Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Apollo hoax [Radiation 7 vs 11]

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1

    Apollo hoax [Radiation 7 vs 11]

    According to NASA's biometric records, (which you must look up for Apollo 7 which was a low earth orbit mission and for Apollo 11 which was the first 'lunar' mission) the radiation exposure rates of Apollo's alleged lunar missions match those of the Apollo 7 low earth orbit missions of similar durations. This is not possible if the astronauts were exposed to solar and cosmic radiation in interplanetary space ,radiation in the transit of the magnetosphere, and radiation form the surface of the moon.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,649
    Thread moved from Q&A as it is a hoax claim, rather than a question fitting the purpose of that section. Title clarified.

    Given it is you who comes here with this claim, it'd be best for you to provide references to your source data.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,173
    Apollo 11 wasn't the first lunar mission, so that's already one strike against you.
    Oh, it was the first landing mission, but that's not the same thing at all.
    Both Apollo 8 and 10 had both been in lunar orbit before Apollo 11, the Apollo 10 lunar module even descending from lunar orbit to within 14.4 kilometres of the surface before returning to rendezvous with the CSM in the ascent stage.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,309
    Quote Originally Posted by saphic View Post
    According to NASA's biometric records, (which you must look up for Apollo 7 which was a low earth orbit mission and for Apollo 11 which was the first 'lunar' mission) the radiation exposure rates of Apollo's alleged lunar missions match those of the Apollo 7 low earth orbit missions of similar durations.
    From here:

    http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apoll...pg/ts2c3-2.jpg

    The total radiation dose of the ~8 day Apollo 11 mission was about .18 (that's average skin dose in rads per astronaut, btw), the total for the ~11 day Apollo 7 mission was .16. So for Apollo 11 the accumulated dose was higher, and over a shorter period of time.


    This is not possible if the astronauts were exposed to solar and cosmic radiation in interplanetary space ,radiation in the transit of the magnetosphere, and radiation form the surface of the moon.
    How did you determine it was not possible? What model are you using to determine expected radiation dose, based on what evidence, and where are your calculations?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,173
    As a side question, why was the Apollo 14 figure so much higher?
    EDIT: Asked and answered in another thread.
    Last edited by ravens_cry; 2012-Mar-10 at 05:43 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    810
    saphic, you are aware that this is a 'sciency' sort of board, populated by people with some skills in science and engineering, and who generally look for a logical argument supported by cites and references and a logical conclusion?

    Quote Originally Posted by saphic View Post
    According to NASA's biometric records, (which you must look up
    NO. You supply and cite them - you made the claim.

    Apollo 7 which was a low earth orbit mission and for Apollo 11 which was the first 'lunar' mission
    As pointed out, you got this wrong for a start. In terms of what appears to be your claim, Apollo 11 was certainly NOT the first lunar mission.

    the radiation exposure rates of Apollo's alleged lunar missions match those of the Apollo 7 low earth orbit missions of similar durations.
    Well, yes, the exposure RATES were indeed similar for those regions that are directly comparable. Which actually means you have just destroyed your own argument... You do know what the word 'rate' means (hint, look up 'accumulated dose' - maybe that's what you should have said..?).

    This is not possible if the astronauts were exposed to solar and cosmic radiation in interplanetary space ,radiation in the transit of the magnetosphere, and radiation form the surface of the moon.
    In fact if you actually do the research, you will find that the rates and accumulated dosages were almost exactly as expected, and well within safe limits.

    So how about you do that and bring back the cited numbers in a form that is actually properly presented and analysable? The links are easy to find, so off you go.

    If not, goodbye.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,366
    Quote Originally Posted by saphic View Post
    According to NASA's biometric records, (which you must look up for Apollo 7 which was a low earth orbit mission and for Apollo 11 which was the first 'lunar' mission) the radiation exposure rates of Apollo's alleged lunar missions match those of the Apollo 7 low earth orbit missions of similar durations. This is not possible if the astronauts were exposed to solar and cosmic radiation in interplanetary space ,radiation in the transit of the magnetosphere, and radiation form the surface of the moon.
    SP-368 Biomedical Results of Apollo
    Section II. Crew Health and Inflight Monitoring.
    Chapter 3. Radiation Protection and Instrumentation.
    There, I looked it up for you.

    Van Rijn's link was to a table in that book, it may make more sense in context. Now go and read the context.

    If there are parts you don't understand feel free to ask, we have many people who are likely willing to help.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,296
    Quote Originally Posted by saphic View Post
    According to NASA's biometric records, (which you must look up for Apollo 7 which was a low earth orbit mission and for Apollo 11 which was the first 'lunar' mission) the radiation exposure rates of Apollo's alleged lunar missions match those of the Apollo 7 low earth orbit missions of similar durations. This is not possible if the astronauts were exposed to solar and cosmic radiation in interplanetary space ,radiation in the transit of the magnetosphere, and radiation form the surface of the moon.
    Hi, saphic. Welcome to the board.

    Aside from the problems already pointed out with your post, you are also incorrect in asserting that exposure rates matched. In fact, total doses are (presumably) what you're talking about, and they didn't quite match between A7 and A11, and they varied considerably among the various missions.

    More importantly, though, you have made a positive claim, that the doses could not match for the missions as flown. You can't simply assert that; you need to demonstrate it quantitatively. Otherwise, you're just handwaving.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    I'm not stating an opinion, but I wonder if Saphic will respond to the research provided. I for one had forgotten that the Apollo 7 mission was appreciably longer than the Apollo 11 mission. Apollo 11 really was a quick hop to the Moon with a run around and a return.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,612
    If you crunch a few numbers (i.e. divide the total dose by mission duration) then, even with the variations in the environment that would influence the total absorbed dose by the astronauts, you find that the two lowest absorption rates are indeed the two Earth orbit flights, Apollo 7 and Apollo 9.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Mellow View Post
    I'm not stating an opinion, but I wonder if Saphic will respond to the research provided. I for one had forgotten that the Apollo 7 mission was appreciably longer than the Apollo 11 mission. Apollo 11 really was a quick hop to the Moon with a run around and a return.
    Yes, I had forgotten too, if I ever knew. Time and time again, a piece of hoax nonsense provokes an informed discussion that adds to one's appreciation of the Apollo programme.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Beardsley View Post
    Yes, I had forgotten too, if I ever knew. Time and time again, a piece of hoax nonsense provokes an informed discussion that adds to one's appreciation of the Apollo programme.
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's the one thing I am grateful to Apollo conspiracy theorists for.

  13. #13
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,673
    Quote Originally Posted by ravens_cry View Post
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's the one thing I am grateful to Apollo conspiracy theorists for.
    Not just about Apollo specifically. Photography was something I didn't know much about until dealing with the photographic arguments.

Similar Threads

  1. Apollo 14 Radiation Dose
    By ravens_cry in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2012-Mar-10, 04:54 PM
  2. "Apollo Moon Hoax" Hoax Planetarium Show - Boulder, CO
    By stu in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-17, 12:55 AM
  3. Apollo and radiation
    By SLF:JAQ SFDJS in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 2007-Aug-20, 07:56 PM
  4. Apollo 17 hoax
    By MG1962A in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2007-Mar-10, 02:01 PM
  5. why an apollo hoax?
    By overrated in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 2002-Aug-15, 05:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: