Author Topic: A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece  (Read 95663 times)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
Re: A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece
« Reply #165 on: October 18, 2014, 08:20:44 PM »
He doesn't care.  As long as his adulation continues and as long as he can convince his loyal followers with his dog-ate-my-homework excuses for his repeated errors, there will still be a motive for him to continue.  As long as one has fans, one can safely ignore critics.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece
« Reply #166 on: October 18, 2014, 08:54:08 PM »
As long as his adulation continues and as long as he can convince his loyal followers...

How many loyal followers does he actually have?  I noticed a sycophant or two while reading the thread at YouTube but I couldn't tell how widespread it was.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1966
Re: A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece
« Reply #167 on: October 18, 2014, 10:39:01 PM »
As long as his adulation continues and as long as he can convince his loyal followers...

How many loyal followers does he actually have?  I noticed a sycophant blundershill or two while reading the thread at YouTube but I couldn't tell how widespread it was.
FTFY
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece
« Reply #168 on: October 19, 2014, 04:23:50 AM »
How many loyal followers does he actually have?

Which raises another thought I frequently have. If I was the one producing the videos and saw the quality of comments that my 'followers' made, I might just question the time I was spending on such folly. If he cannot see that he has nothing more than a crank following, then let him get on with it. Let him waste his entire life chasing windmills.  I'll sit in the stalls and laugh at his efforts. He's an object of amusement, nothing more.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece
« Reply #169 on: October 19, 2014, 12:07:57 PM »
I want to point out something else about JW's whining about the 10-100 MeV electron issue.  He says it comes from a MAARBLE (Monitoring, Analyzing and Assessing Radiation Belt Loss and Energization) Project web page.  The 10-100 figure appears on the MAARBLE Public Outreach section of their web site.  It's a duplication of the same information from the NASA Public Outreach site.  It appears that MAARBLE simply cut and pasted the information from NASA.  It's clear that the NASA site came first because during the cut & paste the creators of the MAARBLE site found and corrected some spelling/grammar errors.  For instance, they changed "greater then" to "greater than", and "overlaping" to "overlapping".  Of course this cut & paste was no doubt done by a web site developer, not a scientist.  So, although they caught the spelling errors, they didn't catch errors such as "volts" instead of "electron-volts", and 10-100 instead of 1-10, or 0.1-10, or whatever it was originally supposed to be.  So in summary, the MAARBLE Project is not the source of the data even though it is duplicated on their web site.

The original source appears to be Dr. Sten Odenwald, who is listed on the NASA site as the author.  Of course that doesn't necessarily mean the error originated with Dr. Odenwald; it's possible somebody else could have incorrectly typed the information into the web page.  I've sent an email to both Dr. Odenwald and the NASA official also listed on the web page.  So far I haven't received a response.  If I don't hear something in a week, I'll try to track down Dr. Odenwald through other channels (I've found that he has his own web page).  If I can't get the web page corrected, I'm hoping I can at least get a correction from Dr. Oldenwald.

Offline HeadLikeARock

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece
« Reply #170 on: October 19, 2014, 08:13:00 PM »
I want to point out something else about JW's whining about the 10-100 MeV electron issue.  He says it comes from a MAARBLE (Monitoring, Analyzing and Assessing Radiation Belt Loss and Energization) Project web page.  The 10-100 figure appears on the MAARBLE Public Outreach section of their web site.  It's a duplication of the same information from the NASA Public Outreach site.  It appears that MAARBLE simply cut and pasted the information from NASA.  It's clear that the NASA site came first because during the cut & paste the creators of the MAARBLE site found and corrected some spelling/grammar errors.  For instance, they changed "greater then" to "greater than", and "overlaping" to "overlapping".  Of course this cut & paste was no doubt done by a web site developer, not a scientist.  So, although they caught the spelling errors, they didn't catch errors such as "volts" instead of "electron-volts", and 10-100 instead of 1-10, or 0.1-10, or whatever it was originally supposed to be.  So in summary, the MAARBLE Project is not the source of the data even though it is duplicated on their web site.

The original source appears to be Dr. Sten Odenwald, who is listed on the NASA site as the author.  Of course that doesn't necessarily mean the error originated with Dr. Odenwald; it's possible somebody else could have incorrectly typed the information into the web page.  I've sent an email to both Dr. Odenwald and the NASA official also listed on the web page.  So far I haven't received a response.  If I don't hear something in a week, I'll try to track down Dr. Odenwald through other channels (I've found that he has his own web page).  If I can't get the web page corrected, I'm hoping I can at least get a correction from Dr. Oldenwald.

I emailed him for clarification on 26 September, no reply yet I'm afraid.

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece
« Reply #171 on: October 19, 2014, 08:18:40 PM »
I emailed him for clarification on 26 September, no reply yet I'm afraid.

That's disappointing.

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece
« Reply #172 on: October 19, 2014, 10:56:05 PM »
I emailed him for clarification on 26 September, no reply yet I'm afraid.

I've found two email addresses for Dr. Odenwald, so I'd like to check which one you used.  Please check your personal messages.

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece
« Reply #173 on: October 21, 2014, 03:44:59 PM »
Over at YouTube there is a Jarrah fanboy by the name of FakeMoonRocks who keeps posting stuff like the following:

Quote
You pro-Apollo nutters are hilarious. Bob Braeunig has a webpage titled, "Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory and how they avoided the radiation belts." But then he does an entire article underneath that title, referring to NASA information, that shows the Apollo missions did not "avoid", "steer clear" or go "around" the belts...however you want to word it...Apollo missions didn't do any of that. The NASA information shows they went through them. End of story.


