Radiation

[Rob48]

Chandrayaan-1 was in 200 km lunar orbit, where the flux and dose rate measured ~2.8 particles cm-2 s-1 and ~11 µGy h-1 (2.645 mgy/day).   I am not a rocket scientist but I am not an idiot either.  The math does not work for me.

It certainly doesn't. But just think of all the science Chandrayaan-1 would have been able to get done during those 240-hour days. 

[gillianren]

Something has to be wrong.  Either NASA got the GCR radiation of cislunar space wrong or the recorded the mission dose wrong.  Of course there is the possibility it is all right and mission dose represents a stay in LEO and not a lunar transit but who am I to cast stones?

Or you're understanding it wrong.  Why is that not the most logical explanation?

Here's the deal, Tim.  You want me to admit that Apollo was faked?  Here's what you have to explain.

1.  Why all people working in relevant fields agree that the Apollo data--not just in radiation, but in geology, physics, engineering, and so forth--meets their expectations.

2.  Specifically how the footage was faked, given that it is literally impossible to do so in live action today.

3.  How you'd avoid the fact that the Apollo capsules were naked-eye objects and could be seen if they'd just stayed in LEO.

4.  How amateurs around the world, including in countries hostile to the US, were able to track the capsules on their way to and from the Moon.

5.  How the soil samples were faked.

6.  Why no government hostile to the US has ever revealed the "truth."

7.  Why Nixon agreed to go along with the fake when revealing that his hated political rivals were defrauding the American public could have made his reputation--or possibly saved him from having to resign over Watergate.

And that's just to start with.  If you can't explain all those things, the concept that you are mistaken is considerably more logical as an explanation when you can't understand how the data fits your expectations.

[Luke Pemberton]

Chandrayaan data cited by timfinch:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.2014.pdf

Thanks. We have a wonderful graph showing the data that was used to compute the average dose. There is a beautiful line at 9 - 11 µGy hour^-1. This is the correlation in the data. The point I want to make is that the graph perfectly depicts the notion that the dose has values either side of this average owning to variations in the GCR flux.

So Tim, can you see why quoting an average dose that is based on thousands of sampling points cannot be compared with actual dosimetery taken over a few days, as the the latter may correspond to a lower dose within the data set used to determine the average.

[timfinch]

I don't know how to respond to you guys.  You have little understanding of the basic math to process this information.  That logarithmic thing was just embarrassing.  In your desperation you grasp any straw that can to save you.  It does not matter what point or if you average all of the points of the CraTer Data the numbers are too high to make the math work.  The transit through the VAB and the lunar orbit and landing by themselves will give you a value greater than the .22 mgy/day.  The fact of the matter is you cannot make a lunar transit under any conditions and not exceed .22 mgy/day.  You couldn't do it if the VAB disappeared and there was nothing but cislunar space.  Wake up and smell the disappointment.  You have been duped and that sucks.  I feel for you'  Rub some dirt on your ego and let's move on.  The truth needs it's warriors.  Regulators, mount up!

[LunarOrbit]

I don't know how to respond to you guys.  You have little understanding of the basic math to process this information.

"I am right! ALL of the scientists, engineers, and other experts that have claimed Apollo really happened for the last 50 years are either wrong or lying!"

The arrogance of a conspiracy theorist.

[Jason Thompson]

I don't know how to respond to you guys.

You could start by answering my question: why have you not downloaded the CraTer data yourself and plotted the graph, exactly as we have done?

You have little understanding of the basic math to process this information.

No, you lack the gumption to look at the actual numbers. The actual numbers YOU presented to this thread as if they supported your argument.

It does not matter what point or if you average all of the points of the CraTer Data the numbers are too high to make the math work.

No, they really are not. They LITERALLY are lower than your stated GCR rate. In black and white.

The transit through the VAB

Again you fail to grasp that the transit through the VAB skirted the least intense regions only. It's a belt, and with orbital mechanics it can be, and was, largely avoided.

The fact of the matter is you cannot make a lunar transit under any conditions and not exceed .22 mgy/day.

No, you can't. Since you clearly don't actually understand any of the data you have provided that's your problem. Now explain why you being wrong is less likely than a huge global conspiracy involving literally thousands of people across decades of time.

[bknight]

Ask the question again.  I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.

You've missed the most important question of all.

Why do you assume you're right?  Why don't you think that you might possibly be misunderstanding something, since you're talking about something that you admit isn't your field?  Surely people working in the field might know things that you don't, right?

And as to why no one is leaping to respond to you, did you not consider that maybe people have something to do on Easter?  Easter isn't even a holiday in my religion, and I had plans yesterday.

I don't assume I am right.  I am not a Conspiracy Theorist.  I have worked for the government most of my life and I think it is to inept to conduct a conspiracy.  I simply can't make the numbers work and I was hoping you guys might provide some insight.  Rather than consider the data on its merit, you guys raise shields and establish a defensive posture.  I will follow the truth wherever it leads and if it leads to a conspiracy then so be it.  I am interested in protecting nothing but the truth.

tim, you quoted you are not a Conspiracy Theorist, but then you post:

You are making this more complex than it has to be.  If you consider the fact that the only thing that had to be faked is the manned portion of it.  If an unmanned lander had been sent to the moon while the astronauts faked their portion then the deception would have involved less than fifty people.  I digress. It is unimportant to me if they faked it.  The only thing that is important is the fact that there is an incongruency in the data.  If the stated NASA values are correct then it is impossible for the the Apollo mission to have left ELO.  You don't have to prove all of the conditions to prove the deceit, you only have to prove one point.  If that one point is proven then by default all the other points are false.  I.e. if you prove Apollo 11 never left LEO then it follows that all the Apollo missions were faked.  The fundamental question that begs to be answered is can a transit through the VAB, cislunar space and a lunar landing be accomplished with a mission dose of .22 mgy/day.  If the answer is yes then the is an academic exercise with no value.  If under any and all realistic parameters it can not then it is definitive proof that the moon landing is a hoax. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.  I, personally have scoured the internet looking for any record of GCR level low enough to compensate for the transit through the VAB and the lunar landing.  I can find nothing that would allow a combined dosage of .22 mgy/day.  Everything I read indicates that the VAB passage alone would bring the mission dosage above .2 mgy/day.  When you consider the elevated neutron dosage on the surface of the moon and in lunar orbit it would be hard to imagine a a mission dosage of less than .4 mgy/day.  Everything I read indicates the lowest recorded GCR level is 2.0 mgy/day at solar maximum, and the minimum dosage possible in a VAB transit, the lowest possible lunar transit must be at least .6 mgy/day assuming you were lucky and had not a single SPE to complicate matters.  India launched a lunar mission to the moon (Chandrayaan-1) in 2008 and the 5 day transit recorded a 1.2 millirem/hr transit.  Chandrayaan-1 was in 200 km lunar orbit, where the flux and dose rate measured ~2.8 particles cm-2 s-1 and ~11 µGy h-1 (2.645 mgy/day).   I am not a rocket scientist but I am not an idiot either.  The math does not work for me.  Somebody is lying.  Maybe it is India....

You have promoted a hoax with the caveat that any of the questions raised can not be resolved.  However many of the posters have painfully pointed out where:
1. You misread the data
2. You do not cite Apollo 11 hourly/daily dosage other then the final AVERAGE dosage rate where that average is .22 mgy/day.  Because that is the total dosage divided by the mission days some of the days will be greater than .22 and some will be less than .22, even though you have been unable to "find" those values.  You have indicated that the data from CRaTER is not below this value, but Luke has shown you values lower and in a period that would have a greater flux than during all of the Apollo missions.
3. You continue to add red herrings to your original position.  If effect dodging the proofs that you have been shown.  You are to entrenched in your CT beliefs that you hand wave those proofs.
Your inability to understand the math of the solution is no back stop for you, learn the physics and math behind the numbers.

It all adds up to you are wrong and there is no hoax.  Apollo happened as recorded in history and you are not "shining knight" that have uncovered the "truth".

[Luke Pemberton]

I feel for you' Rub some dirt on your ego and let's move on.  The truth needs it's warriors.  Regulators, mount up!

A combination of Chaka Khan and Young Guns. Interesting cultural references.

[Luke Pemberton]

Luke has shown you values lower and in a period that would have a greater flux than during all of the Apollo missions.

In fairness it was MBDK who posted the initial example. I just made the numbers look pretty to try and help Tim.

[timfinch]

A little tidbit of information for you to totally disregard.   https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.2014.pdf

[Luke Pemberton]

A little tidbit of information for you to totally disregard.   https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.2014.pdf

I didn't disregard this.

It perfectly shows that when you sample a dose over an extended period of time, there is an average but a wide variation in the data.This supports the the point that I have made several times, you can actually have a mission in a narrow time slot that is below the average dose taken over a longer time. I posted the graph a few posts back.

[bknight]

Luke has shown you values lower and in a period that would have a greater flux than during all of the Apollo missions.

In fairness it was MBDK who posted the initial example. I just made the numbers look pretty to try and help Tim.

My bad and  do apologize to MBDK.

[Abaddon]

Chandrayaan-1 was in 200 km lunar orbit, where the flux and dose rate measured ~2.8 particles cm-2 s-1 and ~11 µGy h-1 (2.645 mgy/day).   I am not a rocket scientist but I am not an idiot either. 

Simple multiplication eludes you, so I think you have amply answered the question of whether you are a rocket scientist or an idiot.

[Jason Thompson]

Tim, why will you not download the CraTer data set and plot the graph yourself in Excel or some other data tool? You can even plot a line across the whole graph at your chosen 'minimum' and see if the line is above or below it and if it stays that way. Others have done this. Why are you so reluctant to do so?

[Jason Thompson]

And the Chandrayan data was not disregarded. It relates to 2008. Solar max was 2012-2013, where the GCR rate was correspondingly lower, as has been pointed out numerous times. Along with the fact that solar cycle 20 was more active than solar cycle 24, therefore the GCR flux would be even lower during the Apollo missions than was recorded during solar cycle 24.

Do you even understand that this GRC flux is not constant, and that averages mean by definition that some short time periods will have lower flux and some higher than average?