin indeed. It may be wrong but I see no reason for it to be misquoted.

 

Solar Wind

 

At 1 AU the average speed of the solar wind is about 400 km/s. This speed is by no means constant. The solar wind can reach speeds in excess of 900 km/s and can travel as slowly as 300 km/s. The average density of the solar wind at 1 AU is about 7 protons/cm^3 with large variations. The solar wind confines the magnetic field of Earth and governs phenomena such as geomagnetic storms and aurorae. The solar wind confines the magnetic fields of other planets as well.

I follow that, Assuming that all the protons were moving in the same direction,

I dont think this is a neccesary assumption at all. The Proton flux per second is usually a square area figure but this does not mean that it is an area in a fixed plane. It is a calculation of the flux per area from all directions at once.

Measuring it per cubic volume as in the Nasa chart is strange. No problem for calculations though.

[Tormod]

Why have there been no other manned trips through the VA belts or polar orbits that intersect them if they are so safe?

 

There were 8 manned trips in the period from December 1968-December 1972, at which point the program was cancelled and President Nixon called for the construction of a space station. After that it is a matter of politics and money.

 

The Return the the Moon flights at the end of the next decade are currently on top of NASA's priorities. Their Orion spacecraft is what will bring astronauts through the Van Allen belts from around 2014 and on.

 

Why the Russians have not gone there is probably due to many reasons, most importantly that the last race to the moon was indeed a political race - once lost, the Russians started competing in LEO projects (which they did fairly well, which Mir was an excellent example of).

 

Now Europe, China, Russia, Japan and even India are making plans to go to the Moon. There must be a lot of gullible scientists out there!

 

Please try and stop basing your view of reality on unproven assumptions like the Moon trips actually happened.

 

It is not unproven, far from it: it is not a theory but a *fact*. It is the hoax theories that need to be proved.

 

If anyone who reads this thread thinks that the hoax theory has been proved, they must be unable to see the evidence presented.

 

And please step down from your high chair - you are in no position to tell people what to base the "view of reality" on.

 

I will happily re-read what rules you believe I am not respecting.

 

I posted the link to our rules page (link is also in the menu above).

 

But here are some excerpts:

 

Rule #1: In general, back up your claims by using links or references.

 

Rule #3: If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on.

 

Rule #7: If you ask for opinions, respect the replies you get.

 

Rule #8: Do not endlessly show us that *your* theory is the *only* truth. And don't follow this up by making people look stupid for pointing out that there are other answers, especially if they provide links and resources. It will get you banned!

 

Typical reasons for getting banned:

 

# Posted hoax theories without doing proper research (this is a science forum, not a forum for fanatic nuts)

 

All of the above are relevant in this case, but mostly what has happened in this thread is that you post claims (sometimes unsubstantiated, which violates #1), we refute them (Rule #3), and you refuse to read or accept our replies (Violation of #7). Instead you claim to know the "Truth" (Violation of rule #8).

 

The posting of hoax theories is okay but requires that proper research has been done. Your "20 hours" is not enough. You are simply coughing up old theories that we have shown to you to have been debunked long ago. We have spent a lot of time explaining to you where your ideas fail, but you keep responding as if you have not read our replies, and you ridicule our points as well as the documents we provide (you even seem to misunderstand who the authors of those documents are).

 

I am not impressed by your crusade! :)

 

I applaud Craig's plan to study the Apollo missions in greater detail. The evidence is all over the place and it is there for anyone to review and study.

[silverslith]

Tormod I have not lost my cool one little bit not once.

I do dispute that the moon trips are proven and have put a lot of work into testing whether they were possible. I have learnt a lot from this and hope that others do not let emotions prevent them from learning also. I am concerned very much about the risk of being banned and have consulted with mods on this risk and been reassured.

I'm only interested in knowledge and truth and I hope we can demonstrate that the moon trips were plausible. Without questioning this we cannot find the answer.

I've been waiting since friday for someone to calculate the eV energy of the average solar proton and point out that they might not require that heavy a sheild. Since no-one has been able to see past heated emotions to bother doing something this simple:

Protons of ~500 000m/s probably don't have enough energy to penetrate more than a cm or two at most of dense matter. I cannot confirm this however as I have found that data on proton penetration at various energies through various materials impossible to find. Much like their density in the radiation belts.

[Tormod]

I'm only interested in knowledge and truth and I hope we can demonstrate that the moon trips were plausible.

 

I think that has been demonstrated a number of times already.

[silverslith]

I think we have nothing to gain by continuing to discuss the radiation belt and space radiation questions on "Flags on the moon." perhaps we should move the radiation discussion posts to a new thread in "spaceship design" and discuss it there like gentlemen. That would allow a calmer and more rational atmosphere without any need to offend peoples cherished beliefs with continued reference to the lunar program that the title of this thread insists on. I'm quite happy to refrain from any mention of apollo and discuss it as hypothetical scenarios if we do this. On this thread that is not possible and although it has made for heated debate and that is a good thing, sometimes clear heads all round are more important.

I'm very interested in the radiation shielding problems in spacecraft design and without adequate ability to assess the magnitude of the problem Silverslith must stalk this evasive prey with its oh so intriguing scent.

Anyone with me on this?

[silverslith]

hey craig, I've been wondering if the heliomagnetic field strength thing is a clue to why you may have come up short on your solar wind estimation. If Proton density is proportional to magnetic field strength then the slower than inverse square reduction in magnetic field strength as you move further from the sun may give us a result that tallies with the proton emission from the sun.

[CraigD]

hey craig, I've been wondering if the heliomagnetic field strength thing is a clue to why you may have come up short on your solar wind estimation.

I don’t think the explanation need go beyond simple careless errors on my part.

 

Redoing My solar wind estimate more carefully gives the following:

Solar wind mass rate: [math]10^9 \, \mbox{kg/s}[/math]

Mass of a proton: [math]1.67 \times 10^{-27} \, \mbox{kg}[/math]

Solar wind proton rate: [math]1e9/1.67 \times 10^{-27} \dot= 6e35 \, \mbox{protons/s}[/math]

Solar wind speed: [math]450000 \, \mbox{m/s}[/math]

1 AU: [math]1.5e11 \, \mbox{m}[/math]

Volume of sphere w/ radium 1 AU+450000 m: [math]\frac43 \Pi (1.5\times 10^{11}+450000)^3 \dot= 1.4137294 \times 10^{34} \, \mbox{m^3}[/math]

Volume of sphere w/ radium 1 AU: [math]\frac43 \Pi (1.5\times 10^{11})^3 \dot= 1.4137166 \times 10^{34} \, \mbox{m^3}[/math]

Volume traversed by solar wind in one second at 1 AU: [math]1.4137294 \times 10^{34} - 1.4137166 \times 10^{34} = 1.27 \times 10^{29} m^3[/math]

Proton density at 1 AU: [math]\frac{6 \times 10^{35}}{1.27 \times 10^{29}} = 4724409 \mbox{atoms/m^3} = 4.72 \, \mbox{atoms/cm^3}[/math]

 

This calculation assumes that the solar wind in a straight outward (radial) direction from the Sun. It’s not, but is emitted in a rotating, spiral pattern. According to several sources, the angle of the solar wind at 1 AU is about 45°.

So the corrected density is : [math]\frac{4.72}{\sin 45} \dot= 6.68 \, \mbox{atoms/cm^3}[/math]

, which agrees with the accepted value of about 7.

 

:( Alas, it's as easy to make errors checking calculations as originating them. I’ve edited post #159 to correct the error.

[silverslith]

Bit of humour from the Indian media(amazing what you find if you start at page 700 on google searches)::eek_big:

 

Indiadaily.com - Chinese hesitation of manned lunar mission – are extraterrestrials and UFOs influencing China too?

 

Chinese hesitation of manned lunar mission – are extraterrestrials and UFOs influencing China too?

 

China joined Russia and America in putting a human into space on October 15, 2003. Since then China has announced plans to put a probe in Moon’s orbit by 2007 and make a manned mission to moon by 2020.

 

According to sources in the China Aerospace Science and Technology (Cast) agency, the planned manned mission to moon scheduled for 2020 is facing strange obstacles. There are very early indications that China may quietly diffuse the ambition and not go to moon with a manned mission after all.

 

The Cast agency officials have started backpedaling on the time schedule and detailed plans for making the manned mission possible by 2020.

 

According to Chinese sources, it is a matter of Chinese pride and nationalistic icon to have the manned mission. If China does finally announce that they will not make humans go anywhere above the immediate atmosphere above the earth’s surface, this will just confirm what many extra-terrestrial researchers were predicting for many years. According to these researchers, Americans and the Russians were clearly told by the higher order of extraterrestrials in the Universe that humans are not welcome to travel beyond the earth’s immediate atmosphere without much more advanced technologies.

 

According to sources from China, the biggest problem Chinese are facing is the mechanism of shielding the astronauts from the super strong radiation levels of the Van Allen Radiation Belt. They just cannot figure out how the Americans did it in 1960s.

[silverslith]

Got it!:hihi:

 

http://web.mit.edu/tsoline/www/spaceEnv.pdf

 

Page 20:

proton density between 100 and 1000 per cubic centimeter.

Electrons between 10000 and 100000 per cubic centimeter.

as measured between 4000 and 40000 nauticle miles.

 

Also page 24

aluminium shields can effectively shield electrons and low energy protons. However high energy protons (>30MeV) cannot be shielded.

[Tormod]

this will just confirm what many extra-terrestrial researchers were predicting for many years

 

Brilliant, silverslith! :hihi: