ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: benparry on March 19, 2018, 01:56:16 PM

Title: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 19, 2018, 01:56:16 PM
Hey guys I have a question about radiation which stems from a discussion I have had with a guy on a Facebook group. He contends that the daily dose of radiation from a LEO mission should be magnitudes lower than the daily disease of any of the Apollo lunar missions. He comments that with the VAN protecting us etc and the fact that radiation outside of this and on the surface of the moon is much higher than it is inside the VAN for LEO missions why are the daily dose inside the LEO missions not much lower than the moon missions
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Northern Lurker on March 19, 2018, 03:21:30 PM
Which Apollo mission? Compared to which LEO mission? Does he know about radiation in cislunar space? Radiation in LEO? Type, flux and energy distribution of radiation in LEO and cislunar space? How much Apollo craft attenuates radiation? How much craft in LEO attenuates? Are radiation doses to be compared in same units and in lengths of exposure?

If he doesn't have any any clue in any of those questions, he is just handwaving.

If he is comparing ISS dose to Apollo dose, one must remember that ISS makes about 15 orbits every day and each orbit skirts the South Atlantic Anomaly which is low hanging part of Van Allen belts. It adds radiation doses in LEO. Also radiation exposure in LEO is much bigger than under the atmosphere.

Lurky
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 19, 2018, 03:23:07 PM
hey lurky. I think what might be best here is to ask Tim to join this forum and put forward the points himself.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 19, 2018, 03:25:26 PM
he did however share this pic

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Northern Lurker on March 19, 2018, 03:49:04 PM
Well I'm not an expert in radiation. As an informed amateur I have some idea about the questions to be asked.

I noticed from your attachment that ASTP and Apollo 7 which flew at about 200 km. Skylab was around where ISS is today and I'd quess SAA makes the difference.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 19, 2018, 03:54:11 PM
I think he was querying the Apollo missions. am I correct in saying 7 and 9 were LEO missions whereas the rest went to the moon. basically he thinks the moon ones should be more
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on March 19, 2018, 06:04:01 PM
I think he was querying the Apollo missions. am I correct in saying 7 and 9 were LEO missions whereas the rest went to the moon. basically he thinks the moon ones should be more
And what is he basing that on? Soviet soft lander Luna 9 only measured 30 millirads a day. (see page 12 of this PDF (https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000722541.pdf) which corroborates with ever other source I've found so far) and the radiation exposure experiments aboard Zond 5 and 7, which, like Apollo, went to the moon and returned to Earth, found that (see page 4 here (http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/864491/files/p484.pdf))  "Seven day flights along the trajectories of the Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from the radiation point of view." And these are both results from the USSR.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 19, 2018, 06:11:37 PM
he is basically saying that using logic, if the area outside of the LEO is higher in radiation (this includes the VAB and also the general outer space) then missions in these areas should have a higher daily dose than missions that are withing LEO and lower in radiation
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on March 19, 2018, 07:26:00 PM
he is basically saying that using logic, if the area outside of the LEO is higher in radiation (this includes the VAB and also the general outer space) then missions in these areas should have a higher daily dose than missions that are withing LEO and lower in radiation
Well, except in the case of Skylab mission, they did have a lower daily average dose, and Skylab passed repeatedly through the South Atlantic Anomaly, a portion of the VAB that extends lower into Low Earth Orbit. So his logic is flawed because he is not taking a radiation source into account.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 20, 2018, 02:58:55 AM
Hi Raven. is that also true for the Apollo 7 and 9. did they pass though the SAA too. I think he is saying that they should be magnitudes lower. I have given Tim the link for for this forum and he is going to set up an account so he can put forward his arguments.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on March 20, 2018, 03:16:30 AM
Hi Raven. is that also true for the Apollo 7 and 9. did they pass though the SAA too. I think he is saying that they should be magnitudes lower. I have given Tim the link for for this forum and he is going to set up an account so he can put forward his arguments.
I honestly don't know special, but given how much lower Apollo 7 and 9's orbit was compared to Skylab, the exposure would be at least a little less.  As for it being magnitudes less, I'd like to see what he's basing that on. I am no means an expert on this matter and I know most, if not all, people here know much more about the details of Apollo than I.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 20, 2018, 04:19:01 AM
I think he is basing it on the fact (his words) that the VAB protect us 10*3 from radiation and the fact that radiation is much higher in outer space than within the confines of the LEO safety
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 20, 2018, 08:11:52 AM
The first question has to be what he understands by the term 'radiation'. Many people, especially those who see it as a relevant concern in the Apollo hoax idea, think of radiation as some big, all-penetrating thing that makes you sick and kills you. What few of them, in my experience, realise is the wide variety of kinds of radiation that exist, and hence that an argument that just talks about 'radiation levels' is meaningless and inconclusive. Light and heat are also forms of radiation.

The VAB, for example, is not actually protecting us. The magnetic field of the Earth does that, and in trapping the particle radiation from the solar wind it creates the VABs. Of course in trapping those particles it makes the VABs a region of high radiation, but it's particle radiation. A lot of that can be blocked, or at least attenuated, by spacecraft hulls and insulation, and as it's a belt it can be avoided almost entirely. Some of the EM radiation can be blocked by a spacesuit. UV radiation, for instance, can't penetrate a white spacesuit or even the clear polycarbonate of the helmet. It doesn't matter what the radiation levels in space are if you happen to be encased in something that can reduce the exposure significantly anyway. His 'logic' is based on a very shaky premise.

He should also consider that we have decades of data about the radiation levels in space, a significant amount of which is important for commercial revenue. Satellites are just as susceptible to radiation as humans (more so, since a human body can repair itself while satellite electronics cannot), and we depend on them these days for communications, GPS, and so on. Does your friend honestly think he's the first person to look at the data and realise it exposes a hoax of the scale of the Apollo program rather than people who understand the subject realising it does no such thing and so maybe he should take that into consideration?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 20, 2018, 08:49:19 AM
Hi Jason thanks for your reply. I have actually given him this link so he can view the thread. I think he's going to open an account so he can discuss directly his concerns.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 20, 2018, 11:09:52 AM
I think he is basing it on the fact (his words) that the VAB protect us 10*3 from radiation and the fact that radiation is much higher in outer space than within the confines of the LEO safety

The Van Allen belts (or more specifically, the interrelated phenomena to which Jason Thompson refers) indeed protect us from radiation when there is radiation.  Specifically they protect us from solar radiation in the form of the various fits it throws from time to time.  A quiescent sun doesn't really put out enough radiation to worry about.  Galactic cosmic radiation is not really attenuated by the Van Allen belts since it is electromagnetically neutral.  The key misconception here is that the radiation environment outside the VAB must be so much greater than inside it, barring an ongoing solar event.  That's just not true.  There is only a marginal increase in radiation exposure outside the VAB, and it is easily shielded for -- especially for short missions.

Ironically for orbital missions it is the VAB, specifically the Southern Atlantic Anomaly, that poses a greater problem.  Because of the difference in alignment between Earth's rotational axis and its magnetic axis, many manned orbital missions take the spacecraft (or space station) through the SAA, which is a low-hanging region of the inner Van Allen Belt.  This can happen several times a week, or even several times a day.  This is actually a more dangerous exposure since it occurs so frequently.  The actual received doses are small, especially behind polyethylene shielding.  But the fact that they occur often mean an organism doesn't have time to heal from each exposure, and the effect accumulates.  it's actually safer to send someone on a two-week mission in deep space because the exposure is a one-time thing.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 20, 2018, 11:26:59 AM
ah ok cool thanks Jay. Tim informs me he has created an account so hopefully he can throw his two penneth in soon.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 20, 2018, 03:40:39 PM
ah ok cool thanks Jay. Tim informs me he has created an account so hopefully he can throw his two penneth in soon.

It should be interesting whether or not he accepts the valid understanding of the radiation he speaks or just hand waves it away, because it doesn't look right to him.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 20, 2018, 04:24:47 PM
I've been having a chat with him on FB but it would be interesting to hear your guys views. does it generally take a long time to approve new accounts
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 21, 2018, 04:30:18 PM
just while tim's account is activated he has posed a question. with the Mars rover mission he states that the radiation equipment measured the radiation that man would have been exposed to daily. he states that this is much higher than the Apollo missions showing that radiation levels in space are higher than we are being told. he uses this link as evidence.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.06631.pdf
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 21, 2018, 05:12:10 PM
I see a nice graph there showing RAD levels in uGy/day which seem to be hovering between 300-600uGy/day. That's not actually 'much higher' than any of the doses listed on the Apollo data, which are given in mGy/day and range from 0.12-1.27mGy/day. Units are critical. Since 1mGy/day = 1000uGy/day, the Apollo data range from 120-1270uGy/day, so the Mars data sit comfortably in the middle of that range.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 21, 2018, 05:19:08 PM
lol thanks Jason. it never amazes me how simple the answer always is
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on March 21, 2018, 06:54:55 PM
So, wait...

Is the claim that the radiation levels for the Apollo missions that were posted on the first page are unrealistically low?  That they should be much higher than that?  Is it possible that, like the Mars data, he's confusing units (milli- vs. micro-)?

Another thing to remember is that absorbed dose (rad or gray) is not the same as effective dose (rem or sievert):

Radiation typeAbsorbed dose (mGy)Effective dose (mSv)
Alpha120
Beta11
Gamma11
Neutron110

Source (http://www.calculator.org/property.aspx?name=radioactive+dose+equivalent)

The alpha effective dose is significantly higher than anything else, but it's only really dangerous if you inhale or ingest an alpha emitter like polonium.  Most alpha particles are slow and heavy and can be blocked by little more than a sheet of paper. 

The average American's effective radiation dosage from both natural and artificial sources of background radiation is on the order of 6 mSv/year (source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation)), or about .016 mSv/day.  Given that 1 mGy translates to at least 1 mSv, then yeah, the Apollo astronauts absorbed at least one order of magnitude more radiation than someone standing at sea level per day for the durations of those missions.  The Apollo 14 astronauts absorbed considerably more than that.

Was it a big deal? 

Here's a chart (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Radiation_Dose_Chart_by_Xkcd.png#/media/File:Radiation_Dose_Chart_by_Xkcd.png) of radiation amounts and effects in Sieverts.

(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Radiation_Dose_Chart_by_Xkcd.png)

The annual maximum dose for radiation workers is 50 mSv.  100 mSv is the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased cancer risk.  400 mSv is the dose where symptoms of radiation poisoning appear. 

Assuming the worst possible case scenario where the Apollo 14 astronauts were exclusively exposed to alpha radiation inside their bodies, they absorbed an effective dose of 228 mSv.  Significantly increased risk of cancer, but short of the dose necessary for acute radiation poisoning. 

Assuming a more reasonable scenario of mostly beta and gamma radiation, you're looking at 11.4 mSv on top of their annual background dosage (which, being pilots, would be a couple of mSv higher than the rest of us), which is well below the max annual dosage for a radiation worker. 

For the remaining missions, you're looking at an additional couple of mSv on top of the annual background dosage.  You're looking at a small increase in cancer risk. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 22, 2018, 08:44:57 AM
Hi JFB

i suspect my conversation with Tim has ended after reading Jasons explanation above. he started with the why have we not gone back and if there is a way to get past the VAB why are we still exploring ways to do it etc

many thanks for everybodies replies

Ben
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 22, 2018, 02:50:58 PM
Hi everyone Tim has indeed posed another question regarding neutron radiation on the moon. How was this defended against by the Apollo astranauts while they were on the moon
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 22, 2018, 03:12:56 PM
The first question is not how, it is whether any specific defence was necessary. What are the levels of neutron radiation in the cislunar environment, how penetrating is neutron radiation, and how long does a person have to be exposed under those levels for it to be an issue? Particle radiation is generally not very penetrating, as compared to EM radiation. With several layers of different materials going into a spacesuit and spacecraft, that may easily be enough protection for a short duration lunar mission.

Your friend needs to understand that radiation damage is cumulative. If he's looking at data from Mars missions, noting that the scientists are considering it a problem or a concern, and assuming it was therefore a concern for Apollo, then he's making a flawed leap of logic. Mars missions are going to be months or years long. In that case a sustained exposure to a low radiation level is a problem that has to be solved. In the case of Apollo the solution was simply time. Two weeks of exposure under those conditions was not enough to be concerned about.

An everyday analogy I use is walking in the rain without an umbrella. I can run across the street to my neighbour's house in a torrential downpour and get a little bit wet, just needing to take off my coat and let it dry for a minute and maybe run a towel through my hair and I'm fine. Alternatively, I can walk ten miles in a light drizzle and end up soaked to the skin and freezing cold, needing to take off all my clothes and leave them hanging to dry for a few hours, wrap myself in a warm towel and have a cup of tea to even be comfortably warm again an hour after getting in. The point is, just as you can't look out of a window and conclude 'it's raining' means you will be soaked whatever you do outside, you can't look at radiation and conclude all space missions are deadly because of it. There are too many variables that you have to take into account.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 22, 2018, 03:18:09 PM
do we know what level of neutron radiation was present on the moon Jason. and of so was this level dangerous
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 22, 2018, 03:28:53 PM
I don't know, but that is the question your friend needs to be asking before he asks about protection from it. Putting it bluntly, we get this from hoax believers a lot, and we will not do the legwork for them. If he wants to ask questions like this he needs to show he's done some basic research. If he wants to ask about shielding against neutron radiation then he needs to bring the data to the discussion that makes him think it's necessary.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 22, 2018, 03:31:04 PM
fair enough Jason can't argue with that. I have actually just found a couple of links on this i'll share them below

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

https://astrowright.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/surviving-radiation-in-space/
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 22, 2018, 09:15:59 PM
Neutron exposure on the lunar surface is not markedly different than in low Earth orbit, primarily for the reason that the Van Allen belts do very little to attenuate it.  Neutrons are -- as the name suggests -- neutral in charge and thus not affected by Earth's magnetic field.  Low Earth orbit is actually going to be slightly more dangerous than the lunar surface simply because you're slightly farther away from a nearby bulk in orbit than you are on the surface.  There are slightly more directions in LEO that radiation can come from.  It's Earth's atmosphere, actually, that attenuates solar neutrons so as to keep us safe on the surface.

People expect particle radiation to be expressible as a single number.  It isn't.  It's a two-dimensional quantity at its simplest.  One dimension is energy, the other is flux.  Energy for a particle is simply how fast it's moving.  Slow moving particles have small energy.  It's measured in electron-volts, or rather in thousands (keV), millions (MeV), or billions (GeV) of electron-volts.  A single electron-volt is a miniscule quantity.  Flux is the number of particles per second that pass through a square-centimeter window at a fixed position and orientation.  If the number differs depending on which way the window is facing, the flux is considered anisotropic, and you have to introduce additional dimensions to the measurement to codify that.  The important relationship is between energy and flux.  As it happens, the higher the energy the lower the flux.  The much lower the flux.  The vast majority of the neutron flux in any given point in the solar system is taken up by particles of largely inconsequential energy.  We generally break up the energy spectrum into discrete bands (e.g., >10 MeV in one category, 1-10 MeV in another, and so forth down the line).  In the 10+ MeV band, flux peaks around 30-40 MeV.  The quiescent flux in that band at Earth distance from the Sun is 3x10-3 cm-2s-1.  That's 0.003 particles per square centimeter per second, or rather it means you have to wait about five minutes for even just one particle at that energy to hit your window.

Low-energy neutrons are easily attenuated by spacecraft structure, spacesuits, and so forth.  You may have seen pictures of open-pool nuclear reactors where the water completely attenuates the neutron radiation, but you can still look down into it from the observation deck.  High-energy neutrons require more elaborate shielding -- generally 7-15 mm of aluminum -- if the exposure is to be indefinite (such as for comm satellites with lifespans of 10-15 years).  For a two-week lunar mission, exposure to high-energy neutrons is really not much to worry about simply because the flux is so very low.

The point here is not to be swayed by people who want to simplify the concept down to scary scalar comparisons.  Those will be misleading.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 23, 2018, 07:15:14 AM
its's quite interesting Jay but Tim's final try on this was to share with me a page from Moon fakers website.

it quoted the 1400 flares detected and i knew i had seen that on your website. i shared that with Tim while politely pointing out that Moon Faker is the work of Jarrah lol
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 23, 2018, 09:23:01 AM
its's quite interesting Jay but Tim's final try on this was to share with me a page from Moon fakers website.

it quoted the 1400 flares detected and i knew i had seen that on your website. i shared that with Tim while politely pointing out that Moon Faker is the work of Jarrah lol

He has yet to join and remains in YT where he can post nonsense without a lot of contradiction.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 23, 2018, 12:04:30 PM
its's quite interesting Jay but Tim's final try on this was to share with me a page from Moon fakers website.

it quoted the 1400 flares detected and i knew i had seen that on your website. i shared that with Tim while politely pointing out that Moon Faker is the work of Jarrah lol

And I wish I could point you to the IMDb debate forum where Jarrah White had his head handed to him on this very point.  Tatters of the debate are still there, but Jarrah went back and deleted all his posts so that he could make up whatever he wanted about how it went.  The climax came when he posted one of his profanity-laced diatribes for which he was once justly infamous.  He knew IMDb moderators would delete it, whereupon he could claim that he was being censored, since by that time the debate wasn't going well for him.  That guy is a real piece of work.

Anyway, Jarrah demonstrated in that debate that he couldn't tell the difference between a merely detectable flare and one that had any sort of significance for biology or engineering.  He couldn't do the basic calculus needed to compute fluences (integration of flux/energy over time, which provide a basis for estimating biological effect).  He couldn't describe the difference between classes and types of solar events.  He couldn't describe the basic concepts behind any of the measurements in the tables he was quoting.  One of the other participants who lived in Jarrah's town arranged for Jarrah to present his findings before actual astrophysicists right there.  Jarrah ignored it.  As I said above, the point is not to be swayed by ignorant handwaving about Big Scary Numbers.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 23, 2018, 02:36:13 PM
lol that doesn't surprise me at all. I remember watching a video on YT entitled why Jarrah is wrong regarding radiation. it was quite amazing. I think Jarrah fits into my psychology point on a previous thread. He believes because he wants to. I was part of a FB group not too long back that contained a member who described you Jay as clueless lol this was the very same man who said that NASA used moonbounce to fool the world into believing they were receiving signals from space. another gent from that group tried to tell me he couldn't believe that 18 tonne of LM just floated on down to the moon. when I explained to him his error I didn't get a reply lol
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on March 23, 2018, 05:18:21 PM
Jarrah believes because it would destroy his little business empire if he didn’t.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 23, 2018, 06:50:10 PM
its's quite interesting Jay but Tim's final try on this was to share with me a page from Moon fakers website.

it quoted the 1400 flares detected and i knew i had seen that on your website. i shared that with Tim while politely pointing out that Moon Faker is the work of Jarrah lol

And I wish I could point you to the IMDb debate forum where Jarrah White had his head handed to him on this very point.  Tatters of the debate are still there...

Sadly, not even those remain.  IMDB closed and deleted all of their discussion fora a year or two ago.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 23, 2018, 06:58:54 PM
Hey guys just got a message from Tim asking if his account had been activated I think he still wants to post some comments but he has asked if I can copy and paste a question here for anyone’s thoughts

Ben, can you do me a favor?  It doesn't look like that web site is going to admit me, so I was wondering if you could post this comment for me:  If we remove the Van Allen Belt from consideration and only consider GCR exposure in cislunar space, it can be seen that based on the 7 month data of the MSL/RAD that background radiation is approximately 450 ugy (.45 mgy) per day.  This would indicate that as a base line all lunar flights should have as a minimum exposure rate of at least .45 mgy/day.  If consideration is given to the fact that GCR radiation is 20 times more damaging and shielding for GCR is best provide by hydrogenous material, then the baseline should be at least a magnitude higher.  Of the Nine lunar missions, 5 achieved daily doses of approximately .4 mgy/day or higher, while four didn't.  If the 4 hours plus trips through the VAB are included in the assessment then all but one of the flights (Apollo 14) show uncharacteristically low exposure rates.  How do you explain this?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on March 23, 2018, 07:08:23 PM
Sadly, not even those remain.  IMDB closed and deleted all of their discussion fora a year or two ago.

There is this debate if you can call it that, which covers radiation and features Jarrah White being very rude:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130321060652/http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com:80/group/apollo-hoax/message/224?threaded=1&var=1

As you can see Jarrah really does get fairly well battered by jayutah!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 24, 2018, 01:38:10 AM
"...should be magnitude higher" is not how it works.  Gray is a measure of absorbed dose.  The quality factor for biological purposes does not enter into it in the way he's attempting.  Further, while low atomic number materials are optimal, that doesn't mean that other materials like aluminum are unsatisfactory or ineffective.  Aluminum is, in fact, the material of choice for unmanned equipment shielding.  GCR fluctuates.  7-month averaged data cannot be expected to match 2-week averaged data.

Who's more likely to be right?  The entire astrophysics community, or a guy from YouTube named Tim?  That's not meant to be insulting; it's a serious question.  The world's astrophysics community is well aware of the reports from Apollo.  And there are plenty of fully qualified astrophysicists, health physics specialists, and the like who are not at all sympathetic to the United States and have no reason to keep whatever secrets people think the U.S. is keeping.  The only people who seem to question the Apollo approach to handling radiation seem to have just Googled their way along within a short time of making the claim.  Why isn't the parsimonious conclusion that radiometry is not as simple as claimants make it out to be?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 24, 2018, 01:53:02 AM
It doesn't look like that web site is going to admit me...

It will, but LunarOrbit (who approves the accounts) checks in only every so often.  This is actually a fairly low-traffic site.  Nothing nefarious, you can assure him.  The debate side of the forum only works if there are people to offer debatable opinions and arguments.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 24, 2018, 04:46:08 AM
brill thanks again jay i'll let him know
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 24, 2018, 07:34:55 AM
It doesn't look like that web site is going to admit me...

It will, but LunarOrbit (who approves the accounts) checks in only every so often.  This is actually a fairly low-traffic site.  Nothing nefarious, you can assure him.  The debate side of the forum only works if there are people to offer debatable opinions and arguments.

Yes and IF he has had an account that was banned the same IP address won't be allowed back into the forum.  LO is good at detecting socks. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 24, 2018, 09:12:07 AM
If we remove the Van Allen Belt from consideration and only consider GCR exposure in cislunar space, it can be seen that based on the 7 month data of the MSL/RAD that background radiation is approximately 450 ugy (.45 mgy) per day.

For that 7 month period, yes. What did the data in that period actually look like? I'm currently doing a project investigating news reports of the ISS in the British press, and over a 20 year period there's an average that is heavily skewed by the fact that reporting on Tim Peake's mission in 2015/2016 meant that more articles appeared in the press in that period than in the rest of the 20 years put together. Large peaks and high variability skew averages badly. The cislunar radiation environment is heavily dependent on the Sun, and we know that's not a steady source, with quiescent periods and flares of widely ranging magnitudes.

Quote
This would indicate that as a base line all lunar flights should have as a minimum exposure rate of at least .45 mgy/day.

No. See above. Also consider the rain analogy. You can't conclude, based on average rainfall, that everyone going outdoors on any given day should come in with a minimum level of wetness.

Quote
If consideration is given to the fact that GCR radiation is 20 times more damaging

The source for that claim is what? And again, 20 times more damaging than what? Radiation doesn't scale that way. Few things do. Too many variables are being ignored. Another analogy: people have survived being impaled with huge objects, but other have died from a relatively tiny gunshot wound.

Quote
and shielding for GCR is best provide by hydrogenous material,

Best doesn't mean only, and in terms of spacecraft there are other considerations besides effectiveness of radiation shielding that have to be taken into account. Structural and thermal properties for starters.

Quote
then the baseline should be at least a magnitude higher.

No, for the reasons given.

Quote
If the 4 hours plus trips through the VAB are included in the assessment

Which parts of the VAB, what levels and kinds of radiation are there, and how intense were they?

Your friend is still making too many oversimplified assumptions about radiation. Jay's question is valid: these data have been published for decades, and if no actual experts in the relevant fields are finding fault with it, why does your friend think his conclusions are valid?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 24, 2018, 12:14:35 PM
Hey guys just got a message from Tim asking if his account had been activated I think he still wants to post some comments but he has asked if I can copy and paste a question here for anyone’s thoughts

Ben, can you do me a favor?  It doesn't look like that web site is going to admit me, so I was wondering if you could post this comment for me:  If we remove the Van Allen Belt from consideration and only consider GCR exposure in cislunar space, it can be seen that based on the 7 month data of the MSL/RAD that background radiation is approximately 450 ugy (.45 mgy) per day.  This would indicate that as a base line all lunar flights should have as a minimum exposure rate of at least .45 mgy/day.  If consideration is given to the fact that GCR radiation is 20 times more damaging and shielding for GCR is best provide by hydrogenous material, then the baseline should be at least a magnitude higher.  Of the Nine lunar missions, 5 achieved daily doses of approximately .4 mgy/day or higher, while four didn't.  If the 4 hours plus trips through the VAB are included in the assessment then all but one of the flights (Apollo 14) show uncharacteristically low exposure rates.  How do you explain this?

Ben, please post a link to this YT video.  I searched today and couldn't find this specific one.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on March 24, 2018, 12:15:11 PM
Hey guys just got a message from Tim asking if his account had been activated

Quote
It doesn't look like that web site is going to admit me

I think I have just approved the account. It was the only one with Tim in the name anyway. I apologize for the delay. I often only check the forum using the Tapatalk app on my phone, and it doesn't notify me of new members.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 12:26:35 PM
Thanks for the add.  Let me start off by saying that I don't necessarily believe it is impossible to travel to the moon.  I believe that current technology has not advanced to the point that it can be done safely.  I believe sixties technology was wholly incapable.  I believe the Apollo missions to the moon if they occurred at all were unmanned.  I believe the truth of the deception can be deduced from the space mission data conducted this century.  I am ready to prove my beliefs.  Let's do this.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 24, 2018, 12:39:16 PM
Welcome Tim.

Quote
I believe that current technology has not advanced to the point that it can be done safely.  I believe sixties technology was wholly incapable.

Then you will have to explain why your belief is more valid than that of people who work in the aerospace industry, and where the qualified professionals who share this belief are.

Quote
I believe the Apollo missions to the moon if they occurred at all were unmanned.

Then you will have to provide evidence of how they were accomplished unmanned in such a way as to convincingly fake manned flights to the extent seen in the record.

Quote
I believe the truth of the deception can be deduced from the space mission data conducted this century.

ANd you will have to explain why the data gathered in the previous century is insufficient and what 'new discoveries' this century have allowed that conclusion.

But for now you can start by addressing the radiation claims in this thread.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: BertieSlack on March 24, 2018, 12:50:29 PM
I am ready to prove my beliefs.

A quick question for you:

What were the first living organisms to leave LEO and fly to the Moon?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 12:51:18 PM
If the data obtained by the MSL/RAD transit to Mars is to believed then it can be ascertained that cislunar space has a background GCR radiation level of approximately .45 mgy/day.  That would imply that irrespective of VAB transit all apollo missions would have as a base line a corresponding dose level.  of the nine apollo lunar missions only 5 had such a level.  If you add the anticipated VAB transit exposures then only Apollo 14 have a high enough exposure to have actually traveled through the VAB and cislunar space.  It is interesting to note that all of exposure levels of the lunar flights correspond closely to LEO missions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 12:54:01 PM
I am ready to prove my beliefs.

A quick question for you:

What were the first living organisms to leave LEO and fly to the Moon?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/who-was-first-in-the-race-to-the-moon-the-tortoise/266665/
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 24, 2018, 12:56:31 PM
THis has already been addressed in this thread. Please read the existing content.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 01:00:05 PM
It has not been addressed to my satisfaction.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: BertieSlack on March 24, 2018, 01:02:53 PM
I am ready to prove my beliefs.

A quick question for you:

What were the first living organisms to leave LEO and fly to the Moon?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/who-was-first-in-the-race-to-the-moon-the-tortoise/266665/

Did you know that the Zond lunar fly-bys also had radiation detection equipment onboard? The Soviets published their radiation data from the missions. The concluding sentence from their published paper is:
"7-day flights on the Zond trajectories are safe from the radiation point of view".
You can find an English translation of the paper on the CERN website.
So the Soviets knew - prior to Apollo 8 - that radiation would not prevent manned lunar missions.

Are you familiar with radiation results from India's Chandrayaan-1 mission?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 01:05:09 PM
I am not speaking of safety, I am speaking of credible data.  The exposure levels of the Apollo missions do not correspond to current data expectations.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 24, 2018, 01:09:21 PM
It has not been addressed to my satisfaction.

Then explain why. And start by providing the source for the data you are basing your conclusions on so we can all actually see it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 01:13:33 PM
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.06631.pdf

I have already stated that It is my opinion that cislunar travel encounters a baseline GCR level of .45 mgy/day.  All lunar missions must have as a minimum this level as we lack the technology to shield the high energy proton radiation of GCR's.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 01:23:19 PM
FYI.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 24, 2018, 02:11:40 PM
I am curious. What other data sets have you examined? What you have here are two sets that appear at first glance to contradict. What have you done to examine which is the anomaly, if any? There have been countless other probes that have measured radiation in cislunar and interplanetary space. WHich of them have you examined?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 02:23:05 PM
I have examined everything I could find on the subject.  I have combed the NASA sites and looked at most of the conspiracy sites.  I looked at the Chang'e and Selene data and the Zond data.  I have a background in radiation work and it struck me as odd that the Lunar mission doses were so similar to the LEO doses that I pursued the data trying to come to terms with why that was the case.  Everything I have researched indicates one of two things.  Either the data is incorrect/fabricated or it was taken from LEO missions and not actual lunar transits.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 02:29:21 PM
Where is the contradiction in the data sets?  It is not obvious to me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 24, 2018, 03:03:13 PM
...  I have a background in radiation work ...

Please elaborate what background in radiation you have?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 03:09:46 PM
I was a Nuclear electrician aboard a fast attack submarine for 12 years.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Northern Lurker on March 24, 2018, 03:25:58 PM
I'm not an expert but I'll give my 2 cents.

Having an idea that LEO = radiation safe, cislunar = radiation dangerous and VAB = radiation deadly is wrong. To assess radiation and it's effects you need to know what types of radiation you are encountering, what is each type's flux and energy distribution, duration and repetition of exposure and attenuation of each radiation type.

Van Allen belts traps charged particles and protects everything below it from charged particles. X-rays, gamma rays and neutrons are electrically neutral and are thus immune to VAB. They are attenuated by our atmosphere. That's why you get higher radiation dose while flying because densest part of atmosphere is below you.

Mercury had lowest dose because they were shortest missions with lowest orbits. Outside the protection of atmosphere (x-ray, gamma ray and neutrons) but well below VAB and under it's protection against charged particles.

Gemini had longer missions and higher orbits, thus larger dose. Orbital Apollo missions (7, 9 and ASTP are in this category)

Apollo and shuttle had similar durations (about 2 weeks). Apollo had to traverse Van Allen belts. You can and Apollo did go over radiation belts. Apollo 14 had higher dose because it went through the heart of VAB and had more active radiation environment because of recent solar event. Apollo 14 didn't fry because it crossed the belts with high speed reducing exposure duration. Also capsule made of steel, glass fibre and aluminum attenuated particle radiation from VABs.

Space starts at about 100 km up but atmosphere doesn't end there. It just gets thinner and thinner. Even quite good vacuum creates air resistance when you travel at speeds of few tens of thousands km/h. Because of that, satellites which need to stay in space for long, use higher orbits. Hubble had about 500 km orbit that slices South Atlantic Anomaly on every orbit. Shuttle missions to Hubble had still higher doses because each orbit skirted the SAA until they landed.

Space stations orbit in 400 km so they take hits from SAA too but mission durations are about 6 months to even a year so they have the highest dosages.

Comparing trips to Moon and Mars are incomparable because of different duration. Trip to Moon was about 2 weeks. In 60's they could predict solar activity for a week and used statistics to avoid major solar events during mission. Galactic Gamma Rays are powerful but rare so they don't cause much exposure during 2 week trip. Trip to Mars (one way) is about a year. In mission that long, major solar events are certain and doses from GGRs add up. That's why we could do 2 week Moon mission but 2+ years long mission to Mars needs improved radiation protection.

Lurky


Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Northern Lurker on March 24, 2018, 03:32:27 PM
I was a Nuclear electrician aboard a fast attack submarine for 12 years.

I'm not familiar with navy, so how much education and experience about radiation that means?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 03:49:04 PM
I'm not an expert but I'll give my 2 cents.

Having an idea that LEO = radiation safe, cislunar = radiation dangerous and VAB = radiation deadly is wrong. To assess radiation and it's effects you need to know what types of radiation you are encountering, what is each type's flux and energy distribution, duration and repetition of exposure and attenuation of each radiation type.

Van Allen belts traps charged particles and protects everything below it from charged particles. X-rays, gamma rays and neutrons are electrically neutral and are thus immune to VAB. They are attenuated by our atmosphere. That's why you get higher radiation dose while flying because densest part of atmosphere is below you.

Mercury had lowest dose because they were shortest missions with lowest orbits. Outside the protection of atmosphere (x-ray, gamma ray and neutrons) but well below VAB and under it's protection against charged particles.

Gemini had longer missions and higher orbits, thus larger dose. Orbital Apollo missions (7, 9 and ASTP are in this category)

Apollo and shuttle had similar durations (about 2 weeks). Apollo had to traverse Van Allen belts. You can and Apollo did go over radiation belts. Apollo 14 had higher dose because it went through the heart of VAB and had more active radiation environment because of recent solar event. Apollo 14 didn't fry because it crossed the belts with high speed reducing exposure duration. Also capsule made of steel, glass fibre and aluminum attenuated particle radiation from VABs.

Space starts at about 100 km up but atmosphere doesn't end there. It just gets thinner and thinner. Even quite good vacuum creates air resistance when you travel at speeds of few tens of thousands km/h. Because of that, satellites which need to stay in space for long, use higher orbits. Hubble had about 500 km orbit that slices South Atlantic Anomaly on every orbit. Shuttle missions to Hubble had still higher doses because each orbit skirted the SAA until they landed.

Space stations orbit in 400 km so they take hits from SAA too but mission durations are about 6 months to even a year so they have the highest dosages.

Comparing trips to Moon and Mars are incomparable because of different duration. Trip to Moon was about 2 weeks. In 60's they could predict solar activity for a week and used statistics to avoid major solar events during mission. Galactic Gamma Rays are powerful but rare so they don't cause much exposure during 2 week trip. Trip to Mars (one way) is about a year. In mission that long, major solar events are certain and doses from GGRs add up. That's why we could do 2 week Moon mission but 2+ years long mission to Mars needs improved radiation protection.

Lurky
The daily rate can be compared if not the mission dose.  Look at the data from the Orion test that traveled 3600 miles into the VAB and compare the results of that test to the radiation dose of say Apollo 17 that supposedly traveled through the heart of the VAB.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 03:53:34 PM
Submarine Nuclear Operators are given college level training in Thermodynamics, Metallurgy, Chemistry, Nuclear Plant construction and Radiology.  Our training is administered, regulated and tested by the Nuclear Atomic commision. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: BertieSlack on March 24, 2018, 05:21:20 PM
I have examined everything I could find on the subject.  I have combed the NASA sites and looked at most of the conspiracy sites.  I looked at the Chang'e and Selene data and the Zond data.  I have a background in radiation work and it struck me as odd that the Lunar mission doses were so similar to the LEO doses that I pursued the data trying to come to terms with why that was the case.  Everything I have researched indicates one of two things.  Either the data is incorrect/fabricated or it was taken from LEO missions and not actual lunar transits.

You're claiming that the Soviets fabricated the Zond data in 1968? You know the Zond missions photographed the Moon, right? Are those photos fake too?
You're claiming that Chandrayaan-1 data is faked too? You know the Chandrayaan mission photographed the Moon, right? Are those photos fake too?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 05:52:24 PM
The only claim I make is the radiation exposure of the Apollo lunar missions do not coincide with expected values using empirical data from the 21st century.  That is the extent of my claim.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 24, 2018, 06:07:46 PM
I'm not an expert but I'll give my 2 cents.

Having an idea that LEO = radiation safe, cislunar = radiation dangerous and VAB = radiation deadly is wrong. To assess radiation and it's effects you need to know what types of radiation you are encountering, what is each type's flux and energy distribution, duration and repetition of exposure and attenuation of each radiation type.

Van Allen belts traps charged particles and protects everything below it from charged particles. X-rays, gamma rays and neutrons are electrically neutral and are thus immune to VAB. They are attenuated by our atmosphere. That's why you get higher radiation dose while flying because densest part of atmosphere is below you.

Mercury had lowest dose because they were shortest missions with lowest orbits. Outside the protection of atmosphere (x-ray, gamma ray and neutrons) but well below VAB and under it's protection against charged particles.

Gemini had longer missions and higher orbits, thus larger dose. Orbital Apollo missions (7, 9 and ASTP are in this category)

Apollo and shuttle had similar durations (about 2 weeks). Apollo had to traverse Van Allen belts. You can and Apollo did go over radiation belts. Apollo 14 had higher dose because it went through the heart of VAB and had more active radiation environment because of recent solar event. Apollo 14 didn't fry because it crossed the belts with high speed reducing exposure duration. Also capsule made of steel, glass fibre and aluminum attenuated particle radiation from VABs.

Space starts at about 100 km up but atmosphere doesn't end there. It just gets thinner and thinner. Even quite good vacuum creates air resistance when you travel at speeds of few tens of thousands km/h. Because of that, satellites which need to stay in space for long, use higher orbits. Hubble had about 500 km orbit that slices South Atlantic Anomaly on every orbit. Shuttle missions to Hubble had still higher doses because each orbit skirted the SAA until they landed.

Space stations orbit in 400 km so they take hits from SAA too but mission durations are about 6 months to even a year so they have the highest dosages.

Comparing trips to Moon and Mars are incomparable because of different duration. Trip to Moon was about 2 weeks. In 60's they could predict solar activity for a week and used statistics to avoid major solar events during mission. Galactic Gamma Rays are powerful but rare so they don't cause much exposure during 2 week trip. Trip to Mars (one way) is about a year. In mission that long, major solar events are certain and doses from GGRs add up. That's why we could do 2 week Moon mission but 2+ years long mission to Mars needs improved radiation protection.

Lurky
The daily rate can be compared if not the mission dose.  Look at the data from the Orion test that traveled 3600 miles into the VAB and compare the results of that test to the radiation dose of say Apollo 17 that supposedly traveled through the heart of the VAB.

The trajectories of Orion and any Apollo Lunar mission is significantly different.  Orion did indeed go through the most dangerous portion of the VARB, where all the Apollo Lunar mission had outbound and inbound trajectories through the least dangerous portions of the VARB.  Therefore you are in error comparing those events
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 24, 2018, 06:19:22 PM
The only claim I make is the radiation exposure of the Apollo lunar missions do not coincide with expected values using empirical data from the 21st century.  That is the extent of my claim.

You do realize that the data of the Mars mission was determined with little radiation protection whereas the Apollo capsule were layered with low density material and stainless steel.  Both are good insulators to radiation so the rates should be lower than those derived by Curiosity mission.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 06:36:18 PM
The only claim I make is the radiation exposure of the Apollo lunar missions do not coincide with expected values using empirical data from the 21st century.  That is the extent of my claim.

You do realize that the data of the Mars mission was determined with little radiation protection whereas the Apollo capsule were layered with low density material and stainless steel.  Both are good insulators to radiation so the rates should be lower than those derived by Curiosity mission.

In a word, No.  You should recheck your notes on this as I believe you are completely wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 24, 2018, 06:38:23 PM
Submarine Nuclear Operators are given college level training in Thermodynamics, Metallurgy, Chemistry, Nuclear Plant construction and Radiology.  Our training is administered, regulated and tested by the Nuclear Atomic commision. 
I was an ELT on several nuke boats and completed article 108 training for a billet at a shore facility.  My training in radiological controls far exceeds yours as an electrician on a submarine.  I would not call what we got at nuke school, "college level" anything as our course work was based on algebra.  Only the officers got calculus based training unless the course was updated recently.

Ranb
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 06:39:48 PM
I'm not an expert but I'll give my 2 cents.

Having an idea that LEO = radiation safe, cislunar = radiation dangerous and VAB = radiation deadly is wrong. To assess radiation and it's effects you need to know what types of radiation you are encountering, what is each type's flux and energy distribution, duration and repetition of exposure and attenuation of each radiation type.

Van Allen belts traps charged particles and protects everything below it from charged particles. X-rays, gamma rays and neutrons are electrically neutral and are thus immune to VAB. They are attenuated by our atmosphere. That's why you get higher radiation dose while flying because densest part of atmosphere is below you.

Mercury had lowest dose because they were shortest missions with lowest orbits. Outside the protection of atmosphere (x-ray, gamma ray and neutrons) but well below VAB and under it's protection against charged particles.

Gemini had longer missions and higher orbits, thus larger dose. Orbital Apollo missions (7, 9 and ASTP are in this category)

Apollo and shuttle had similar durations (about 2 weeks). Apollo had to traverse Van Allen belts. You can and Apollo did go over radiation belts. Apollo 14 had higher dose because it went through the heart of VAB and had more active radiation environment because of recent solar event. Apollo 14 didn't fry because it crossed the belts with high speed reducing exposure duration. Also capsule made of steel, glass fibre and aluminum attenuated particle radiation from VABs.

Space starts at about 100 km up but atmosphere doesn't end there. It just gets thinner and thinner. Even quite good vacuum creates air resistance when you travel at speeds of few tens of thousands km/h. Because of that, satellites which need to stay in space for long, use higher orbits. Hubble had about 500 km orbit that slices South Atlantic Anomaly on every orbit. Shuttle missions to Hubble had still higher doses because each orbit skirted the SAA until they landed.

Space stations orbit in 400 km so they take hits from SAA too but mission durations are about 6 months to even a year so they have the highest dosages.

Comparing trips to Moon and Mars are incomparable because of different duration. Trip to Moon was about 2 weeks. In 60's they could predict solar activity for a week and used statistics to avoid major solar events during mission. Galactic Gamma Rays are powerful but rare so they don't cause much exposure during 2 week trip. Trip to Mars (one way) is about a year. In mission that long, major solar events are certain and doses from GGRs add up. That's why we could do 2 week Moon mission but 2+ years long mission to Mars needs improved radiation protection.

Lurky
The daily rate can be compared if not the mission dose.  Look at the data from the Orion test that traveled 3600 miles into the VAB and compare the results of that test to the radiation dose of say Apollo 17 that supposedly traveled through the heart of the VAB.

The trajectories of Orion and any Apollo Lunar mission is significantly different.  Orion did indeed go through the most dangerous portion of the VARB, where all the Apollo Lunar mission had outbound and inbound trajectories through the least dangerous portions of the VARB.  Therefore you are in error comparing those events

I guess you should review the trajectories of all the Apollo missions.  I am told that Apollo 17 went through the heart of the VAB.  It would be great if there was an overlay showing all of the missions paths through the VAB.  I have only found the one for Apollo 11 and I doubt the veracity of it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 24, 2018, 06:40:29 PM
Look at the data from the Orion test that traveled 3600 miles into the VAB and compare the results of that test to the radiation dose of say Apollo 17 that supposedly traveled through the heart of the VAB.
Bolding mine.  Evidence to support this claim?

I am told that Apollo 17 went through the heart of the VAB.  It would be great if there was an overlay showing all of the missions paths through the VAB.  I have only found the one for Apollo 11 and I doubt the veracity of it.
Who told you this?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 06:44:24 PM
Submarine Nuclear Operators are given college level training in Thermodynamics, Metallurgy, Chemistry, Nuclear Plant construction and Radiology.  Our training is administered, regulated and tested by the Nuclear Atomic commision. 
I was an ELT on several nuke boats and completed article 108 training for a billet at a shore facility.  My training in radiological controls far exceeds yours as an electrician on a submarine.  I would not call what we got at nuke school, "college level" anything as our course work was based on algebra.  Only the officers got calculus based training unless the course was updated recently.

Ranb

I was a Navy Nuke from 1979 to 1991.  Unless you attended Nuke School in the late seventies or early eighties then you have no idea what we were taught.  Maybe you should ask someone.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 06:53:22 PM
Look at the data from the Orion test that traveled 3600 miles into the VAB and compare the results of that test to the radiation dose of say Apollo 17 that supposedly traveled through the heart of the VAB.
Bolding mine.  Evidence to support this claim?

I am told that Apollo 17 went through the heart of the VAB.  It would be great if there was an overlay showing all of the missions paths through the VAB.  I have only found the one for Apollo 11 and I doubt the veracity of it.
Who told you this?

I actually read it in one of the threads here.  I have searched for corroboration but as yet I have been unable to confirm it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 24, 2018, 06:54:47 PM
I was a Navy Nuke from 1979 to 1991.  Unless you attended Nuke School in the late seventies or early eighties then you have no idea what we were taught.  Maybe you should ask someone.
Nuclear navy from 1983-2003.  I have a very good idea of what you were taught.  I also know it was junior college level at best and the nuclear physics portion of the school was not advanced at all.  Sure I could calculate the required fuel load of an S3G core 3 and describe the neutron life cycle, but it really did little to improve my understanding of the radiation environment that exists in space.  Listing your sources is a much better way of convincing anyone here than saying that you were a nuclear electrician on a sub who operated the throttles, brought on shore power and flipped switches on the EPCP.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 24, 2018, 06:57:43 PM
I actually read it in one of the threads here.  I have searched for corroboration but as yet I have been unable to confirm it.
People here who believe manned lunar missions were possible in the 60's sometimes disagree and even make mistakes.  I caught Jay in a mistake on a matter of radiation in space and am still waiting for my t-shirt.  :)

What most of the people here have in common is that they're able to list their sources of information.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 06:58:48 PM
I was an EWS for 7 of those years, supervising ELT's now go figure.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 24, 2018, 07:09:36 PM
I was an EWS for 7 of those years, supervising ELT's now go figure.
I was also qualified as an Engineering Watch Supervisor, doesn't mean I was telling the ET's or EM's how to accomplish their maintenance or stand their watch.

I have a background in radiation work....
I figure that your background in radiation work was mostly limited to wearing a TLD and SRPD during maintenance for lighting or other electrical repair work in the reactor compartment.  Chances are your radiation survey experience with an AN/PDR-27 was limited to a sign-off on your qualification card and your contamination survey experience ended with the completion of your 2-3 minute whole body frisk after each reactor compartment exit.

Every EM I knew on a boat was far too busy keeping their gear functioning to bother with the duties and responsibilities of Reactor Laboratory (ELT's) Division.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 07:24:31 PM
My young padawan, you never knew me.  What has my credentials have to do with the information I provided or the assertion I made?  Prove me wrong or remain silent on the subject.  I am not impressed that you are not impressed.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 24, 2018, 07:43:03 PM
My young padawan, you never knew me.
I'm not your apprentice and I've no reason to believe that you're the master of anyone.

What has my credentials have to do with the information I provided or the assertion I made?
You have stated that your background in nuclear work (limited to NEC 3364?) is somehow relevant to this discussion.  I say it is completely irrelevant based on the details you have provided.

  Prove me wrong or remain silent on the subject.  I am not impressed that you are not impressed.
You told us of your background in nuclear power as if it was something credible upon which to support your claims.  I say based upon my similar but more extensive experience in radiological controls that your naval work history is not very meaningful when it comes to space medicine.

Please tell us more about where you got your data from.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 24, 2018, 08:01:59 PM
My young padawan, you never knew me.
Your argument requires us to, since it's based on your expert judgment.

Quote
What has my credentials have to do with the information I provided or the assertion I made?

Because you are the one interpreting the data to indicate that the radiation metrics for Apollo are wrong, and suspiciously so.  That requires you to substantiate the expertise behind that judgment.  You also need to explain why your judgment is correct, while those with similar and superior expertise seem to have reached an entirely different conclusion.  This is not a trivial point.  You are claiming that anyone with nuclear electrician training in the Navy, or its equivalent, should be able to detect that Apollo radiation reports are wrong.  This would comprise a great many people.  You are not even the first to raise the radiation argument.  Part of your claim therefore needs to explain why all these similarly qualified people are wallowing in error and you seem to be one of the few who have found the "truth."

All you have given us is your judgment -- your opinion.  That's not really enough, given the whole landscape of evidence.

Quote
Prove me wrong or remain silent on the subject.

No, you still have a burden to prove your concerns are valid.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 08:22:16 PM
I have provided the documents to justify my position.  I can lead you to the fountain of knowledge but I cannot make you drink.  If you have Information contrary to the information I have provided I would love to see it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 08:27:23 PM
I didn't realize that I needed a doctorate to have an opinion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 24, 2018, 09:33:40 PM
I have provided the documents to justify my position.  I can lead you to the fountain of knowledge but I cannot make you drink.  If you have Information contrary to the information I have provided I would love to see it.
You provided information contrary to your claims.

You speculated about a radiation level in post #45 then claimed that Apollo exposure did not match your expectations in #52.

In post #55 you linked to some data then went on to call this data evidence of similar exposure rates between low Earth orbit missions and those that went to the moon.  The average daily exposure rate for those Apollo missions that stayed in Earth orbit was .16 mGy, those that went to the moon averaged .50mGy.  Only by including Skylab which orbited about about 270 miles vs the early Apollo missions and ASTP which orbited lower at about 120 miles do we get an average daily dose rate approaching the lunar missions.

I didn't realize that I needed a doctorate to have an opinion.
Of course not.  But claiming a background of USN nuclear trained electrician does nothing to support your space medicine knowledge claims.  You had more to show us, where is it?

I rarely post on the forum; less than twice a month on average.  I've learned a ton by just lurking here.  So can you.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 24, 2018, 09:48:54 PM
The only claim I make is the radiation exposure of the Apollo lunar missions do not coincide with expected values using empirical data from the 21st century.  That is the extent of my claim.

You do realize that the data of the Mars mission was determined with little radiation protection whereas the Apollo capsule were layered with low density material and stainless steel.  Both are good insulators to radiation so the rates should be lower than those derived by Curiosity mission.

In a word, No.  You should recheck your notes on this as I believe you are completely wrong.
Cite where the detection panels were in cased with attenuation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 10:22:00 PM
I have provided the documents to justify my position.  I can lead you to the fountain of knowledge but I cannot make you drink.  If you have Information contrary to the information I have provided I would love to see it.
You provided information contrary to your claims.

You speculated about a radiation level in post #45 then claimed that Apollo exposure did not match your expectations in #52.

In post #55 you linked to some data then went on to call this data evidence of similar exposure rates between low Earth orbit missions and those that went to the moon.  The average daily exposure rate for those Apollo missions that stayed in Earth orbit was .16 mGy, those that went to the moon averaged .50mGy.  Only by including Skylab which orbited about about 270 miles vs the early Apollo missions and ASTP which orbited lower at about 120 miles do we get an average daily dose rate approaching the lunar missions.

I didn't realize that I needed a doctorate to have an opinion.
Of course not.  But claiming a background of USN nuclear trained electrician does nothing to support your space medicine knowledge claims.  You had more to show us, where is it?

I rarely post on the forum; less than twice a month on average.  I've learned a ton by just lurking here.  So can you.
being a trained Nuclear Radiation worker establishes that I have more than a layman's understanding of the hazards of radiation exposure , nothing more.  I don't claim a specialized knowledge of space radiation biology or astrophysics.  I claim that I understand the basic principles involved.  Lurk on if you have nothing to contribute.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 10:29:27 PM
The only claim I make is the radiation exposure of the Apollo lunar missions do not coincide with expected values using empirical data from the 21st century.  That is the extent of my claim.

You do realize that the data of the Mars mission was determined with little radiation protection whereas the Apollo capsule were layered with low density material and stainless steel.  Both are good insulators to radiation so the rates should be lower than those derived by Curiosity mission.

In a word, No.  You should recheck your notes on this as I believe you are completely wrong.
Cite where the detection panels were in cased with attenuation.

the potential radiation hazard for astronauts
(Zeitlin et al. 2013). Because of the shielding of the spacecraft
and internal structures, RAD measured a mix of primary and
secondary particles. The latter are produced by primary particles
via nuclear or electromagnetic interactions as they traverse the
spacecraft. A simplified shielding model of the spacecraft developed
at JPL has been be used to calculate the shielding distribution
as seen by RAD, which is mounted to the top deck of the
rover (Zeitlin et al. 2013). Shielding around the RAD instrument
during cruise was complex: most of the solid angle was lightly
shielded with a column density smaller than 10 g/cm2
, while the
rest was broadly distributed over a range of depths up to about
100 g/cm2
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.06631.pdf
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 10:31:55 PM
It is not as if the Apollo crafts has any shielding capable of attenuating the high energy protons of GCR so what is your point?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 24, 2018, 10:38:49 PM
It is not as if the Apollo crafts has any shielding capable of attenuating the high energy protons of GCR so what is your point?

What was the GCR flux at 10 MeV and higher?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 24, 2018, 10:51:41 PM
being a trained Nuclear Radiation worker establishes that I have more than a layman's understanding of the hazards of radiation exposure , nothing more.

Your argument involves expert judgment on data pertaining to astrophysics and design for space.  When asked to substantiate that expertise, you cited your training and experience in the Navy.  Now you're trying to walk that back and say that's not the basis of your expert judgment.  Which is it?  Either you don't have any relevant expertise, in which case there's a greater chance that your judgment -- contradicting that of people who's backgrounds are not in question -- is in error.  Or you do have relevant expertise, and you haven't disclosed it yet.

It seems you've been trained to safely operate and maintained equipment designed by others for a specific purpose in a specific environment that has almost nothing to do with Apollo or manned spaceflight.  If you concede that this training does not qualify you in astrophysics or space engineering or space medicine, that's a proper concession.  However it still leaves your argument as little more than baseless judgment.

Quote
I don't claim a specialized knowledge of space radiation biology or astrophysics.

Do you agree that proper knowledge of those subjects is necessary to drawing correct conclusions about how spacecraft work and interact with their environment?  Would you agree that evaluating whether some spacecraft design is appropriate to some particular environment requires considerable knowledge in those areas?

Quote
I claim that I understand the basic principles involved.

Can you explain why people with a greater knowledge than "basic principles" disagree with your conclusion?  Would you agree that "basic principles" as taught to technicians may not include important principles that would be more generally known among those who were experienced in the relevant design disciplines, or the scientific and research disciplines?  Is it reasonable to suppose that this greater and broader knowledge -- far above ordinary "basic principles" -- provides a more accurate basis for judgment regarding the validity of Apollo?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 11:10:18 PM
In deep space?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 11:14:07 PM
being a trained Nuclear Radiation worker establishes that I have more than a layman's understanding of the hazards of radiation exposure , nothing more.

Your argument involves expert judgment on data pertaining to astrophysics and design for space.  When asked to substantiate that expertise, you cited your training and experience in the Navy.  Now you're trying to walk that back and say that's not the basis of your expert judgment.  Which is it?  Either you don't have any relevant expertise, in which case there's a greater chance that your judgment -- contradicting that of people who's backgrounds are not in question -- is in error.  Or you do have relevant expertise, and you haven't disclosed it yet.

It seems you've been trained to safely operate and maintained equipment designed by others for a specific purpose in a specific environment that has almost nothing to do with Apollo or manned spaceflight.  If you concede that this training does not qualify you in astrophysics or space engineering or space medicine, that's a proper concession.  However it still leaves your argument as little more than baseless judgment.

Quote
I don't claim a specialized knowledge of space radiation biology or astrophysics.

Do you agree that proper knowledge of those subjects is necessary to drawing correct conclusions about how spacecraft work and interact with their environment?  Would you agree that evaluating whether some spacecraft design is appropriate to some particular environment requires considerable knowledge in those areas?

Quote
I claim that I understand the basic principles involved.

Can you explain why people with a greater knowledge than "basic principles" disagree with your conclusion?  Would you agree that "basic principles" as taught to technicians may not include important principles that would be more generally known among those who were experienced in the relevant design disciplines, or the scientific and research disciplines?  Is it reasonable to suppose that this greater and broader knowledge -- far above ordinary "basic principles" -- provides a more accurate basis for judgment regarding the validity of Apollo?
If the people in question perpetrated a fabrication to conceal the fact that were incapable of delivering on a trillion dollar promise then it seems to me they would have a vested interest in disseminating fabrications and falsehoods but what do I know.  I am just a layman.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 11:16:54 PM
Do you think the Wright Brothers wielded similar questions about the experise of highly trained engineers who thought manned flight was impossible?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 24, 2018, 11:17:41 PM
In deep space?

You claimed the Apollo spacecraft were not shielded against GCR.  You insinuate that this is a problem.  To assess your judgment on that point, we will need you to supply the relevant data from appropriate sources that you used in reaching that judgment as well as a discussion of the rationale you applied to the data to arrive at that opinion.  GCR flux at thermal energies is one of several data that apply.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 24, 2018, 11:22:00 PM
If the people in question perpetrated a fabrication to conceal the fact that were incapable of delivering on a trillion dollar promise then it seems to me they would have a vested interest in disseminating fabrications and falsehoods.

Let me get this straight.  You're accusing the entire astrophysics and aerospace engineering community the world over -- including those not sympathetic to the United States -- of concealing the "fact" of Apollo's impossibility?

Quote
...but what do I know.  I am just a layman.

Indeed you are, which is why we're questioning the basis of your judgment.  Nothing that you wrote addresses those concerns.  Given your broad, sweeping accusations above, isn't it more parsimonious to believe you simply are unfamiliar with the relevant fields and are therefore drawing simplistic conclusions?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 11:22:53 PM
https://three.jsc.nasa.gov/articles/CucinottaKimChappell0512.pdf
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 11:26:22 PM
If the people in question perpetrated a fabrication to conceal the fact that were incapable of delivering on a trillion dollar promise then it seems to me they would have a vested interest in disseminating fabrications and falsehoods.

Let me get this straight.  You're accusing the entire astrophysics and aerospace engineering community the world over -- including those not sympathetic to the United States -- of concealing the "fact" of Apollo's impossibility?

Quote
...but what do I know.  I am just a layman.

Indeed you are, which is why we're questioning the basis of your judgment.  Nothing that you wrote addresses those concerns.  Given your broad, sweeping accusations above, isn't it more parsimonious to believe you simply are unfamiliar with the relevant fields and are therefore drawing simplistic conclusions?
Why bring my character, intelligence and technical competence into question?  Simply disprove the assertion and be on your way.  This should not not be difficult because I obviously lack the the knowledge or competence to understand the complexities involved.  I have stated that current data indicates the apollo data is unrealistic.  Prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 11:30:16 PM
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12056428

This article speaks of shielding of  shielding up to 80 g/cm2 and 25 g/cm2 and correct me if I am wrong but the apollo had no radiation shielding at all and relied on heat shielding, equipment and superstructure to arrive at its estimate 10 g/cm2 shielding.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 24, 2018, 11:32:19 PM
Do you think the Wright Brothers wielded similar questions about the experise of highly trained engineers who thought manned flight was impossible?

Apples and oranges.

The scientific community in the late 1800s was indeed divided over whether powered flight was possible.  However, aside from a few bombastic quotes that have acquired ironic attention subsequently, there were quite a few fully qualified scientists and physicists -- among them Samuel Pierpont Langley -- who not only believed powered flight was possible but were actively working to achieve it.  A few assessments were based on various elementary texts in aerodynamics which the Wrights realized were in error.  In contrast there was not nearly the degree of skepticism in the relevant scientific community that a manned Moon landing was possible.  Everyone agreed it could be done, but not necessarily by the end of the decade.  The nature of engineering expertise in 1960 was not the same as it was in 1900.

The Wrights, faced with those certain errors in the prevailing wisdom, embarked on their own empirical research to correct the science.  They naturally kept these secret since they hoped to profit from patenting their invention.  But when the patent was secured, the details of their work was revealed.  They were able to demonstrate their correctness in the face of a certain amount of prevailing wisdom not only in the form of a flying machine but in corrections to the scientific record presented with full scientific support.  The Wrights were just as expert as anyone else in the field.  They were self-taught, to be sure, but not just yokels in comparison to supposed intellectual giants.  Where you differ from the Wrights is in your inability and unwillingness to demonstrate competence.  The Wrights did not accuse their critics and opponents of vast conspiracy or dishonesty.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 24, 2018, 11:35:09 PM
Why bring my character, intelligence and technical competence into question?
You made your expertise (or lack of it) part of the question. 

.... I have stated that current data indicates the apollo data is unrealistic.  Prove me wrong.
That's not the way it works.  You made the claim (Apollo data is unrealistic), you prove it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 24, 2018, 11:40:28 PM
Why bring my character, intelligence and technical competence into question?

Your character would be relevant only if it were necessary to assess such things as sincerity or ulterior motives.  I'm not interested in those.  Your intelligence is not being questioned, but your expertise is.  I'm not interested in whether those are the same thing.  Your expertise is being questioned because it's relevant to how much your judgment would be considered reliable in the relevant fields.  Your technical competence, as it relates to Apollo, is essentially irrelevant because it is in a field not related to space engineering or space science.

Quote
Simply disprove the assertion and be on your way.

You're reversing the burden of proof.

Quote
This should not not be difficult because I obviously lack the the knowledge or competence to understand the complexities involved.

And that is the refutation.  Your conclusion is not a self-evident fact somehow inexorably arising out of the materials you quote.  Your conclusion is the product of judgment we have determined is poorly informed.  When asked to explain why your judgment differs from those better qualified, you simply accuse them all of lying for apparently ideological reasons.

Quote
I have stated that current data indicates the apollo data is unrealistic.  Prove me wrong.

You are unqualified to judge what is unrealistic in that field.  That's the proper refutation.  You seem to expect someone to make an affirmative counterclaim.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 24, 2018, 11:45:17 PM
This article speaks of shielding of  shielding up to 80 g/cm2 and 25 g/cm2..

"Speaks of" does not mean "establishes a requirement for."  That type of research is meant to be applied to all sorts of mission and spacecraft designs.  The mission designer is expected to interpret the findings consistent with his requirements.

Quote
and correct me if I am wrong but the apollo had no radiation shielding at all and relied on heat shielding, equipment and superstructure to arrive at its estimate 10 g/cm2 shielding.

You seem to be operating under the misconception that radiation attenuation in spacecraft design requires components specifically designated as radiation shielding.  What is your experience in the design of spacecraft, manned or unmanned?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 24, 2018, 11:48:06 PM
In summary, GCR is heavy, high-energy ions of elements that have had
all their electrons stripped away as they journeyed through the galaxy
at nearly the speed of light. They can cause the ionization of atoms as
they pass through matter and can pass practically unimpeded through a
typical spacecraft or the skin of an astronaut. The GCR are a dominant
source of radiation that must be dealt with aboard current spacecraft
and future space missions within our solar system. Because these particles
are affected by the Sun’s magnetic field, their average intensity is
highest during the period of minimum sunspots when the Sun’s magnetic
field is weakest and less able to deflect them. Also, because GCR
is difficult to shield against and occurs on each space mission, it is often
more hazardous than occasional solar particle events.11 The picture at
left shows GCR falling onto the surface of Mars. GCR appears as faint
white dots, whereas stars appear as white streaks.

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/284273main_Radiation_HS_Mod1.pdf
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 24, 2018, 11:51:21 PM
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12056428

This article speaks of shielding of  shielding up to 80 g/cm2 and 25 g/cm2 and correct me if I am wrong but the apollo had no radiation shielding at all and relied on heat shielding, equipment and superstructure to arrive at its estimate 10 g/cm2 shielding.
The article is dated from 1963. 

You are wrong.  Apollo was built from metal of various types.  Even lightweight aluminum is useful as shielding.  We used it to reduce bremsstrahlung radiation in our beta counter when counting our primary coolant samples.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 24, 2018, 11:57:24 PM
In summary...

Yes, that's what a typical high schooler would learn about GCR.  What's your point?  Nothing in there says Apollo was improperly protected.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 24, 2018, 11:59:19 PM
Even lightweight aluminum is useful as shielding.

The preferred material, in fact, in spacecraft.  The design manuals express shielding design in terms of aluminum-equivalent provisions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 12:00:32 AM
I have provided multiple reference that state that the high energy protons require hydrogenous shielding to attenuate it and that acceptable masses range from 25 g/cm2 to 80 g/cm2.  The Apollo crafts had no hydrogenous shielding of any kind.  I have demonstrated that empirical data from the Mars/Rad radiation survey of the transit to Mars indicates a background radiation level of roughly 470 mgy/day.  It is obvious to the casual observer that cislunar space as it is outside the shielding of the earth's magnetic field share the same baseline GCR level.  It goes without saying that any apollo craft traveling across cislunar space would be exposed to this GCR baseline radiation level as it had no shielding capable of attenuating the high energy protons of GCR.  It is demonstrably proving that all lunar missions cannot have a dose rate of less than GCR background level.  The defense rest.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 12:02:06 AM
Even lightweight aluminum is useful as shielding.

The preferred material, in fact, in spacecraft.  The design manuals express shielding design in terms of aluminum-equivalent provisions.

Aluminum is useless in shielding GCR's and in fact increase biological dosing due to secondary emissions from the high energy protons.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 12:11:25 AM
Aluminum is useless in shielding GCR's and in fact increase biological dosing due to secondary emissions from the high energy protons.

At what thicknesses?  For what energies and fluxes?

I asked you earlier what is your experience in spacecraft design, either manned or unmanned.  Why haven't you answered that question?  Will you please answer it now?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 12:13:55 AM
This isn't about me.  You don't have to be a mechanic to know something is wrong with your car.  I can read and I can see.  Take a moment to review the data and embrace the issue.  Intellectual cowardice is so unappealing.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 12:17:36 AM
I have provided multiple reference that state that the high energy protons require hydrogenous shielding to attenuate it...

That is the optimal material for shielding.  Is the optimal material always the material that's used?

Quote
...and that acceptable masses range from 25 g/cm2 to 80 g/cm2.

Acceptable for what mission?  What duration?  During solar minimum or solar maximum?  You found data that show the behavior of those shielding factors.  Why did you draw the separate conclusion that those are the recommended factors?

Quote
The Apollo crafts had no hydrogenous shielding of any kind.

The Apollo spacecraft did not include components specifically designated as radiation shielding.  This was because an acceptable degree of shielding was provided by the structure of the spacecraft itself.  While not part of the structure, the interstitial padding in the command module qualifies as low-atomic-number material.  Did you factor that into your analysis?

Your claim seems to be that since the Apollo spacecraft weren't designed the way you think they should have been designed, they were not viable spacecraft.  That claim requires you to be able to demonstrate some expertise in spacecraft design that goes above quoting offhand educational materials that just happen to be hosted at NASA.

Quote
The defense rest.

