Flags on the Moon

[TheBigDog]

If we faked the Apollo missions then what was the purpose of the Apollo 13 emergency?

 

Bill

[silverslith]

Since the proton density in the Van Allen belts is apparently a closely guarded secret I’m going to estimate it. I’m going to be conservative with all my assumptions because this way if we are in error on any of them we’re still going to come up with a reasonable ballpark estimate, probably on the conservative side.

We know:

-Average proton density of the solar wind is 7/cubic centimeter

-Average velocity is 500 000 m/s

-Diameter of magnesphere is 6-12 earth diameters of 12700km= 76 200 000 m to 152 400 000m.

-Residence of charged particles in Van Allen belts is years.

 

So proton density Van Allen is (7per cubic centimeter) x the ratio of (time taken for Pavsol to cross average thickness~100 000 000m)/ (Presidence time in Van Allen belts)

 

100 000 000m/ 500 000 m/s = 200 seconds for solar wind to traverse volume equal to earth magsphere.

 

1 year = 3600seconds/hour x 24hr x 365days = 31536000seconds

 

So Proton density estimate = 7 per cubic centimeter x (31 536 000 / 200) = 1 103 760 Protons per cubic centimeter. Call it 1 million per cubic centimeter.

 

If their average energy is 1 MeV then we have 1 000 000 000 000 eV per cubic centimeter of proton flux. In joules this is 1 000 000 000 000 x 1.6 e-19

=Ekcubic centimeter= 1.6e-7 joules

 

The Ek in joules of a 1 MeV proton is 1 000 000 x 1.6e-19 = 1.6e-13 Joules

Its mass is 6.022 e-26 kg

 

So V(1MevProton) = sqrt((2 x Ek)/m)= sqrt( 5.31 e12) = 2 304 344 m/s

= 230 434 400 centimeters per second.

 

Energy per cubic centimeter in Joules is EkP x 1 000 000 = 1.6e-7Joules

 

So Energy Flux per Square centimeter = 1.6 e-7 x 230 434 400 cm/s

= 37 Joules per sqcm/s

 

5000 sqcm for human body, 100kg mass so Grays=(5000x 37joules)/ 100

= 1850 grays per second.

= 18 500 Sieverts per second.

4hrs = 3600s x 4

 

Sieverts over 4 hrs = 266 400 000

 

I’m finding this figure pretty upsetting as its at least 10 million times the survivable limit. Can someone check my calculations and tell me if any of my assumptions are out by this sort of magnitude.

[silverslith]

Apologies to anyone that was offended by the picture of a radiation sick man I posted as part of the Wikipedia radiation sickness piece. I accept I deserve my infraction and apologise profusely for this bad judgement.:cup:

[silverslith]

heres my estimate for mass of protons in the earths magnesphere:

 

Volume magnesphere~100 000 000m ^ 3 = 1.e+24cubic meters

Mass of protons in 1cubic meter = 1 000 000 x 1 000 000 x 6.022 e-23g

= 6.022e-11g = 6.022e-14kg

Mass of protons in magnesphere = 60 220 000 000kg

= 60 220 000 ton

Obviously a lot more than Van Allens "most charged particles there were from nuclear tests". My personal opinion:

His webpage refutation stinks of payola.:)

[Tormod]

heres my estimate for mass of protons in the earths magnesphere:

 

I am sure CraigD or some of our other math wizards can look at your equations.

 

BTW you should look into our LaTeX feature

so you can write out the equations in a more readable manner.

 

Obviously a lot more than Van Allens "most charged particles there were from nuclear tests".

 

Where do you get this from? Please quote the source.

 

If you got it from the Clavius site, it is a question posted as hoax theory, and refuted by the scientist who answers.

 

My personal opinion:

His webpage refutation stinks of payola.:eek:

 

We know you do, but a) it is not Van Allen's page and :) you should read the sources better before you claim them to be wrong. It seems to me you are not really reading what they say, but pick the parts you dislike the most and yell at it. It's not really helping your credibility.

[CraigD]

Since the proton density in the Van Allen belts is apparently a closely guarded secret I’m going to estimate it.

