Radiation

[smartcooky]

There are a couple of additional, not so often referenced, facts that those who argue Apollo never went to the moon, and that astronauts didn't land on the moon, have to account for.

1. The radio telescope at Jodrell Bank actually tracked the Apollo all the way to the Moon (along with Luna 15 that arrived at about the same time), and they were able to track the LM all the way to the surface at Mare Tranquilitatis. They did this by using their dish as a radar. They were even able to detect that Eagle stopped its descent and started hovering sideways as Neil Armstrong realised he was going to land in a field of boulders, and took manual control to overshoot the LZ. If the landings were faked, then the Astronomers and engineers at Jodrell Bank would have to have "been in on it".

2. The Amateur (HAM) Radio operators in the USA and Europe who eavesdropped on the lunar surface communications between Armstrong, Aldrin on the lunar surface, and Bruce McCandless at CAPCOM, using a very directional  8 × 12 foot “corner horn” antenna pointed at the moon. They were able to pick up the VHF signals transmitted between the astronauts and the LM direct from their suit radios. We know it was from their suit radios and not some other source because

a. the transmissions lacked quindar tones which they would have had if they were picking up local Earth broadcasts from say, a TV or radio station.

b. the signals came through approximately 5-10 seconds earlier than the broadcasts on TV, which would be impossible of it was faked, since the official broadcasts came through the S-Band link to the earth, via DSN.

c. the antenna had be be constantly re aimed because the rotation of the Earth caused the Moon to drift out of the antenna’s field and the signal to be lost... if the antenna was not kept aimed at the Moon, the signal disappeared.

If the landings were faked, then HAM radio operators all over the world would have to have "been in on it". Any HAM radio operator, with relatively simple, homebuilt equipment, could have picked up these transmissions

The second item above is particularly difficult for HBs to account for, so they merely hand-wave it away.

How are we sure they were not tracking an unmanned craft?

In the case of Jodrell Bank, they were also listening to the audio feed coming back from the LM as it descended. They were able to hear when Armstrong took manual control, and see the result of that in the radar returns from the LM as it overshot the LZ. If you are suggesting that the LM was unmanned, then you are also suggesting that it had to be remotely controlled from the Earth, 384,000 km away, with a two second delay... that is just about impossible now; it certainly would have been in 1969. The only thing they ever tried that with was the LRV camera in an attempt to capture the launch of the ascent stage by panning upwards as it climbed. A seemingly trivial task that took them four attempts before they finally got the timing right on Apollo 17. However, landing the LM remotely, there would be no second chances; if they crashed it, they would be faced with the ,"Capricorn One Scenario"; live astronauts that are supposed to be dead.

In the case of the HAM Radio operators, there is no tracking involved. The Radio Operators were listening to signals which had NO QUINDAR TONES. This is hugely significant. The quindar tones were generated by special equipment located at Mission Control, and they were decoded by detectors located at the various tracking stations. The ONLY voice transmissions that did not have quindar tones was the VHF link between the PLSS suit radios and the relay on the spacecraft, and it was this signal that the HAM radio operators picked up. Combine the lack of quindar tomes with fact the received signals were 5-10 seconds ahead of the LIVE TV audio, and the fact that the directional antenna had to be continually re-aimed at the moon, allows ONE, and only ONE possibility, that what they were listening to was real astronauts on the surface of the moon. These transmissions could not have originated on the Earth and then send to the moon to be rebroadcast. The rotation of the earth meant that the Moon was below the radio horizon in the US for most of any 24 hour period, so such secret transmissions would have to have been relayed through the DSN stations at Madrid (Spain) and Canberra (Australia). The technicians at those stations would certainly have noticed any additional voice channel uplinking lunar surface audio to the moon.

[MBDK]

Mr. Finch, your entire argument (concerning a discrepancy between the Apollo missions' exposures and the data observed by MSL/RAD in transit to Mars) is ignorant of this statement (from your own reference's abstract):

"The predicted dose equivalent rate during solar maximum conditions could be as low as one-fourth of the current RAD cruise measurement. However, future measurements during solar maximum and minimum periods are essential to validate our estimations."

Why is this relevant?  From - https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/pdf/3019.pdf

"The Apollo missions were the only ones to fly during a solar maximum (from the peak through the declining phase)."

Even a Nuclear Electrician should be able to connect the dots, now.  (I am just funnin' you a little, as I was a Physical Science Technician, a.k.a. Radcon Tech, for over 32 years in the Civil Service and had to deal with you squids almost daily).  I actually do hope this helps you understand the validity of the dose measurements.  And the ignorant comment is true, as we are ALL ignorant of some things, even me (just ask my friends).  Good luck.

[Count Zero]

The only thing they ever tried that with was the LRV camera in an attempt to capture the launch of the ascent stage by panning upwards as it climbed. A seemingly trivial task that took them four attempts before they finally got the timing right on Apollo 17.

