Apollo Faked - Challendge to Chris (1)
NASAJOKE
any counter arguement so far. So I am challendge
him again. Either admit my conclusion is reasonable,
or give your counter arguement here.
Mr. Chris Broadbent, an Apollo believer,
published a web site and presented LRRR (Lunar
Retro-Reflector Ranging), as one of the strongest
evidence that Apollo did land on the moon.
I want to challendge him that his careful
calculation has proven EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE
conclusion, i.e., Apollo never placed any LRRR
on the moon.
Interested people can access Chris's web
site at this address:
http://www.realtime.net/~cfb/RetroRef.html
Chris's math is all correct, except for
some wrongly quoted data that I will talk later.
According to his result, the power of reflected
laser beam that can be detected is:
Without LRRR: Return power 4.6x10^-19 Watts
With LRRR: Return power 2.9x10^-16 Watts
Chris then jump into conclusion that since
his result show the return power is much higher
with LRRR, the laser reflection experiment can not
be done without LRRR!
Wait a second, Chris. People HAVE done
lunar laser ranging experiments before Apollo,
with a certain degree of success. It is
completely possible to do lunar ranging
without LRRR.
The important question to ask is:
Does the return power of the
reflected laser beam confirm to the same
magnitude as expected by your calculation
with LRRR?
Or, does the actual return power
coincident to your calculation WITHOUT LRRR?
If you know how small the amount of
detected photoes are, you have to agree that
the actual return photon count shows that
they are not from LRRR, but from lunar
surface reflection.
According the the McDonald Observatory,
they can only detect "a few" returned photons
per minute under the best observation condition.
The wavelength of the laser is 5320 Angstrum.
So the energy of each photon is 3.734x10^-19J.
Let's say they detect 5 photons per minute,
the return power is only
3.11x10^-20 Watts!!!
Obviously the number is way too much
lower than 2.9x10^-16 Watts, the value you
expect from a real LRRR experiment!!!
Considering that the quantum efficiency
of the photon detector is 11% (i.e., out of 100
incoming photons, 11 will be detected.), the
actual return power measured is
2.83x10^-19 Watts
According to your calculation, using
the LRRR, you should measure a return power
of 2.9x10^-16 Watts, which is ONE THOUSAND
times higher than what has been actually
measured by the people in McDonald!
In my opinion that proves beyond
any doubt that the laser ranging data was
obtained with the natural lunar surface
reflection, not with LRRR!
BTW you have under-estimated the
albedo of the lunar surface (for a purpose?).
You used 0.05, which is the same albedo as
a piece of black charcoal! I know the lunar
albedo is 0.12, according to this web page:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/ph101/glossary/albedo.html
This will bring your estimate of
return power withour LRRR up to about:
1.1x10^-18 Watts
This return power of laser beam is
quite comfortably above the experimental
measurement value of
2.83x10^-19 Watts.
Consider that when the laser beam
penetrates the atmosphere, a slighter less
than one half of the power may be lost,
that brings the two figures pretty close
to each other!
My conclusion, McDonald has been
using the natural lunar surface reflection
to measure the lunar distance for the past
few decades! They have never measured any
laser return power even nearly as strong
as what it should be with a LRRR. Apollo
had never placed any mirror on the moon!
One last note, The LRRR of Apollo
15 contains 300 reflective cubes, that
compares to the mere 100 cubes of Apollo
11 and 14. Any one would then expect three
times higher laser return power.
But NASA admitted that the well
anticipated three times increase never
materialize. They admitted that
"The larger array was to allow
smaller telescopes on Earth to
receive signals from it, but a
report on 31 July, 1971 showed
that the larger array was
comparable, but not superior,
to the smaller arrays."
Above can be found at:
http://www-sn.jsc.nasa.gov/
explore/Data/Apollo/Part1/LRRR.htm
Worst of all, NASA can not even give
a correct counting of how much is the weight
of these LRRR devices. In one document they
claim the mass of the devide is 77.0 kg
(http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/
database/www-nmc?69-059C-04)
In another document it became:
Weight: A-11 23.59 kg
A-14 20.41 kg
A-15 36.20 kg
(See http://www-sn.jsc.nasa.gov/explore/
Data/Apollo/Part1/LRRR.htm)
You will see how ridiculous these
numbers are, once you begin to calculate
the weight of those reflective cubes.
Each cube is a solid fused quartz cube
of side length 1.5 Inches. With a density
of 2.7 grams/cm^3, 300 quartz cubes would
weigh 44.8 kg, which is already more than
the total weight of the A15 LRRR!!!
I would love to see your response
to the above, Chris! Please post it to the
newsgroup and to your web page!
John Beaderstadt
>
> Mr. Chris Broadbent still fails to give me
> any counter arguement so far. So I am challendge
> him again. Either admit my conclusion is reasonable,
> or give your counter arguement here.
Why? What's the benefit if he does? What's the penalty if he doesn't?
Maybe he, along with many others, just plain doesn't care about your
opinion, beliefs, etc. Personally, the only people to whom I feel
compelled to justify myself are my god, my wife, my employer and the
magistrate; do you fit into any of these categories?
--
"I tried to imagine the easiest way God could have done it."
--Albert Einstein