I don’t think the density of the Van Allen proton belt or its 2 electron belts are particularly secret - this NASA website provides a nice, graphic overview, although the graph legends are difficult to read (they’re in MeV/cm^3/s), and contain only energy, not particle count and energy distribution.

 

Following their unexpected, indirect discovery in 1958 by Explorer 1, many of the following Explorer program missions were dedicated to gathering data about the Van Allen belts. There are collectively many thousands of days of collected data, from many different orbits.

I’m going to be conservative with all my assumptions because this way if we are in error on any of them we’re still going to come up with a reasonable ballpark estimate, probably on the conservative side.

…

Sieverts over 4 hrs = 266 400 000

The calculations appear to be based on a model of the radiation belts in which solar wind protons are slowed as they pass through the middle belt. This is not the generally accepted model. The generally accepted model (the same one initially proposed by James Van Allen) is that both the protons of the middle belt and the electrons of the inner and outer belts are trapped particles. There is uncertainty as to the precise source of these protons and electrons, but little about their density and energy.

 

It’s important to distinguish between

• particle density – the number of particles in a given volume of space (units of number/volume, eg: particles/cm^3)
  
• particle flux – the number of particles passing through a give volume of space in a given time (number/volume/time, eg: particles/cm^3/s)
  
• energy flux – the total energy of the particles passing through a given volume of space in a given time (energy/volume/time, eg: KeV/cm^3/s). This is what is measured by most radiation detectors, and used in most map of the Van Allan belts
  

and

• dose – the energy absorbed by a given mass of something, such as human tissue (energy/mass, eg: J/kg). Because different media are more or less transparent to different kinds of radiation, calculating does is more complicated than calculating the previous quantities. It’s further complicated because the health effects of identical energies of different kinds of radiation have different effects, so there are at least 2 kinds of dose measurements:
  • Absorbed dose – the actual energy absorbed by a given volume of the media for a given type and flux of radiation. The SI unit is the Gray (Gy), 1 Gy = 1 J/kg.
    
  • Equivalent dose and dose equivalent – a measure of biological effect of a given type and flux of radiation. The SI unit is the Sievert (Sv). As with the Gy, 1 Sv = 1 J/kg, but should not be taken literally, as various quality/risk factors can be applied when calculating equivalent dose, causing its measure is Svs to exceed the mechanical energy measured in Gys.
    

So calculating the dose received by a particular mass of a particular human tissue, or by non-biological material, such as a spacecraft component, when it spends a given amount of time in a given region of the Van Allen belts, is complicated, although measuring the energy flux of that region is not. This is because these media don’t absorb every energetic proton that passes through it.

 

Fairly precise measurements of the dose received by shuttle astronauts (using both radiation counters and standard industrial/medical film dosimeters) and comparison to the measured and modeled distribution indicate that the Apollo astronauts received about 0.012 Sv from their roughly 30 minute exposure to the various regions of the Van Allen belts, and the less energetic solar wind beyond, vs. the usual annual dose on the Earth’s surface of about 0.003 Sv. A 1-week shuttle mission typically gives its crew a .007 Sv dose, while a 3-month ISS mission gives a does of 0.09 Sv. (sources: ”Astronauts” page of the space weather site, several others) By comparison, the maximum safe dose for nuclear power workers, x-ray technicians, etc, is set by various health agencies at about 0.03 mSv. (source: Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety “Answers: Radiation” page). Noticible radiation poisoning occurs at about 0.5 Sv lifetime dose, with an appreciable chance of death at about 1 Sv. (Source: wikipedia article “Radiation poisoning”)

 

So, by industry standards, Apollo and shuttle astronauts are within safety guidelines, while ISS astronauts are not, but neither are likely to become ill or die from radiation poisoning.

 

Note that, even were the Van Allen belts so energetic that safe manned spaceflight through them was impossible, manned spaceflight would still be possible by launching spacecraft on polar escape trajectories, or restricting orbits to altitudes below 700 km and near the equator. Polar escape trajectories are very inefficient (AFAIK, beyond the technical capabilities of the Apollo program), while equatorial orbits limit ground observation capabilities.