Nit-pick:  They only had three opportunities and got it right on the third try.  Mind you, the camera operator (Ed Fendell, who also designed the remote controls for the camera) worked-out in advance how fast the camera would have to tilt to track the rising ascent stage, based on how far the rover was supposed to be parked from the LM.  He practiced the moves (zoom and tilt) many times while watching a clock; starting the tilt command ~1.5 seconds before liftoff so that the signal would reach the camera at the right moment.

As it turned out, Apollo 15's camera developed a problem with the tilt mechanism, so Ed didn't try to track it.  Apollo 15 Lunar Liftoff.

On Apollo 16, John Young parked the rover too close to the LM, so that the ascent stage more degrees-per-second than Ed planned for, so it rose out of the frame.  Remember that Ed was looking at the clock to keep the move synchronized, and when he realized there was a problem, he looked at the monitor and had trouble reacquiring the spacecraft with the 3-second round-trip delay.  Apollo 16 Lunar Liftoff.

Gene Cernan got the rover parked properly for Apollo 17.  Ed added a zoom-out to the planned motion to have a better chance of keeping the spacecraft in-frame.  Even so, he nearly lost it out of the top of the frame, then when it pitched-over to head down-range he nearly lost it out of the bottom.  Then he had to correct laterally.  Apollo 17 Lunar Liftoff.

Here is an 80-page interview with Ed Fendell.  The discussion of the RC camera begins on page 56.  Enjoy!

[bknight]

It turns out that the claim of lowest radiation path through the VAB is horse defecation.  Planing up determines the inclination of the orbit and nothing more.

If only you were as smart as you believe, you would understand that a 2 dimensional image of a three dimensional object is the best that can be presented in this media.  Your contention that the trajectory was not in the lower density path through the VARB is just as wrong as your "doesn't look high enough" radiation data values.

You should drop bak and punt because you have only incorrect observations, just like those HB's before you.

And guess what the HB crowd is wrong, not right as they(you) believe.

[JayUtah]

It does not correctly depict the actual path.  It shows a south to north transit perpendicular to the equator which we know doesn't happen.  They probably drew it in crayon for children.

Remember the part where I said orbital mechanics is counterintuitive?  You're using your intuition.

[JayUtah]

it turns out that the moon does not rotate the earth on an equatorial plane, rather it rotates on an elliptic some 20 to 30 degrees offset.

That may be new information to you, but the rest of the world has known it for many generations.

The Tran-lunar injection is designed to place the craft on the same plane to allow an intersect.  It seems the variation in inclinations of the missions is a function of that plane and nothing else.

Wrong answer.  The desired landing site latitude is also a factor.  if you had done what I asked and described the difference between a free-return trajectory and a Apollo's hybrid trajectory, you would have come across this.

[JayUtah]

Unless the Trans-lunar injection point is from one of the poles then the path is through the heart of the VAB and the TLI is never more than a 30 degree inclination so guess what?

Your inability to visualize a three-dimensional orbit in a three-dimensional arrangement of Earth, Moon, and Van Allen belts -- all aligned on different axes -- is not anyone's problem but yours.  You are now very far afield from anything the Navy could possibly have taught you, and you didn't learn any of this formally and you didn't have your proficiency tested.  It's obvious that you're just now learning about such things as transfer orbits, and you're trying to rely on your intuition to get you through what is a rather counterintuitive science.  What you dismiss as mere "crayon" drawings is actually a fairly accurate projection of a transfer orbit into the 2D plane of a drawing.  That's one of those things that's counterintuitive.  Keep in mind that for some of us, orbits and orbital mechanics is not just some abstract body of knowledge.  It's a real and practical to us as the NEC is to an electrician.  Once again we find you pitted against literally everyone who can actually demonstrate expertise in the field.  To the rest of the world qualified in these sciences, the Apollo transfer orbit is straightforward and sensible.

[Jason Thompson]

it turns out that the moon does not rotate the earth on an equatorial plane, rather it rotates on an elliptic some 20 to 30 degrees offset.

'It turns out'? Really? This fact has been known for centuries, if not millennia. The Moon's orbital plane is tilted around 5 degrees to the ecliptic plane, and about 29 degrees from Earth's equatorial plane. The geomagnetic plane, which is the plane along which the Van Allen belts lie, is offset a further ten degrees from Earth's equatorial plane.

The Tran-lunar injection is designed to place the craft on the same plane to allow an intersect.

Nope. The TLI and any mid-course corrections are designed to allow the craft to intersect the plane of the Moon's orbit at the location of the Moon  at the appropriate time in order to allow insertion into lunar orbit at the appropriate orbital inclination for the intended landing site. It is absolutely not necessary (or necessarily even desirable) to put the spacecraft on the same plane as the lunar orbit.

It seems the variation in inclinations of the missions is a function of that plane and nothing else.

No, see above. The position of the Moon in its orbit and the latitude of the landing site will also need to be taken into account.

[gillianren]

I curious.  Without something to compare it to how can you be sure it depicts reality?  They could show us anything that we have never seen and call it real and who are we to say it is or isn't?

Oh, dear Gods.  Basic physics, for starters, and if I understand basic physics better than you do, I despair for our Navy.