"My conclusion is obvious" is not a case.  Your argument would ordinarily require an analysis that goes deeper than just a few cursory comparisons.  I've alluded to some of the factors that would be considered in such an analysis.  They don't seem to interest you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 25, 2018, 12:17:56 AM
The only claim I make is the radiation exposure of the Apollo lunar missions do not coincide with expected values using empirical data from the 21st century.  That is the extent of my claim.

You do realize that the data of the Mars mission was determined with little radiation protection whereas the Apollo capsule were layered with low density material and stainless steel.  Both are good insulators to radiation so the rates should be lower than those derived by Curiosity mission.

In a word, No.  You should recheck your notes on this as I believe you are completely wrong.
Cite where the detection panels were in cased with attenuation.

the potential radiation hazard for astronauts
(Zeitlin et al. 2013). Because of the shielding of the spacecraft
and internal structures, RAD measured a mix of primary and
secondary particles. The latter are produced by primary particles
via nuclear or electromagnetic interactions as they traverse the
spacecraft. A simplified shielding model of the spacecraft developed
at JPL has been be used to calculate the shielding distribution
as seen by RAD, which is mounted to the top deck of the
rover (Zeitlin et al. 2013). Shielding around the RAD instrument
during cruise was complex: most of the solid angle was lightly
shielded with a column density smaller than 10 g/cm2
, while the
rest was broadly distributed over a range of depths up to about
100 g/cm2
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.06631.pdf

Alright but the shielding/construction was not as complete as Apollo.  Again there were layers in the Apollo command module.

It is doubtful that such construction was used in the Curiosity mission.

You asked what was my point in the next post.  The point being that the construction was more than ample to protect the crew, as have all missions.  Your next task will be to state how you determined the rate was low other than "it looks low to me".

Further, your research should have led you to the answer why A14 mission radiation was higher than the rest of the mission, but your posts don't indicate you know.  One of the dosimeters of the crew broke and Alan and Ed' badges were used for the mission reports.  Nothing to due with SPM just arithmetic.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 12:24:58 AM
I will say this slowly.  The Apollo had nothing on it or in it that could attenuate GCR radiation.  NASA understood this but relied on the fact that the mission was not long enough that it would pose a health hazard.  I don't question that logic.  The point I make is that because it is a given then by definition it sets a baseline exposure rate that isn't reflected in the apollo data.  The only plausible reason is that they remained in LEO.  If you have a better idea I am more that willing to listen.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 12:27:21 AM
This isn't about me.

As long as your argument is based on your interpretation of technical data, your qualifications to do so remain relevant.  They are, in fact, the only thing that's relevant in an argument based on judgment.  You seem to be suggesting that the Apollo spacecraft were improperly designed.  That judgment carries weight only when the person making it has expertise in spacecraft design.  Asking about that expertise is not "making it about the person."  It's addressing the argument on the proffered grounds.

Quote
You don't have to be a mechanic to know something is wrong with your car.

Do you have to be a trained nuclear technician to operate a nuclear propulsion plant?  Or is there an 18-month training course you have to pass before they let you anywhere near one?  You're suggesting astrophysics and space engineering is comparable to consumer automotive engineering, much of which is intended to be user-serviceable.

Quote
I can read and I can see.

Are you claiming astrophysics, space medicine, and space engineering are nothing more than ordinary layman's common sense?  At first you claimed your experience as a Navy nuclear technician qualified you to draw these conclusions.  That implied -- correctly -- that expertise was required.  Now you seem to be claiming that no expertise is necessary to evaluate spacecraft designs.  You seem to change your mind on what's required based on what you think you can convince people you have.

Quote
Take a moment to review the data and embrace the issue.  Intellectual cowardice is so unappealing.

So is bluster.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 12:31:59 AM
You have nothing.  You are incapable of contesting any of the salient points and you waste time attacking my credentials.  Demonstrate a level of understanding by showing why my points are invalid.  I am reasonable.  Give me something to work with and I can change my mind.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 12:35:39 AM
I will say this slowly.

Please don't patronize your critics.  They have been very patient with you.

Quote
The Apollo had nothing on it or in it that could attenuate GCR radiation.

It's already been pointed out to you that this declaration is based on a number of misconceptions.  The first is that there is nothing in the CM design that is specifically designated as radiation shielding, and nothing that matches the material description of the optimum form of shielding.  Another is that you misread abstractly formulated data as if they were specific design recommendations.  Yet another is the actual threat GCR posed.

Quote
...then by definition it sets a baseline exposure rate that isn't reflected in the apollo data.

No, you haven't convinced anyone that you're not comparing apples and oranges.  You just assume that there should be congruence in the data sets to within some arbitrarily chosen limit.  That just begs the question.

Quote
The only plausible reason is that they remained in LEO.  If you have a better idea I am more that willing to listen.

The better idea is that you don't know what you're talking about and are drawing simplistic conclusions based on only a cursory understanding.  As for the CSM staying in LEO, do you realize that they would then be a naked-eye object much as is the ISS?  It would also be nearly impossible to have extended radio communications with the spacecraft.  When you say it's the only plausible explanation, it's because you haven't thought through all the problems associated with it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 12:36:03 AM
This isn't about me.

As long as your argument is based on your interpretation of technical data, your qualifications to do so remain relevant.  They are, in fact, the only thing that's relevant in an argument based on judgment.  You seem to be suggesting that the Apollo spacecraft were improperly designed.  That judgment carries weight only when the person making it has expertise in spacecraft design.  Asking about that expertise is not "making it about the person."  It's addressing the argument on the proffered grounds.

Quote
You don't have to be a mechanic to know something is wrong with your car.

Do you have to be a trained nuclear technician to operate a nuclear propulsion plant?  Or is there an 18-month training course you have to pass before they let you anywhere near one?  You're suggesting astrophysics and space engineering is comparable to consumer automotive engineering, much of which is intended to be user-serviceable.

Quote
I can read and I can see.

Are you claiming astrophysics, space medicine, and space engineering are nothing more than ordinary layman's common sense?  At first you claimed your experience as a Navy nuclear technician qualified you to draw these conclusions.  That implied -- correctly -- that expertise was required.  Now you seem to be claiming that no expertise is necessary to evaluate spacecraft designs.  You seem to change your mind on what's required based on what you think you can convince people you have.

Quote
Take a moment to review the data and embrace the issue.  Intellectual cowardice is so unappealing.

So is bluster.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that a rocket doesn't work.  The buildings and ground crew can make that determination during the cleanup.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 12:38:39 AM
I will say this slowly.

Please don't patronize your critics.  They have been very patient with you.

Quote
The Apollo had nothing on it or in it that could attenuate GCR radiation.

It's already been pointed out to you that this declaration is based on a number of misconceptions.  The first is that there is nothing in the CM design that is specifically designated as radiation shielding, and nothing that matches the material description of the optimum form of shielding.  Another is that you misread abstractly formulated data as if they were specific design recommendations.  Yet another is the actual threat GCR posed.

Quote
...then by definition it sets a baseline exposure rate that isn't reflected in the apollo data.

No, you haven't convinced anyone that you're not comparing apples and oranges.  You just assume that there should be congruence in the data sets to within some arbitrarily chosen limit.  That just begs the question.

Quote
The only plausible reason is that they remained in LEO.  If you have a better idea I am more that willing to listen.

The better idea is that you don't know what you're talking about and are drawing simplistic conclusions based on only a cursory understanding.  As for the CSM staying in LEO, do you realize that they would then be a naked-eye object much as is the ISS?  It would also be nearly impossible to have extended radio communications with the spacecraft.  When you say it's the only plausible explanation, it's because you haven't thought through all the problems associated with it.

What have you got?  Refute any point with documentation.  I'm waiting...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 12:40:24 AM
You are incapable of contesting any of the salient points...

I've been asking you questions designed to demonstrate the actual scientific principles at work.  You won't answer any of them and insist on this sort of bluster.

Quote
...and you waste time attacking my credentials.

As long as your argument consists of nothing but measuring the facts against your expectations, the basis of those expectations remains a valid point of rebuttal.  You are leveling the sorts of judgments that would be evidentiary only if made from a position of expertise.  It does you no good to wish that the problem with your argument were something else.

Quote
Demonstrate a level of understanding by showing why my points are invalid.

Your points are invalid because they are entirely based on judgment you've conceded you're not qualified to give.  Attempts to show you specific deficiencies in your understanding are met only with emotional outbursts, bluster, and attempts to shift the burden of proof.

Quote
Give me something to work with and I can change my mind.

Several people have tried reasoning Socratically with you, asking you questions designed to challenge your preconceptions and assumptions.  You are unwilling to relax any of them.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 12:41:14 AM
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that a rocket doesn't work.

By definition it does.  So am I to understand that you have no training or experience in spacecraft design?  A simple answer without excuses or distractions would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 12:44:24 AM
What have you got?  Refute any point with documentation.  I'm waiting...

While you're waiting, please answer some of the questions I've asked you.  They're designed either to test your assumptions, which may be faulty, or to lead you to information you may not have previously considered in forming your opinion.

Again, you seem to labor under the misconception that the only acceptable refutation of your argument is a lengthy, documented counterclaim.  While an affirmative rebuttal is appropriate in some cases, it is by no means required.  The elementary problem with your argument is that it is no more than a set of uninformed opinions and misconceptions.  Pointing out that this is the case is sufficient to refute it.  The debate you want is not always the debate that's most effective.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 12:45:59 AM
You are incapable of contesting any of the salient points...

I've been asking you questions designed to demonstrate the actual scientific principles at work.  You won't answer any of them and insist on this sort of bluster.

Quote
...and you waste time attacking my credentials.

As long as your argument consists of nothing but measuring the facts against your expectations, the basis of those expectations remains a valid point of rebuttal.  You are leveling the sorts of judgments that would be evidentiary only if made from a position of expertise.  It does you no good to wish that the problem with your argument were something else.

Quote
Demonstrate a level of understanding by showing why my points are invalid.

Your points are invalid because they are entirely based on judgment you've conceded you're not qualified to give.  Attempts to show you specific deficiencies in your understanding are met only with emotional outbursts, bluster, and attempts to shift the burden of proof.

Quote
Give me something to work with and I can change my mind.

Several people have tried reasoning Socratically with you, asking you questions designed to challenge your preconceptions and assumptions.  You are unwilling to relax any of them.

That is not true.  The only questions asked of me was to provide documentation and of my skill level.  I was asked to justify my qualifications to question the status quo.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 12:47:44 AM
What have you got?  Refute any point with documentation.  I'm waiting...

While you're waiting, please answer some of the questions I've asked you.  They're designed either to test your assumptions, which may be faulty, or to lead you to information you may not have previously considered in forming your opinion.

Again, you seem to labor under the misconception that the only acceptable refutation of your argument is a lengthy, documented counterclaim.  While an affirmative rebuttal is appropriate in some cases, it is by no means required.  The elementary problem with your argument is that it is no more than a set of uninformed opinions and misconceptions.  Pointing out that this is the case is sufficient to refute it.  The debate you want is not always the debate that's most effective.

You are full of yourself aren't you?  That is almost insulting.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 12:48:13 AM
Early on, it was suggested that cosmic rays could penetrate the Apollo spacecraft. From “Biomedical Results of Apollo” section IV, chapter 2, Apollo Light Flash Investigations we have the following account:

Crewmembers of the Apollo 11 mission were the first astronauts to describe an unusual visual phenomenon associated with space flight. During transearth coast, both the Commander and the Lunar Module Pilot reported seeing faint spots or flashes of light when the cabin was dark and they had become dark-adapted. It is believed that these light flashes result from high energy, heavy cosmic rays penetrating the Command Module structure and the crew members’ eyes. These particles are thought to be capable of producing, visual sensations through interaction with the retina, either by direct deposition of ionization energy in the retina or through creation of visible light via the Cerenkov effect.

When Galactic Cosmic Rays collide with another atom, such as those contained in the Aluminum, Stainless Steel or Titanium structures of a spacecraft, they can create a shower of secondary particles, These secondary particles cause radiation damage in living organisms (humans).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 12:51:16 AM
That is not true.  The only questions asked of me was to provide documentation...

I asked you about the GCR energy spectrum.  I asked you if it would be proper for layman to attempt to operate a nuclear submarine powerplant.

Quote
...and of my skill level.

Not "skill level" per se, but the basis of knowledge that would give your personal judgments some evidentiary value.  You vacillated between claiming expertise is needed and claiming your conclusions were self-evident.

Quote
I was asked to justify my qualifications to question the status quo.

You were asked your qualifications to question a spacecraft design in specific ways.  I'm not making an ideological judgment.  I'm asking whether your analysis of a spacecraft design is based on any prior experience designing and building spacecraft.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 12:54:19 AM
These secondary particles cause radiation damage in living organisms (humans).

They can cause radiation damage in living organisms, depending on the flux, the energy, and the biological effect factors.  No one is claiming the Apollo astronauts were not exposed to radiation during their flight.  You're the one claiming the observed effects are not consistent with the claimed mission in the claimed spacecraft.  We are trying to drill down to your reasons for thinking this.  We've already encountered a number of misconceptions on your part, and tried to correct you on them.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 12:56:07 AM
Problems with shields arise when space radiation particles interact with the atoms of the shield itself. These interactions lead to
production of nuclear byproducts called secondaries (neutrons and other particles). If the shield isn’t thick enough to contain
them, the secondaries that enter the spacecraft can be worse for astronauts’ health than the primary space radiation. Surprisingly,
heavier elements such as lead produce more secondary radiation than lighter elements such as carbon and hydrogen. Consequently,
a great deal of research has been performed on a lightweight polyethylene plastic, called RFX1, which is composed entirely of
lightweight carbon and hydrogen atoms.6
 Research shows that polyethylene is 50% better at shielding solar flares and is 15%
better at shielding galactic cosmic radiation as compared to aluminum. Water is another hydrogen-rich molecule that can absorb
radiation. However, the oxygen content in water makes it a lot heavier than polyethylene, and therefore is much more expensive
to launch. Generally, lighter shields can greatly reduce the harmful effects of incoming space radiation particles, but they cannot
completely stop them.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 25, 2018, 12:59:28 AM
I have provided the documents to justify my position.  I can lead you to the fountain of knowledge but I cannot make you drink.  If you have Information contrary to the information I have provided I would love to see it.

Your data sets are correct, but the analysis of the amount of radiation that Apollo "should have received by you estimation isn't correct.

Jay is just trying to get you to understand the fact that you do not possess the comprehensive knowledge to make a judgment on why the data is correct, nothing more.

The burden of proof is with you not the other way around.  The world's academia has seen the data and does not dispute the Moon landings, why do you think you are smarter more intelligent than them?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:00:00 AM
2.1 Shielding of Galactic Cosmic Rays
The GCRs of interest have charge number, Z from 1 to 28, and energy from less than 1 MeV/u
to more than 10,000 MeV/u with a median energy of about 1,000 MeV/u. The GCRs with
energies less than about 2,000 MeV/u are modulated by the 11-year solar cycle, with more than
two-times higher GCR flux at solar minimum when the solar wind is weakest compared to the
flux at solar maximum. The most recent solar minimum was in 2008-2009, and the next will
occur in 2019-2020. Engineering considerations on material strength, temperature, ultraviolet
degradation, flammability, etc., must be considered alongside of radiation protection, and the
composite picture must be analyzed. Materials with the smallest mean atomic mass are usually
the most efficient shields for both SPE and GCR, as described next. The composition of the
radiation field changes as particles lose energy and suffer nuclear interactions in traversing
structural materials, instruments, and the tissues of astronauts. Both the energy loss and the
changes in particle fluence are related to the number of atoms per unit mass (in units such as
grams) in the traversed material, which, in turn, is proportional to Avogadro's number divided by
the atomic mass number, AT, for each element of the material. The energy loss by ionization of
a single component of shielding material with atomic number ZT is proportional to the number of
electrons per atom and thus proportional to ZT/AT. However, the energy lost per gram of material
and per incident fluence (e.g., in units of particles per cm2
), the “mass stopping power,” is also
inversely proportional to the density,  (e.g., in g/cm3
) of the material, so that the energy lost by
one incident particle per cm2
 per unit mass is proportional to Z/A.
The number of nuclear interactions per unit mass and per unit incident fluence is proportional to
/A, where  is the total nuclear reaction cross section (Wilson et al., 1991; 1995). To a first
approximation,  is proportional to A2/3, so that the nuclear transmission is proportional to 1/A1/3
.
The ratio of electronic stopping power to nuclear interaction transmission is therefore
proportional to Z/ A2/3. Materials with small atomic mass have the highest number of electrons
per nucleon (e.g., Z/A is 1 for hydrogen, 0.5 for carbon, 0.48 for aluminum, 0.46 for iron, and
0.40 for lead). Light mass materials have smaller nuclei and therefore more of them can fit into a
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 01:02:25 AM
Problems with...

Yes, you've shown your ability to copypaste from hastily Googled material.  I guarantee that every single person you're speaking to in this forum is well aware of secondary radiation.  I'm an engineer.  I've been a fully-qualified engineer for more than 30 years.

Quote
Research shows that polyethylene is 50% better at shielding solar flares and is 15% better at shielding galactic cosmic radiation as compared to aluminum.

Yes, there are materials that are optimal for shielding against radiation.  There are other materials that are optimal for making a rigid spacecraft structure.  There are still other materials that are optimal for thermal conductivity and response.  The proper design of a spacecraft incorporates all those constraints and makes proper tradeoffs among them in order to satisfy mission objectives and constraints.

I keep asking you if you have any experience in the methods used to design spacecraft, such that you would have been trained and tested on these concepts.  Why is it so hard to get an answer on this out of you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:03:26 AM
I have provided the documents to justify my position.  I can lead you to the fountain of knowledge but I cannot make you drink.  If you have Information contrary to the information I have provided I would love to see it.

Your data sets are correct, but the analysis of the amount of radiation that Apollo "should have received by you estimation isn't correct.

Jay is just trying to get you to understand the fact that you do not possess the comprehensive knowledge to make a judgment on why the data is correct, nothing more.

The burden of proof is with you not the other way around.  The world's academia has seen the data and does not dispute the Moon landings, why do you think you are smarter more intelligent than them?

I imagine Orville and Wilbur was asked the same question.  My answer to such a profound question is I am not as susceptible to public opinion as the majority of people (Sheeple) are.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 01:06:03 AM
2.1 Shielding of Galactic Cosmic Rays

Tim,

Copypasting walls of text that you clearly don't understand is not a substitute for a discussion and debate of your claims.  You may be laboring under the false notion that simply copypasting material validates your judgment.  It does not.  Once again, you can cite all the material you want about what materials are optimal.  That does not mean those are the materials that are actually used.  Knowing what is actually used is not a matter of frantic Googling or of guesswork.  You either know how spacecraft are actually made or you don't.  In practical terms, only the ISS uses polyethylene shielding for radiation attenuation.  Can you guess why that is?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:07:49 AM
Problems with...

Yes, you've shown your ability to copypaste from hastily Googled material.  I guarantee that every single person you're speaking to in this forum is well aware of secondary radiation.  I'm an engineer.  I've been a fully-qualified engineer for more than 30 years.

Quote
Research shows that polyethylene is 50% better at shielding solar flares and is 15% better at shielding galactic cosmic radiation as compared to aluminum.

Yes, there are materials that are optimal for shielding against radiation.  There are other materials that are optimal for making a rigid spacecraft structure.  There are still other materials that are optimal for thermal conductivity and response.  The proper design of a spacecraft incorporates all those constraints and makes proper tradeoffs among them in order to satisfy mission objectives and constraints.

I keep asking you if you have any experience in the methods used to design spacecraft, such that you would have been trained and tested on these concepts.  Why is it so hard to get an answer on this out of you?

I am an electrician by trade and I have never designed anything other than motor controls.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:09:39 AM
Let me try a different tactic.  Rather than tell you erstwhile gentlemen anything I will simply ask you questions.  How will that work for you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 01:10:49 AM
I imagine Orville and Wilbur was asked the same question.

Again, you're not the Wrights.  Your situation is vastly different, for the reasons already described.  Comparing yourself to famous people does not prove you are right.

Quote
My answer to such a profound question is I am not as susceptible to public opinion as the majority of people (Sheeple) are.

But you do seem to be susceptible to other factors that are clouding your judgment.  I'm not interested in whatever ideological or sociological argument you wish to make.  Your claim that Apollo didn't go to the Moon as advertised is based on a number of judgments you have made against expectations that are not properly informed.  I and others have tried to get you to see in what way they are not properly informed.  You don't seem interested in whether your claim is right or not according to our best science and engineering.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:15:19 AM
2.1 Shielding of Galactic Cosmic Rays

Tim,

Copypasting walls of text that you clearly don't understand is not a substitute for a discussion and debate of your claims.  You may be laboring under the false notion that simply copypasting material validates your judgment.  It does not.  Once again, you can cite all the material you want about what materials are optimal.  That does not mean those are the materials that are actually used.  Knowing what is actually used is not a matter of frantic Googling or of guesswork.  You either know how spacecraft are actually made or you don't.  In practical terms, only the ISS uses polyethylene shielding for radiation attenuation.  Can you guess why that is?

Sure I can but what is important to note is that the Apollo craft did not.  At once validating my claim that all the Apollo craft had no GCR shielding and therefore their daily doses as a minimum must reflect the GCR background level.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:19:02 AM
Do any of you refute that the Apollo crafts had no shielding capable of attenuating the high energy protons from the GCR radiation?  Anyone?  Bueller?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 25, 2018, 01:19:53 AM
I have provided the documents to justify my position.  I can lead you to the fountain of knowledge but I cannot make you drink.  If you have Information contrary to the information I have provided I would love to see it.

Your data sets are correct, but the analysis of the amount of radiation that Apollo "should have received by you estimation isn't correct.

Jay is just trying to get you to understand the fact that you do not possess the comprehensive knowledge to make a judgment on why the data is correct, nothing more.

The burden of proof is with you not the other way around.  The world's academia has seen the data and does not dispute the Moon landings, why do you think you are smarter more intelligent than them?

I imagine Orville and Wilbur was asked the same question.  My answer to such a profound question is I am not as susceptible to public opinion as the majority of people (Sheeple) are.

We are talking of events 45 years ago more than enough time for academia to solve whether or not the Apollo mission occurred as described in the literature.
O & W may have had the same type questions asked but not for long as aircraft design and manufacture answered those type questions.

You may not be susceptible to public opinion, however are they susceptible to almost  a half decade of study by the academic community, without writing a paper that agrees with your opinions?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 01:21:09 AM
I am an electrician by trade and I have never designed anything other than motor controls.

Thank you for the straightforward answer.  Aside from the debate at hand, you might be interested in the Apollo CM Earth-landing system, which was built using relay logic and not solid-state components.  At the time it was deemed more reliable.  I just mention this because it would be a portion of the Apollo design that would fall within your area of professional expertise and might be of interest.  I would expect you would not only be able to understand the design thoroughly but also detect any errors in it.

As I said, I'm an engineer.  Specifically, I'm an aerospace engineer.  I've never worked for NASA except distantly indirectly.  I've worked entirely in the private sector.  I worked on the Hughes 601HP satellite chassis and the Boeing 701 satellite chassis.  I worked briefly on the Boeing Delta III launch vehicle, the (then) Orbital Sciences Antares launch vehicle -- the version before the one that used those piece-of-crap NK-33 engines, but not the version that's flying now -- and finally on the Ares 1.  I also worked very briefly on the space shuttle to diagnose and correct a flow instability in the flow liners upstream of the low-pressure fuel turbopump. The 601HP and 701 projections are interesting here because they operate in the geostationary belt and have design lifetimes of 15 years.  My specialty is computational analysis of designs.  I use computers the size of tennis courts to iteratively adapt designs for structural, thermal, radiological, and aerodynamic concerns.

Now which of us is more qualified to determine whether a spacecraft design is valid?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 01:23:11 AM
Do any of you refute that the Apollo crafts had no shielding capable of attenuating the high energy protons from the GCR radiation?  Anyone?  Bueller?

I've already explained the misconceptions behind this question.  It is a simplistic question that ignores salient points, as in "Have you stopped beating your wife?"  Will you please address the misconceptions?  Further, shielding is not the only factor that affects whether the data sets you identify can be directly compared.  I've alluded to those other factors.  Will you please address them?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:23:16 AM
I have provided the documents to justify my position.  I can lead you to the fountain of knowledge but I cannot make you drink.  If you have Information contrary to the information I have provided I would love to see it.

Your data sets are correct, but the analysis of the amount of radiation that Apollo "should have received by you estimation isn't correct.

Jay is just trying to get you to understand the fact that you do not possess the comprehensive knowledge to make a judgment on why the data is correct, nothing more.

The burden of proof is with you not the other way around.  The world's academia has seen the data and does not dispute the Moon landings, why do you think you are smarter more intelligent than them?

I imagine Orville and Wilbur was asked the same question.  My answer to such a profound question is I am not as susceptible to public opinion as the majority of people (Sheeple) are.

We are talking of events 45 years ago more than enough time for academia to solve whether or not the Apollo mission occurred as described in the literature.
O & W may have had the same type questions asked but not for long as aircraft design and manufacture answered those type questions.

You may not be susceptible to public opinion, however are they susceptible to almost  a half decade of study by the academic community, without writing a paper that agrees with your opinions?

argumentum ad populum?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:28:44 AM
I am an electrician by trade and I have never designed anything other than motor controls.

Thank you for the straightforward answer.  Aside from the debate at hand, you might be interested in the Apollo CM Earth-landing system, which was built using relay logic and not solid-state components.  At the time it was deemed more reliable.  I just mention this because it would be a portion of the Apollo design that would fall within your area of professional expertise and might be of interest.  I would expect you would not only be able to understand the design thoroughly but also detect any errors in it.

As I said, I'm an engineer.  Specifically, I'm an aerospace engineer.  I've never worked for NASA except distantly indirectly.  I've worked entirely in the private sector.  I worked on the Hughes 601HP satellite chassis and the Boeing 701 satellite chassis.  I worked briefly on the Boeing Delta III launch vehicle, the (then) Orbital Sciences Antares launch vehicle -- the version before the one that used those piece-of-crap NK-33 engines, but not the version that's flying now -- and finally on the Ares 1.  I also worked very briefly on the space shuttle to diagnose and correct a flow instability in the flow liners upstream of the low-pressure fuel turbopump. The 601HP and 701 projections are interesting here because they operate in the geostationary belt and have design lifetimes of 15 years.  My specialty is computational analysis of designs.  I use computers the size of tennis courts to iteratively adapt designs for structural, thermal, radiological, and aerodynamic concerns.

Now which of us is more qualified to determine whether a spacecraft design is valid?

I'm sorry, I never questioned the design of the space craft or any aircraft.  I simply questioned the data of the apollo era as compared to current data.  Who is more qualified to do that?  Whichever one of us has the discerning eye and it appears I am the winner.  Chicken dinner!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 01:29:00 AM
argumentum ad populum?

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy whereby the merits of the argument are set aside and its reception among some population is put forward as a measure of its correctness.  The merit in your argument lies solely in whether you have properly interpreted the space science and space engineering data you have seen.  Part of evaluating the propriety of that interpretation is noting whether others of similar knowledge and experience interpret it the same way.  Not the population at large, but the academic and professional community that deals in such matters.  What they think is not as easily dismissed as the lay opinions of the unwashed masses.  Indeed, under the law expertise is considered valid only if it is reasonably held uncontested within the relevant professional or scientific community.  The fact that no one who is properly qualified shares your interpretation is not an invalid argument.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:30:20 AM
Do any of you refute that the Apollo crafts had no shielding capable of attenuating the high energy protons from the GCR radiation?  Anyone?  Bueller?

I've already explained the misconceptions behind this question.  It is a simplistic question that ignores salient points, as in "Have you stopped beating your wife?"  Will you please address the misconceptions?  Further, shielding is not the only factor that affects whether the data sets you identify can be directly compared.  I've alluded to those other factors.  Will you please address them?

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you assert that the aluminum structure of the craft was adequate to shield against GCR's?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:33:03 AM
argumentum ad populum?

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy whereby the merits of the argument are set aside and its reception among some population is put forward as a measure of its correctness.  The merit in your argument lies solely in whether you have properly interpreted the space science and space engineering data you have seen.  Part of evaluating the propriety of that interpretation is noting whether others of similar knowledge and experience interpret it the same way.  Not the population at large, but the academic and professional community that deals in such matters.  What they think is not as easily dismissed as the lay opinions of the unwashed masses.  Indeed, under the law expertise is considered valid only if it is reasonably held uncontested within the relevant professional or scientific community.  The fact that no one who is properly qualified shares your interpretation is not an invalid argument.

I feel like one of the Wright brothers as engineers from around the world told them they lacked the expertise and more qualified people had already determined that manned flight was not feasible.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 01:34:15 AM
I'm sorry, I never questioned the design of the space craft or any aircraft.

Not true.  You are quite clearly questioning whether the Apollo spacecraft design was consistent with the type of data reported from the missions it served.

Quote
I simply questioned the data of the apollo era as compared to current data.

You've disavowed any expertise in astrophysics.  You've disavowed any expertise in spacecraft design.  Those are two fields that apply to your interpretation of the data.

Quote
Who is more qualified to do that?  Whichever one of us has the discerning eye and it appears I am the winner.

I see no evidence that you have a discerning eye.  Discernment is a product of knowledge and experience, neither of which you have relevant to the questions you've raised.  I see no evidence you are willing or able to question your assumptions, many of which are in error.  And you are unable to explain why your discernment is contradicted by the entirety of the people who follow these matters as their life's work, except to accuse them of all manner of fraud and dissemblance.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 01:37:17 AM
I feel like one of the Wright brothers as engineers from around the world told them they lacked the expertise and more qualified people had already determined that manned flight was not feasible.

You keep wanting to compare yourself to the Wrights.  You are not a misunderstood genius.  You are simply making the same old mistakes most laymen make when they talk about space engineering and astrophysics.  Further, you're not even getting the Wrights' story right.  Very few people told them they lacked the expertise.  In fact, lots of people tried to pry their secrets from them, rightly sensing that they were on the right track.  This is the third time you've invoked the Wrights in your defense, and you haven't responded to a single thing I've said in response.  In repeatedly casting yourself as the underdog you seem to be trying to reach for a social aspect to this debate that isn't really going to help you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 25, 2018, 01:37:37 AM

argumentum ad populum?

You dodged my question, I'm asking whether the academia's evaluation of Apollo, not the general public is more precise and knowledgably than your opinion?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:44:20 AM

argumentum ad populum?

You dodged my question, I'm asking whether the academia's evaluation of Apollo, not the general public is more precise and knowledgably than your opinion?

Can you truly believe that academia is interested in exposing a fraud of this magnitude.  If I had definitive proof of the deception, I would take it to my grave.  The truth cause the collapse of our government and our way of life.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 01:44:58 AM
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you assert that the aluminum structure of the craft was adequate to shield against GCR's?

No I didn't claim that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:45:31 AM
We all know that 9/11 was an inside job but does anyone really want to prove it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:46:54 AM
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you assert that the aluminum structure of the craft was adequate to shield against GCR's?

No I didn't claim that.

I'm sorry.  Did the Apollo have any shielding capable of attenuating the high energy protons of GCR?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 01:47:29 AM
Can you truly believe that academia is interested in exposing a fraud of this magnitude.

Yes.  The literature these days is full of scientists talking about misconduct and fraud.  One even proposed that scientific fraud be a criminal offense.

Quote
If I had definitive proof of the deception, I would take it to my grave.  The truth cause the collapse of our government and our way of life.

Oh really?  What you've claimed to discover is really that important?  The end of life as we know it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 01:48:02 AM
We all know that 9/11 was an inside job but does anyone really want to prove it?

There's a separate place on the forum to discuss other conspiracy theories.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 01:50:18 AM
I'm sorry.  Did the Apollo have any shielding capable of attenuating the high energy protons of GCR?

My answer is the same as it was before.  We've identified several misconceptions on your part that make this a simplistic question at best and an attempt at entrapment at worst.  We've made you aware of those misconceptions and tried to get you to correct them, but to no avail.  It would be inappropriate to answer the question with a simple answer until we've come to some agreement on the misconceptions behind it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:51:00 AM
Can you truly believe that academia is interested in exposing a fraud of this magnitude.

Yes.  The literature these days is full of scientists talking about misconduct and fraud.  One even proposed that scientific fraud be a criminal offense.

Quote
If I had definitive proof of the deception, I would take it to my grave.  The truth cause the collapse of our government and our way of life.

Oh really?  What you've claimed to discover is really that important?  The end of life as we know it?
I never said end of life, I said the end of our way of life.  The distrust it would breed would most certainly cause civil strife and a collapse of the existing government.  Or maybe not.  We are used to being lied to.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:52:35 AM
I'm sorry.  Did the Apollo have any shielding capable of attenuating the high energy protons of GCR?

My answer is the same as it was before.  We've identified several misconceptions on your part that make this a simplistic question at best and an attempt at entrapment at worst.  We've made you aware of those misconceptions and tried to get you to correct them, but to no avail.  It would be inappropriate to answer the question with a simple answer until we've come to some agreement on the misconceptions behind it.

What entrapment.  It is a simple question deserving only a simple answer.  If you like I could probaly locate a NASA document that admits as much.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 01:54:33 AM
I never said end of life, I said the end of our way of life.

Fair enough.

Quote
The distrust it would breed would most certainly cause civil strife and a collapse of the existing government.  Or maybe not.  We are used to being lied to.

Then if you could go either way on it, I consider it irrelevant to the discussion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:58:16 AM
The intellectual inertia is great within this group.  I will have rethink my strategy for breaching the entrenched defenses of the combined resistance.  I bid you kind gentlemen goodnight and I hope I didn't ruffle any feathers.  Till the next time.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 01:59:15 AM
It is a simple question deserving only a simple answer.

I disagree that it's a simple question.  A sheet of paper will attenuate GCR, just not by much.  So the degree of desired/required attenuation has to be specified.  You seem to regard "have shielding" as a component specifically designed to perform that task.  That greatly affects whether a yes or no answer is appropriate.  Further we still have yet to resolve the issue of the GCR energy spectrum.

Quote
If you like I could probaly locate a NASA document that admits as much.

I don't need anything like that.  But, barring the walls-o-text, please cite anything you think helps your case.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 02:04:30 AM
It is a simple question deserving only a simple answer.

I disagree that it's a simple question.  A sheet of paper will attenuate GCR, just not by much.  So the degree of desired/required attenuation has to be specified.  You seem to regard "have shielding" as a component specifically designed to perform that task.  That greatly affects whether a yes or no answer is appropriate.  Further we still have yet to resolve the issue of the GCR energy spectrum.

Quote
If you like I could probaly locate a NASA document that admits as much.

I don't need anything like that.  But, barring the walls-o-text, please cite anything you think helps your case.

 Shielding of
SPEs is well understood scientifically, which has led to readily available technology solutions,
with optimization of specific designs to minimize launch mass—an important goal for risk
assessment. However, the high-energies and secondary radiation of the GCR limit most
shielding approaches to small reductions from a baseline shielding configuration.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 02:10:54 AM
In closing I will say that if we could shield GCR's then the biggest obstacle to interplanetary travel would be removed..  It is the radiation exposure over the six month trip  that presents the greatest obstacle.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on March 25, 2018, 02:13:49 AM
I am an electrician by trade and I have never designed anything other than motor controls.

And yet you feel qualified to call NASA and anyone else that has in any way supported them liars? Why?

I'm not a radiation expert. I couldn't even pretend to understand it. So I fall back on simple logic when someone claims the Van Allen radiation prevented Apollo from sending humans to the Moon.

We can all agree that NASA can not control the radiation. If they could, it wouldn't be a problem because they could just make it go away. But they also can't control every human on Earth who would have the ability to study the radiation for the rest of time. You see, this isn't something that NASA could have lied about in 1969 and then just forget it... no, they'd have to maintain and protect that lie forever, or they would eventually be exposed as liars. Can you imagine how embarrassing that would be?  :-[

For NASA, lying about the radiation would be like me trying to convince you it was a sunny day when it was really raining. All you would have to do is look out a window to know I was lying. So why would I even bother trying if my lie could so easily be exposed? Why embarrass myself like that?

There were other countries (some hostile to the US) in the 1960s that were capable of independently studying the Van Allen Radiation. They would have known whether NASA was telling the truth and would have been more than happy to catch the United States is such a monumentally embarrassing lie. NASA would have known what the stakes were, and they would have known a lie about something like the radiation would be guaranteed to fail... maybe they could get away with it for a couple years, but come on... do you really expect me to believe they thought they could fool us forever? Why would they lie if they were guaranteed to get caught and embarrass themselves and the country?

So you can make all the claims you want about the radiation. You can claim expertise and quote a bunch of radiation numbers that you know I won't understand. But you will fail the logic test because it makes no sense for NASA to lie about things they can't hide or control.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 02:15:11 AM
The intellectual inertia is great within this group.

Funny how people who have decades of pertinent experience aren't convinced by a bunch of handwaving.  At every step your critics have told you why your argument is unconvincing, and by and large you don't seem very interested.

Quote
I will have rethink my strategy for breaching the entrenched defenses of the combined resistance.

Yes, I would urge you to reconsider your approach.  It should be obvious by now that simply insisting the data mean a certain thing won't convince people who work in this field.  It has nothing to do with "entrenched defenses."  No one is convinced by question-begging and bare assertion.

Quote
I bid you kind gentlemen goodnight and I hope I didn't ruffle any feathers.  Till the next time.

If this ruffled my feathers I wouldn't do it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 02:19:08 AM
In closing I will say that if we could shield GCR's then the biggest obstacle to interplanetary travel would be removed.

Agreed, with the proviso that we can shield against GCR, just not in a way that doesn't require unacceptable tradeoffs in the other aspects of spacecraft design.  It's the tradeoffs that you need to consider.  A lot of otherwise smart people make the mistake of comparing Apollo to prospects for interplanetary and interstellar travel, wrongly believing the problems of one are the problems of the other.

Quote
It is the radiation exposure over the six month trip  that presents the greatest obstacle.

Agreed.  But then what about missions of 10-12 days?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on March 25, 2018, 02:21:41 AM
We all know that 9/11 was an inside job but does anyone really want to prove it?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/dYY6K9zy8aBOw/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 02:34:12 AM
Shielding of SPEs is well understood scientifically...

You're quoting research aimed at long-term spaceflight, such as for a Mars mission.  Radiation management is a whole-mission approach.  Shielding is part of it, but only a small part.  Telling me that Apollo had no GCR-specific radiation shielding is akin to telling me that my fruit salad has no eggs in it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 25, 2018, 02:44:13 AM
I think timfinch is missing a couple of really important points about the radiation issues.

Firstly, space radiation (GCR, SPE and the trapped radiation of the VAB etc) is NOT the same as the nuclear radiation (from fission) that he is used to dealing with. He has this lay "OMG Radiation" idea that critics of cellphones (RF radiation) and microwave ovens (microwave radiation) whip up into a frenzy about.

Secondly, he fails to understand that space radiation is in the form of a spectrum of radiation energies. At the low, less dangerous end are low energy particles and at the other end are high energy dangerous particles. However, the bombardment of radiation across the energy spectrum is not evenly distributed all the way from low energy to high energy. Low energy particles are far less dangerous to humans and are far more frequent. Conversely, high energy particles are far more inimical but are far less frequent. The whole thinking behind using spacecraft materials as shielding is that it is a compromise. It will shield against the vast majority of particles; those that represent the lower level danger to biology. The high energy particles, while they represent a greater danger to biology, are hugely less frequent (the higher the energy, the less frequent).

Shielding against really high energy particles is simply not yet feasible, since it would require heavier shielding, and therefore more weight, and therefore eating into payload. There is also the issue of secondary radiation (Bremstrahlung?) which means that heavier shielding causes almost as many problems at it solves.

The Apollo missions were short, so exposure to the higher energy end of the spectrum was limited. GCR and SPE will become more problematic on longer missions such as to Mars or the asteroids.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 25, 2018, 03:04:20 AM
Early on, it was suggested that cosmic rays could penetrate the Apollo spacecraft. From “Biomedical Results of Apollo” section IV, chapter 2, Apollo Light Flash Investigations we have the following account:

Crewmembers of the Apollo 11 mission were the first astronauts to describe an unusual visual phenomenon associated with space flight. During transearth coast, both the Commander and the Lunar Module Pilot reported seeing faint spots or flashes of light when the cabin was dark and they had become dark-adapted. It is believed that these light flashes result from high energy, heavy cosmic rays penetrating the Command Module structure and the crew members’ eyes. These particles are thought to be capable of producing, visual sensations through interaction with the retina, either by direct deposition of ionization energy in the retina or through creation of visible light via the Cerenkov effect.

When Galactic Cosmic Rays collide with another atom, such as those contained in the Aluminum, Stainless Steel or Titanium structures of a spacecraft, they can create a shower of secondary particles, These secondary particles cause radiation damage in living organisms (humans).

This quote does indeed indicate that cosmic rays could penetrate the Apollo capsule.  Notice that the observations in the quote were made during trans-Earth coast; that is when the spacecraft was returning from the Moon to the Earth.  Thus to substantiate your contention that Apollo could be penetrated by GCRs (which no one here disputes), you have provided evidence that men did, in fact, travel to the Moon and back aboard Apollo.

In nearly two decades of interacting with people who want to believe (for some reason) that the Apollo landings were faked, I have observed in them one consistent type of argument that all of them use, which can be summarized thus:

"I do not understand (X), therefore (X) is fake, therefore Apollo is fake."

Or, to put it another way:

"(X) does not match my expectations, therefore (X) is fake, therefore Apollo is fake."

Somehow, to these people, the possibility that their understanding may be incomplete, or that their expectations could be wrong seems nowhere near as likely as a world-wide conspiracy involving countless physicists, engineers, geologists, radio operators, and builders and operators of satellites in dozens of countries.

Let's look at your contention(s):
Quote
Let me start off by saying that I don't necessarily believe it is impossible to travel to the moon.  I believe that current technology has not advanced to the point that it can be done safely.  I believe sixties technology was wholly incapable.  I believe the Apollo missions to the moon if they occurred at all were unmanned.  I believe the truth of the deception can be deduced from the space mission data conducted this century.

and

Quote
If the data obtained by the MSL/RAD transit to Mars is to believed then it can be ascertained that cislunar space has a background GCR radiation level of approximately .45 mgy/day.  That would imply that irrespective of VAB transit all apollo missions would have as a base line a corresponding dose level.  of the nine apollo lunar missions only 5 had such a level.  If you add the anticipated VAB transit exposures then only Apollo 14 have a high enough exposure to have actually traveled through the VAB and cislunar space.  It is interesting to note that all of exposure levels of the lunar flights correspond closely to LEO missions.

and

Quote
The exposure levels of the Apollo missions do not correspond to current data expectations.

To summarize:

"I do not understand why the Apollo radiation measurements are so low (i.e. comparable to measurements in LEO), therefore the Apollo radiation measurements were actually made in LEO, therefore Apollo is fake."

Or, to put it another way:

"The Apollo radiation measurements do not match my expectations for a lunar mission, therefore they were not made during a lunar missions, therefore Apollo is fake."

Have I got that right?

Why is fraud your go-to explanation?
Is it impossible that your understanding of the GCR flux vs. energy levels could be wrong?
Is it impossible that your understanding of Apollo shielding versus the relevant flux and energy levels could be wrong?
Is it impossible that the designed differences between the manned Apollo spacecraft and the unmanned MSL may have been so great as to render invalid 1-1 comparisons between radiation measurements?
Is it impossible that differences between the instruments used to measure radiation on spacecraft built 40 years apart may be so great as to render invalid 1-1 comparisons between measurements?
Is it impossible that the Apollo dosimeters were not designed correctly to measure GCRs in cislunar space, thus leading to the false low readings (after all, Jack Swigert died of bone cancer and Alan Shepard died of leukemia).
Is it impossible that there is anything I haven't mentioned or you have overlooked to explain this discrepancy that you think you have discovered?

Why is the global conspiracy more attractive to you than any of these possibilities?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 25, 2018, 03:13:23 AM
It seems that the principle of time-distance-shielding was lost on timfinch when this was taught to us Sailors in nuke school and prototype.

timfinch, were you stationed on the USS Tunny?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: BertieSlack on March 25, 2018, 04:34:31 AM
If you have Information contrary to the information I have provided I would love to see it.

As i have already pointed out, the Soviets had data - prior to Apollo 8 - that the radiation environment for manned lunar missions was not prohibitive. Those results were published. Chandrayaan-1 also returned published radiation data in 2008/09. You claimed that the radiation data was either inaccurate or faked. But you failed to answer my subsequent questions.

So which is it? Inaccurate or faked?
Did Zonds 5 & 7 go to the Moon or not?
Did ISRO's Chandrayaan-1 go to the Moon in 2008?


Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on March 25, 2018, 07:48:52 AM
Lunar orbiter probes also carried radiation experiments, and the results from the first one can be found in this

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19690029828

Pretty much anything that has left Earth orbit has had some sort of radiation detection equipment in them, and the results have been pored over by scientists worldwide. None of them contradict Apollo's findings.

Another factor you have to consider is that if somehow the radiation data prove no-one went to the moon then you also have to come with reasonable, logically consistent and technologically possible explanations for the wealth of other data that prove they did. There is no explanation that makes sense other than they went to the moon.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 25, 2018, 08:14:39 AM

argumentum ad populum?

You dodged my question, I'm asking whether the academia's evaluation of Apollo, not the general public is more precise and knowledgably than your opinion?

Can you truly believe that academia is interested in exposing a fraud of this magnitude.  If I had definitive proof of the deception, I would take it to my grave.  The truth cause the collapse of our government and our way of life.

You have no proof, just inadequate expertise to evaluate the radiation data.  I can see now that no amount of discussion will convince you of your inability to understand the radiation data.  You might as well say "I am right everyone else is wrong."
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 25, 2018, 08:16:29 AM
We all know that 9/11 was an inside job but does anyone really want to prove it?

Stay on target, trying to propose a new and different hoax will bury you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 10:21:05 AM
I am an electrician by trade and I have never designed anything other than motor controls.

And yet you feel qualified to call NASA and anyone else that has in any way supported them liars? Why?

I'm not a radiation expert. I couldn't even pretend to understand it. So I fall back on simple logic when someone claims the Van Allen radiation prevented Apollo from sending humans to the Moon.

We can all agree that NASA can not control the radiation. If they could, it wouldn't be a problem because they could just make it go away. But they also can't control every human on Earth who would have the ability to study the radiation for the rest of time. You see, this isn't something that NASA could have lied about in 1969 and then just forget it... no, they'd have to maintain and protect that lie forever, or they would eventually be exposed as liars. Can you imagine how embarrassing that would be?  :-[

For NASA, lying about the radiation would be like me trying to convince you it was a sunny day when it was really raining. All you would have to do is look out a window to know I was lying. So why would I even bother trying if my lie could so easily be exposed? Why embarrass myself like that?

There were other countries (some hostile to the US) in the 1960s that were capable of independently studying the Van Allen Radiation. They would have known whether NASA was telling the truth and would have been more than happy to catch the United States is such a monumentally embarrassing lie. NASA would have known what the stakes were, and they would have known a lie about something like the radiation would be guaranteed to fail... maybe they could get away with it for a couple years, but come on... do you really expect me to believe they thought they could fool us forever? Why would they lie if they were guaranteed to get caught and embarrass themselves and the country?

So you can make all the claims you want about the radiation. You can claim expertise and quote a bunch of radiation numbers that you know I won't understand. But you will fail the logic test because it makes no sense for NASA to lie about things they can't hide or control.

I am not sure NASA ever lied about radiation.  I am sure they lied about sending men to the moon.  If I had been in their place I would have lied too.  Billions of dollars wasted and national pride on the line.  I would have lied my ass off.  It was one thing to tell a lie and a whole different thing to believe a lie.  I choose not to believe this one.  The king has no clothes...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on March 25, 2018, 11:46:42 AM
I choose not to believe this one.

And therein lies the crux of the matter.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 25, 2018, 11:46:50 AM
I am not sure NASA ever lied about radiation.  I am sure they lied about sending men to the moon.  If I had been in their place I would have lied too.  Billions of dollars wasted and national pride on the line.  I would have lied my ass off.  It was one thing to tell a lie and a whole different thing to believe a lie.  I choose not to believe this one.  The king has no clothes...

You said earlier, "I believe sixties technology was wholly incapable".  By wholly you mean everything they claimed to have used to get men to the moon was not up to the task?  Things like rockets, computers/navigation and spacesuits?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on March 25, 2018, 01:16:28 PM
I am not sure NASA ever lied about radiation.

Then what is the problem? Why are you arguing the matter if NASA was telling the truth?

NASA claims they studied the radiation and that it wasn't harmful enough to prevent sending humans to the Moon. If you're not saying they lied about that then I guess it's case closed?

Quote
I am sure they lied about sending men to the moon.

It doesn't matter what their reason for lying would have been, the radiation is just one example of how the logical argument I made in my previous post applies.

NASA can't control all people for the rest of time. They can't stop curious people 100 years later from going to the Moon and discovering there are no human footprints there. If there was some insurmountable obstacle in 1969 that prevented people from going to the Moon, that insurmountable obstacle would still exist 100 years later. People would realize that if they can't go to the Moon in 2069 then there's no way they could have done it in 1969. That means the hoax would be 100% guaranteed to fail eventually. Surely NASA would have realized that it would be pointless to try faking it.

It would be far less embarrassing to NASA and the United States if they had just come right out and said "Sorry everyone, we studied the possibility of sending people to the Moon but we can't do it. Here's why...".

Quote
If I had been in their place I would have lied too.

I find that is a common trait among conspiracy theorists. They believe other people are liars because they would lie when in the same situation. That says a lot more about you than I think you realize.

Quote
Billions of dollars wasted and national pride on the line.

But like I said, it would have been less embarrassing (and less expensive) to come right out and be honest about the whatever obstacles that supposedly made going to the Moon impossible. Only a dishonest person would believe trying to pull off a giant hoax that is 100% guaranteed to fail is the better alternative to telling the truth.

How would the failure of the hoax affect "national pride", by the way?

Quote
I choose not to believe this one.

That's fine. We can't force you to believe anything. All we can do is answer questions and provide facts.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 01:33:39 PM
If I had been in their place I would have lied too.  Billions of dollars wasted and national pride on the line.  I would have lied my ass off.