[silverslith]

Looking at that picture from that nasa site

 

 

What they seem to be measuring is how many particles per cubic centimeter have more than 10 Mev of energy.

The per second part is seemingly misleading and should not be there. The density of particles in the solar wind is ~10 per cubic centimeter and tallies nicely with the outer fringes of the diagram, but it would be 10^8 if it were a per second measurement.

So 100000 particles with>10MeV energy each per cubic centimeter max in the diagram is going to give a lethal dose in seconds. I recommend the PDF on the magnesphere I referenced earlier in this thread.

http://www.bu.edu/cism/cismdx/ref/Labs/2005_AFWA_ShortCourse/Lab04/refs//MagnetosphereStructure.pdf

It shows that the energy per particle of most protons in the belts is 0.2MeV<E<1MeV in an outer belt and an inner belt with particles 20MeV<E<200MeV

 

I'm also completely unimpressed by their assertion that the Apollo astronauts took only 30min to traverse the 60 thousand kilometers radius of the proton belt. That would be 120000 kmph if going straight out from earth, which is not possible anyway. Even Van Allens 4 hours is not feasible particularly when you consider the proton belt goes all the way to the moon when its full due to the magnetail, which is also the region of most energetic particles.

 

I'm afraid that Nasa page looks to me like one more jigsaw piece in the coverup.:)

[silverslith]

heres that PDF as an attachment in case my link gets corrupted again as the one on friday appears to have been.:)

[Tormod]

You should respond to CraigD's post before you proceed with your attempts at debunking the theory - he has provided ample information and you now need to go further than simply dismissing it if you want to be taken seriously.

 

when you consider the proton belt goes all the way to the moon when its full due to the magnetail, which is also the region of most energetic particles.

 

The proton belt extends from approx. 500 kilometers from the Earth to approx 13000 kilometers. The proton belt is just a small part of the magnetosphere.

 

I'm afraid that Nasa page looks to me like one more jigsaw piece in the coverup.;)

 

I am afraid that you're making things more difficult than they are, silverslith. You *want* there to be a hoax, so you will not accept the evidence provided to you. Your pro-hoax bias is so strong that I recommend trying to make the calculations under other assumptions than the one you use (which CraigD explained were not correct). :)

[CraigD]

… I'm afraid that Nasa page looks to me like one more jigsaw piece in the coverup.:)

I’m confused about your intentions in this thread, silverslith. Are they

• 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)?

In short, I’m asking if you believe and version of the latter claim to be true, regardless of whether you can or cannot support or refute it.

[silverslith]

A couple of notes on my assumptions in the Magnesphere Proton estimates.

I made the assumption that most if not all of the incoming protons in the solar wind are captured by the magnesphere.

While I am prepared to admit that those striking it on the fringe at the side where they bend away from it may be deflected away and not captured I don't believe that this would be a significant amount overall. It is probably offset by those protons on the other side that are bent towards the earth. At most this would result in a small reduction of the area that absorbs the Protons and should not effect the density of protons in the region. The protons not captured could not possibly be as much as 50%. I have used 1 year for residence time rather than many to overcompensate for any imaginable percentage of protons lost.

The logic that the density can be calculated by multiplying the empty space density by the ratio of time they spend in the belts / time they would spend in empty space at this distance from the sun is valid. Say you have two escalators, first moving at 2m/s, the second at 1 m/s. If a steady queue of people at say 1 every 2 meters on the first steps on to the second, then the second will have one every meter. Hence twice the density of people.

 

I've assumed 1Mev per particle average energy.

In the outer proton belt, with 0.2Mev<ProtonEnergy<1Mev in a bell curve distribution, the average particle energy will be over 0.8MeV

In the Inner Belt with 20MeV<protons<200MeV a bell curve distribution will give an average energy~150MeV

 

Therefore as an overall average 1MeV is extremely conservative.

[TheBigDog]

What effect does the solar wind have on the orbital distance of the earth? It is after all a huge solar sail. Even bigger when you consider the size of the magnetic field. Everything it deflects pushes the earth away from the sun.

 

Bill

[Tormod]

I made the assumption that most if not all of the incoming protons in the solar wind are captured by the magnesphere.