The thing every fictional film made thus far of walking on the Moon gets wrong, every single one, is how the dust works.  With the exception of the Apollo footage, they all, universally, show the clear actions of air and gravity.  We've had a lot of dumb attempts at explanations for how those are avoided in the Apollo footage, but the fact is, we do not have a vacuum chamber large enough on Earth to get the dust particles to look the way they would in vacuum.  We certainly don't have any way of faking the effects of 1/6 gravity on the dust.  Not in live action, at any rate.

So.  Can you please, please, please answer the question as to how you can be sure, if you have neither a convincing explanation as to how the missions were fake (you don't) nor an understanding as to the majority of the technical details of the missions, that it's the missions that were faked and not your understanding of the radiation issues that is wrong?

[gillianren]

Oh, and as to the Trump thing?  I could list twenty or thirty of his lies without even trying.  In a few minutes, I'll be checking Politifact and discover probably three or four more.  Anyone who believes Apollo was faked but believes a word that comes out of Trump's mouth has serious cognitive dissonance.

[Count Zero]

Oh, and as to the Trump thing?  I could list twenty or thirty of his lies without even trying.  In a few minutes, I'll be checking Politifact and discover probably three or four more.  Anyone who believes Apollo was faked but believes a word that comes out of Trump's mouth has serious cognitive dissonance.

[Count Zero]

Gillianren is absolutely right about the dust-behavior argument.  It's a slam-dunk for the reality of the EVA footage.  It is pervasive in every shot, it is predictable and it is unfakeable (a film last decade tried - the CGI couldn't track enough particles).  Any other argument for a hoax falls before the truth of that footage.  The longest special effects shot in movie history is only 13 minutes long, and that was made 5 years ago.  Lunar EVA footage from 46 years ago routinely had continuous shots lasting more than an hour.

And no, you don't get to hand-wave it away by claiming "magic dust" or "magic video trickery".  That would be as lame, useless and unsupportable as claiming "magic radiation shielding".

[timfinch]

So you don't think they could have relayed transmission through the unmanned craft.  They were not that smart?

[JayUtah]

Really? This fact has been known for centuries, if not millennia. The Moon's orbital plane is tilted around 5 degrees to the ecliptic plane, and about 29 degrees from Earth's equatorial plane. The geomagnetic plane, which is the plane along which the Van Allen belts lie, is offset a further ten degrees from Earth's equatorial plane.

To quote Mr. Spock, "Captain, his pattern suggests two-dimensional thinking."  And while we can make all kinds of noise about spatial reasoning skills, a more fair assessment points out that nearly every rendition of manned translunar trajectories you find in public-relations materials puts everything roughly in the same plane.  If you do that consistently, you can't find too much fault if people wrongly get the idea that the actual problem is all coplanar.  That said, relying on public-relations material for technical accuracy is a mistake in and of itself.

Nope. The TLI and any mid-course corrections are designed to allow the craft to intersect the plane of the Moon's orbit at the location of the Moon  at the appropriate time in order to allow insertion into lunar orbit at the appropriate orbital inclination for the intended landing site. It is absolutely not necessary (or necessarily even desirable) to put the spacecraft on the same plane as the lunar orbit.

It's not even technically necessary for the transfer orbit to be in a plane that's compatible with the landing site.  Only the final lunar orbit has that constraint.  LOI-1 and LOI-2 can be used to change the lunar orbit inclination and ascending node to access the landing site.  I say "technically" because doing those as part of the insertion maneuver would be propellant-intensive.  MCC-1 and MCC-2 allow the insertion to be fuel-optimal.  All that a transfer orbit must technically achieve is that the spacecraft and destination coincide in the same point in space-time -- zero-order continuity.  That requires only the intersection of the transfer orbit plane with the destination orbit plane.  But first- or second-order continuity in the intercept is desirable for practical advantages.

[timfinch]

I curious.  Without something to compare it to how can you be sure it depicts reality?  They could show us anything that we have never seen and call it real and who are we to say it is or isn't?

Oh, dear Gods.  Basic physics, for starters, and if I understand basic physics better than you do, I despair for our Navy.

The thing every fictional film made thus far of walking on the Moon gets wrong, every single one, is how the dust works.  With the exception of the Apollo footage, they all, universally, show the clear actions of air and gravity.  We've had a lot of dumb attempts at explanations for how those are avoided in the Apollo footage, but the fact is, we do not have a vacuum chamber large enough on Earth to get the dust particles to look the way they would in vacuum.  We certainly don't have any way of faking the effects of 1/6 gravity on the dust.  Not in live action, at any rate.

So.  Can you please, please, please answer the question as to how you can be sure, if you have neither a convincing explanation as to how the missions were fake (you don't) nor an understanding as to the majority of the technical details of the missions, that it's the missions that were faked and not your understanding of the radiation issues that is wrong?

I have repeatedly stated and I reiterate.  The only thing I am absolutely sure about is the radiation doses of the Apollo missions are not validated by 21st century observations.  I am 100% certain of this.  Whether or not the videos were staged or not I have no idea but if you never saw a Martian any image will work.