He keeps harping on about the subtitle of the page where I said Apollo "avoided" the belts.  Of course I didn't mean to imply they avoided them entirely, just that the avoided the most intense and dangerous parts of the belts.  This meaning is apparent by the article.  It's true the trajectories still went through the belts, but they went through the far weaker parts near the edges.

FakeMoonRocks also continually downplays the significance of the Apollo trajectories in terms of mitigating the radiation hazard.  This got me thinking, just what would have been the exposure had Apollo flown through the heart of the belts rather than skirting around the perimeter.

During my analysis of Apollo 11, I computed the dose that a totally exposed and unprotected astronaut would receive had he passed through the radiation belts following the trajectories of Apollo 11.  The total dose came to 180 rem; however there was a significant difference between the outbound and inbound trajectories.  The outbound trajectory had an inclination of 31.383o (about 42o to the geomagnetic equator), while the inbound  trajectory had an inclination of 39.925o (about 51o to the geomagnetic equator).  Since the inbound trajectory was farther out toward the edges of the radiation belts, we would expect a smaller dose.  The unshielded dose along the outbound trajectory is 149 rem and that along the inbound trajectory is 31 rem.

Let's now assume a worst case scenario, that is, we pass right through the heart of the belts.  In this scenario the plane of the orbit is the same as the plane of the geomagnetic equator, which results in dramatically higher doses.  The unshielded doses for the outbound and inbound trajectories are about 3250 rem and 3200 rem respectively.  This means that the Apollo 11 trajectories resulted in reductions of 95% and 99% from the potential worst case radiation exposure.

These computations are, or course, those for an exposed and unprotected astronaut.  Inside the shielded spacecraft, the actual doses are far less.  I estimate that the actual Apollo 11 dose was only about 32 mrem, all coming from protons >100 MeV.  For the worst case trajectory through the geomagnetic plane, I estimate that the dose inside the spacecraft could possibly be as high as 5 rem total for both trips.

« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 04:24:44 PM by Bob B. »

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece
« Reply #174 on: October 21, 2014, 10:44:24 PM »
I estimate that the actual Apollo 11 dose was only about 32 mrem, all coming from protons >100 MeV.
Seems about right. The actual total measured dose for the complete mission was 180 mrem (1.8 mSv). This is from the Apollo Experience Report "Protection Against Radiation".



Offline gwiz

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
Re: A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece
« Reply #175 on: October 22, 2014, 05:51:43 AM »
The first lunar radio ham payload is about to be launched, piggybacking on a Chinese mission.  Looks like they've included a radiation instrument:
http://moon.luxspace.lu/the-mission/

Don't expect the results to provide any conflict with Apollo, so just waiting for the HBs to explain how becoming a radio ham automatically enrols you as a hoax insider and puts you on the government shill payroll.
Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind - Terry Pratchett
...the ascent module ... took off like a rocket - Moon Man

Offline Allan F

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1022
Re: A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece
« Reply #176 on: October 22, 2014, 07:39:22 AM »
The first lunar radio ham payload is about to be launched, piggybacking on a Chinese mission.  Looks like they've included a radiation instrument:
http://moon.luxspace.lu/the-mission/

Don't expect the results to provide any conflict with Apollo, so just waiting for the HBs to explain how becoming a radio ham automatically enrols you as a hoax insider and puts you on the government shill payroll.

Isn't that in the ham radio operators licence? Don't you have to pass a test?
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece
« Reply #177 on: October 22, 2014, 04:51:16 PM »
See the following for the response from Dr. Odenwald regarding the bogus 10-100 MeV electron claim:

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=683.0

Offline AstroBrant

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
  • Yes, we did.
Re: A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece
« Reply #178 on: October 23, 2014, 02:40:33 AM »

He keeps harping on about the subtitle of the page where I said Apollo "avoided" the belts.  Of course I didn't mean to imply they avoided them entirely, just that the avoided the most intense and dangerous parts of the belts.  This meaning is apparent by the article.    This means that the Apollo 11 trajectories resulted in reductions of 95% and 99% from the potential worst case radiation exposure.

I responded to his comment. Yeah, it's pretty dumb for him to make some issue out of that when your whole article explained it in detail.

Quote
This means that the Apollo 11 trajectories resulted in reductions of 95% and 99% from the potential worst case radiation exposure.

That's a valuable contribution. If I ever use it I'll try to remember to credit you for it.
May your skies be clear and your thinking even clearer.
(Youtube: astrobrant2)

Offline Bryanpoprobson

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
  • Another Clown
Re: A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece
« Reply #179 on: October 23, 2014, 03:34:26 AM »
Just a question:- HB's always talk about going out through the belts and how the Apollo Astronauts would get fried. I have yet to see any of them mention the fact that the Astronauts had to return too. I may just of missed it though.

Does anyone know the comparisons in escape velocity speed and return speed and time spent in the belts? The return speed would no doubt been at a greater velocity. Also, where, in relation to the VAB's did the CM SM separate?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 03:37:34 AM by Bryanpoprobson »
"Wise men speak because they have something to say!" "Fools speak, because they have to say something!" (Plato)