 

Please respond to Craig's question. Are you looking for scientific facts or are you looking to tout your hoax theory no matter what we tell you?

[silverslith]

My motivations are to not have the model of science and the universe that I have in my mind corrupted by false assumptions. I therefore have been testing the assumption that man has gone to the moon as there appears to be indications that basing further knowledge on this assumption is dangerous.

For example the assumption that the van allen belts cannot be very dangerous because the apollo astronauts had such low radiation readings measured, very simular to shuttle astronauts with much better shielding in simular time periods well within the belts in low earth orbit, is bad logic and needed testing. It appears it is the worst of false assumptions.

I have stated before that I want to believe they went and I am prepared to accept that problems with the film evidence may be because it could not have survived the trip, even if the astronauts could have. I am not lying about this.

I have never believed anything because I want to and never will. I have never refused to believe something because I don't like it and never will. This has served me very well in my life and career. It does not always make me popular, but I DO believe that truth is more important than popularity.

I do wish they went but having devoted some twenty hours of research to the radiation issue 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.

Check out the picture and article on magnetic-plasma sheilding on the IPCS thread.

[silverslith]

What effect does the solar wind have on the orbital distance of the earth? It is after all a huge solar sail. Even bigger when you consider the size of the magnetic field. Everything it deflects pushes the earth away from the sun.

 

Bill

 

I've been wondering about this myself. I guess if we can pin down the percentage of the solar wind caught by the magnesphere then we can estimate the momentum transferred fairly accurately.

My considerations on the solar sail effect of the IPCS indicate that I'd need a -ve plasma cloud to focus the solar wind like a ramscoop design to get much effect.

This would lead me to believe its probably a very small effect on the earth because area is the square of linear size and mass is the cube.

[Tormod]

Fine. Now that we know that you are here not to learn from our attempts to show you the physics, but rather to further tout the Apollo hoax theory, you should read up on our rules so that you don't end up getting banned for it.

 

For example the assumption that the van allen belts cannot be very dangerous because the apollo astronauts had such low radiation readings measured, very simular to shuttle astronauts with much better shielding in simular time periods well within the belts in low earth orbit, is bad logic and needed testing. It appears it is the worst of false assumptions.

 

You can twist the facts whichever way you want. To most of us, the output of the assumptions above are:

 

1) Going to the moon is not that much more dangerous than staying in LEO, and the Apollo dosimeter results prove this

 

2) The shielding of the Apollo module was adequate, and the survival of no less than 12 moonwalkers and their CM co-travellers prove this.

 

Claiming this is bad logic is not good science. It is quite the opposite - it refuses to accept what the evidence show us and that the evidence verifies the predictions made about human travel through the Van Allen belt.

 

I have stated before that I want to believe they went and I am prepared to accept that problems with the film evidence may be because it could not have survived the trip, even if the astronauts could have. I am not lying about this.

 

So...you will accept that the astronauts may have survived but now another concern pops up? The *film* didn't make it?

 

I have never believed anything because I want to and never will.

 

Of course you believe stuff because you want to. That's human nature. What makes you different than other people? Nothing, my friend. We all choose what we believe. But basing beliefs on fraudulent data - which is what hoax theorists do - is to pick up somebody elses beliefs and try to disprove other people's theories with it. It is not a good way to create productive science, and it is not a good way to create meaningful discussion.

 

I have never refused to believe something because I don't like it and never will. This has served me very well in my life and career. It does not always make me popular, but I DO believe that truth is more important than popularity.

 

So, as long as it is what you believe, it must be the truth.

 

I do wish they went but having devoted some twenty hours of research to the radiation issue....

 

Impressive. I spend about 20 hours to prepare for presentations for second and fifth graders at my work at a space centre. 20 hours of research into a well studied (and *extremely* well documented) field is close to nothing. And frankly, your bias makes it very difficult for you to see anything but lies, lies, lies.

 

I am afraid I think you will find better support for your ideas elsewhere. This is not a website which is commonly known for supporting hoax theories, and we have debunked your Van Allen belt claims thoroughly at this point.

[silverslith]

What question of craigs would you like me to respond to tormod?