Except it requires more than just lying.  You don't seem to have considered much of what would have followed from the lie, or the political environment in which such a lie would have had to be maintained.  For example, Nixon came to power just as the first manned landing mission was being prepared.  The Apollo project was the brainchild of his nemeses Kennedy and Johnson.  It would have been fairly easy for him to expose the lie as the machinations of his political enemies.  Nixon was obsessed with finding out dirt on his enemies and exploiting that for political gain.  Heck, he might even have been able to get Johnson imprisoned.  Your view of a "national pride" secret that had to be kept at all costs -- and was -- is fairly naive as far as politics goes.

Kennedy had to be sold on the feasibility of the Moon missions.  Contrary to popular misconception, he didn't just set NASA on that task out of the blue.  Kennedy was presented with several technical projects aimed toward national pride.  Landing a man on the Moon was not his first choice.  Top NASA officials including Wernher von Braun spent a week in Washington working out enough of the details to prove to Kennedy it could really be done.  Only then did Kennedy agree, and thereafter he had Jim Webb in his office frequently to make sure the program was progressing.  After Kennedy was killed, Webb put the screws to Congress to maintain funding, and thereby made a ton of political enemies.  Nixon fired him on the spot as soon as he took office.  After the Apollo 1 and Apollo 13 accidents, those same hostile Congresspeople investigated NASA precisely to attempt to discover whether there were any shenanigans.  Finally, a retired FBI agent told me years ago the bureau was well aware of Soviet spies working in Apollo and its contractors.  The Soviets, having been beaten to the Moon, had no reason to keep any secrets they may have discovered.

Then there's the practical aspects, which would take days to cover.  Most hoax claimants are completely unaware of the vast amount of material that's available on Apollo, dating from its earliest conceptual stages, and all available for anyone to peruse.  According to you, this is largely just a cover story.  But it's one that stands up in the industry even decades down the road.  All of that would have to be convincingly faked such that it would still fool aerospace engineers decades hence -- including people well motivated to expose it.  And also, for example, that you can't hide something as big as the CSM in low Earth orbit.  It would be a bright, moving, naked-eye object.

Quote
I choose not to believe this one.

And you've built an entire speculative alternate reality around that disbelief -- an alternate reality in which you are competent in space science and you are smarter than all those "sheeple."  It's also an alternate reality in which hundreds of thousands of professionals -- including me -- have to be lying to protect the horrible truth.  The problem is not that you choose to disbelieve.  The problem is in what you have to either ignore or face up to in order to support that disbelief.

Quote
The king has no clothes...

You seem fond of trite little phrases like this, but they have very little convincing power.  The emperor, in fact, has a very full wardrobe.  I work in an industry where tens of billions of dollars of private yearly revenue depends in large measure on Apollo data being accurate and Apollo engineering being real.  There is no room in that industry for deep, dark secret-keeping.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg.  The record of the Apollo project is not just a few photos and a few artifacts gathering dust museums.  And it's not surveyed thoroughly in just a few Google sessions.  It's unbelievably vast, and being picked over constantly by people who want to know how it was done.

As I said earlier, you give the reader a choice about how to take your disbelief.  You seem to prefer that the reader take you as a "discerning" person who has seen through a vast global conspiracy, and has the goods to prove he's right.  Unfortunately the more parsimonious explanation is that you're just mistaken.  Over on another forum I frequent, there's a guy who is absolutely sure he's proven that the heat shields on Apollo couldn't possibly have worked.  He styles himself as a self-taught genius in physics.  But as you can guess, he has no clue how the physics actually work and no clue how the engineering was accomplished.  He still sticks to his guns, though.  In his world, all one would ever need to know about heat transfer, chemistry, and thermodynamics is in his simplistic little home-grown models.  Being told he lacks appropriate rigor doesn't sit well with him either.  In like manner you have your simplistic model of radiation, and you can't be told it's not accurate, and you postulate a huge global conspiracy to keep it valid.  The easier explanation is simply got it wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 01:45:10 PM
They can't stop curious people 100 years later from going to the Moon and discovering there are no human footprints there.

We do have "aerial" photos of the landing sites now.  There are things there.

Quote
Surely NASA would have realized that it would be pointless to try faking it.

Very difficult to do, and criminal if they got caught.  Failing to achieve some far-reaching daring objective is embarrassing.  But misappropriating tens of billions of taxpayer dollars is criminal.  And in American politics people don't just look the other way if they think they can prove fraud on that scale.  The government is certainly dysfunctional, but it's dysfunctional in a way that means anyone being caught lying about or faking a tax-funded project has a huge political bullseye painted on his backside.  The Russian word kompromat seems to apply here.

Quote
They believe other people are liars because they would lie when in the same situation.

And in other situations too.  The Moon hoax kingpins I've known -- White, Sibrel, Kaysing, Percy, Benett -- have all lied repeatedly.  I agree with your assessment:  they think they see lies everywhere and translate that into it being okay for them to lie too.

Quote
Only a dishonest person would believe trying to pull off a giant hoax that is 100% guaranteed to fail is the better alternative to telling the truth.

Keep in mind that the hoax would have had to involve the leading aerospace contractors in the United States, and in the rest of the world.  These are comprised of individual people who had already made names for themselves.  They have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by staking their reputations on a hoax.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 01:46:05 PM
I find it very interesting not a single one you gentlemen stopped for a moment to consider the implications of my allegations.  You immediately broke out your preordained rebuttals and condemnations without ever engaging the core precept.  Consider for just one moment and that I am right.  Then what?  Play the devil's advocate or even better yet. refute the salient points of my concerns. Make me feel obligated to apologize for my insolence.  Rub my nose in it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Northern Lurker on March 25, 2018, 01:48:18 PM
First things first: I have to admit I made a stupid brain fart and claimed cosmic rays to be gamma instead of particles. Sorry

https://three.jsc.nasa.gov/articles/CucinottaKimChappell0512.pdf

Very nice, you can paste a link to a document. It would be much nicer if you could explain how that document supports your conclusion. You know, all regulars here are familiar with that study. It considers hazards to missions with durations from months to years and isn't fully applicaple to missions lasting only two weeks.

Quote
...but what do I know.  I am just a layman.
Quote
Why bring my character, intelligence and technical competence into question?  Simply disprove the assertion and be on your way.  This should not not be difficult because I obviously lack the the knowledge or competence to understand the complexities involved.  I have stated that current data indicates the apollo data is unrealistic.  Prove me wrong.

You represented yourself as an radiation expert and got caught lying. Then you claim that you are just a layman but you still know better than engineers and scientists. Apollo program has been accepted as real by relevant experts and historians. Now it's your responsibility to prove them wrong.

Quote
I imagine Orville and Wilbur was asked the same question.  My answer to such a profound question is I am not as susceptible to public opinion as the majority of people (Sheeple) are.
Quote
I feel like one of the Wright brothers as engineers from around the world told them they lacked the expertise and more qualified people had already determined that manned flight was not feasible.

Wright brothers didn't wave their hands or claim conspiracy against flying. They just made a working plane and proved their opponents wrong.

Lurky
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on March 25, 2018, 01:51:44 PM
I find it very interesting not a single one you gentlemen stopped for a moment to consider the implications of my allegations.  You immediately broke out your preordained rebuttals and condemnations without ever engaging the core precept.  Consider for just one moment and that AI am right.  Then what?  Play the devil's advocate or even better yet. refute the salient points of my concerns. 

Your argument would first have to make sense before I'd get to the point of asking myself "is he right?". Your argument does not make sense. One minute you're saying NASA is lying about the radiation, the next minute you're saying "I don't know if they're lying about the radiation... but I know they're lying about something!"

You don't HAVE an argument. You have only presented a vague distrust of NASA's claims, but no justification.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 02:00:32 PM
My position is crystal clear.  I contend all space outside of the earths magnetic field has a background GCR radiation of approximately  .470 mgy/day.  I contend this background varies inversely with solar activity within the confines of our galaxy.  If indeed my beliefs are correct then all travel within the galaxy and beyond would have as a consequence 470 mgy/day exposure because we lack the technology to shield GCR radiation.  How can there be any confusion about my position?  Is there anyone willing to challenge this position?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 25, 2018, 02:04:21 PM
I find it very interesting not a single one you gentlemen stopped for a moment to consider the implications of my allegations.
A former US Navy nuclear trained electrician has claimed that "sixties technology was wholly incapable" of sending a man to the moon and returning him to Earth alive.  I have considered the implications of your baseless allegations; they are meaningless for the most part.

  You immediately broke out your preordained rebuttals and condemnations without ever engaging the core precept.  Consider for just one moment and that I am right.  Then what?
You mean if there was actual evidence that the Apollo program was a hoax?  I would have to reconsider just how poorly I've evaluated the evidence I've seen for the moon landings

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 02:13:11 PM
Why concern yourself with the message, the messenger is more interesting....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on March 25, 2018, 02:16:52 PM
I am not sure NASA ever lied about radiation.

My position is crystal clear.  I contend all space outside of the earths magnetic field has a background GCR radiation of approximately  470 mgy/day.  I contend this background varies inversely with solar activity within the confines of our galaxy.  If indeed my beliefs are correct then all travel within the galaxy and beyond would have as a consequence 470 mgy/day exposure because we lack the technology to shield GCR radiation.  How can there be any confusion about my position?

Only one of these can be true:

1. NASA is telling the truth and the radiation in space is not pose an insurmountable obstacle for a short duration trip to the Moon
2. NASA is lying because the radiation in space is deadly and there is no way to protect the astronauts from it

You said you don't know if NASA is lying about the radiation, but if it posed such a serious risk that going to the Moon is impossible then NASA must be lying. So maybe now you can see why I think your argument is contradictory, poorly defined, and confusing.

Lying about the radiation fails the logic test. They would get caught, the lie would be exposed, and the "national pride" of the United States would be irreversibly tarnished. The idea that NASA would lie even knowing that they were guaranteed to get caught, and knowing how serious the consequences would be, is ridiculous.

To you, and many other conspiracy theorists, the radiation argument is star of the show, it's your "gotcha!" argument. But to me it's proof that Apollo happened as claimed because it's not something NASA has control over.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 02:18:15 PM
Why concern yourself with the message, the messenger is more interesting....
You have made yourself the message. You "contend" things, but pay no attention to factors that undermine those contentions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 02:19:58 PM
My position is crystal clear.  I contend all space outside of the earths magnetic field has a background GCR radiation of approximately  470 mgy/day.  I contend this background varies inversely with solar activity within the confines of our galaxy.  If indeed my beliefs are correct then all travel within the galaxy and beyond would have as a consequence 470 mgy/day exposure because we lack the technology to shield GCR radiation.  How can there be any confusion about my position?  Is there anyone willing to challenge this position?
The challenge is that your model, and the expectations drawn from it, are simplistic. You don't get to choose what form the challenge takes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 25, 2018, 02:20:53 PM
I am not sure NASA ever lied about radiation.  I am sure they lied about sending men to the moon.  If I had been in their place I would have lied too.  Billions of dollars wasted and national pride on the line.  I would have lied my ass off.  It was one thing to tell a lie and a whole different thing to believe a lie.  I choose not to believe this one.  The king has no clothes...

One of the many mistakes that hoax believers make is that they assume that the odds of performing an actual manned moon-landing would be likely to fail, but that executing a hoax would somehow be automatically successful.

This makes no sense.  Flying to the Moon is an engineering problem with known (or knowable) equipment requirements.  You need large, multi-stage rockets, a guidance system that can navigate there & back, a vehicle that can land and take off, and life support systems to keep your crew alive.  You can also send unmanned probes to measure the environment between here & there to help define your craft.  All of these can be built & tested in a methodical, step-by-step process. 

Everything is in the open.  Nobody has to be looking over their shoulder or dealing with attacks of conscience.  If they fail, the root causes can be found & fixed and they can try again.  No honor is lost because everyone knows it is damn difficult.  Even if the government decides it's not worth the cost to continue and pulls the plug, everyone knows it was a good try and at least we learned a lot in the effort.

On the other hand, one slip-up when perpetuating a hoax - one turncoat, one leaked document, one communications gaffe (you can't know who will be listening, or with what equipment), one special effect that's less than perfect - and you are the center of a national disgrace for all time.  America's credibility is shot and very senior officials in the government will be convicted of felony fraud and go to prison for years.  Don't forget that the secret has to be kept for all time:  No matter when it's found out, it will still be a world-wide public-relations storm that would make Iraqi WMDs look like an absent-minded goof.  It doesn't matter how old you are, you can still be put on trial.

For those who think we faked-it to show-up the Soviets, do you really think that an administration that couldn't cover-up a 3rd-rate hotel burglary could keep this secret from the KGB?  Do you think that America's mortal enemy would not use this as the ultimate proof before the entire world of capitalism's perfidy and corruption?

Don't forget that, as far as we knew, the Soviets were also going to land on the Moon, whether we made it or not.  They didn't cancel their program until 1976.  If we faked it and they did it for real, then who has the technological upper hand?

Any way you look at it, faking it would be more risky and less likely to succeed - with more dire cost to the nation in the event of failure - than actually digging-in, doing the work and going for real.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 25, 2018, 02:22:22 PM
My position is crystal clear.  I contend all space outside of the earths magnetic field has a background GCR radiation of approximately  470 mgy/day.
In one of your earlier posts you said that the radiation level was .45 mgy/day; this would be about 1.9 mr/hr for us Navy nukes.

You were referring to the MSL-RAD device on one of the Mars Missions used to collect radiation data?  How did this collector compare to the ones developed in the 1960's for Apollo?  If you recall, the calcium fluoride TLD you were issued in the Navy had its limitations as well.  It could only indirectly measure neutron exposure and was shielded against low energy gamma.  It did not record any shallow dose beta/gamma or any alpha at all.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 02:23:51 PM


Only one of these can be true:

1. NASA is telling the truth and the radiation in space is not pose an insurmountable obstacle for a short duration trip to the Moon
2. NASA is lying because the radiation in space is deadly and there is no way to protect the astronauts from it

You said you don't know if NASA is lying about the radiation, but if it posed such a serious risk that going to the Moon is impossible then NASA must be lying. So maybe now you can see why I think your argument is contradictory, poorly defined, and confusing.

Lying about the radiation fails the logic test. They would get caught, the lie would be exposed, and the "national pride" of the United States would be irreversibly tarnished. The idea that NASA would lie even knowing that they were guaranteed to get caught, and knowing how serious the consequences would be, is ridiculous.

To you, and many other conspiracy theorists, the radiation argument is star of the show, it's your "gotcha!" argument. But to me it's proof that Apollo happened as claimed because it's not something NASA has control over.


You are taking what I said out of context.  I believe that short trips into space in the absence of SPE's are survivable.  The unpredictability and the inability to shield them makes it Russian roulette to send men beyond the VAB.  I think NASA being aware of this faked the moon missions.  I believe the Apollo mission does reflect accurately LEO dmission doses.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 02:27:11 PM
I find it very interesting not a single one you gentlemen stopped for a moment to consider the implications of my allegations.  You immediately broke out your preordained rebuttals and condemnations without ever engaging the core precept.  Consider for just one moment and that I am right.  Then what?  Play the devil's advocate or even better yet. refute the salient points of my concerns. Make me feel obligated to apologize for my insolence.  Rub my nose in it.
Why would you think we haven't previously considered the implications of global conspiracy? You didn't invent the idea, and you're not the first person to propose it on this board. You're not even the twentieth. We've heard it all before.  And yes, you have been treated to a discussion of the implications, such as the political aspects. If you want to be treated with something other than typical rebuttals, you have to present more than the typical simplistic attempts at armchair astrophysics. The typical rebuttals are nevertheless valid.  Your argument is based on a bunch of naive (and unoriginal) assumptions arising from your lack of proper training and experience, and you display no interest in having those assumptions challenged or corrected.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 02:30:58 PM
My position is crystal clear.  I contend all space outside of the earths magnetic field has a background GCR radiation of approximately  .470 mgy/day.
In one of your earlier posts you said that the radiation level was .45 mgy/day; this would be about 1.9 mr/hr for us Navy nukes.

You were referring to the MSL-RAD device on one of the Mars Missions used to collect radiation data?  How did this collector compare to the ones developed in the 1960's for Apollo?  If you recall, the calcium fluoride TLD you were issued in the Navy had its limitations as well.  It could only indirectly measure neutron exposure and was shielded against low energy gamma.  It did not record any shallow dose beta/gamma or any alpha at all.

An interesting question indeed.  The TLD readings of the sixties were skin dose readings that primarily measured electrons, muons and photons.  The conversion to Sieverts is via calculations and assumptions not in actual measurements.  The same is true in the MSL/RAD detectors.  Three different detectors are use and a compilation of the data is used to provide a dose rate. My bad.  I did drop the decimal point but I corrected the mistake.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on March 25, 2018, 02:35:34 PM

I have already stated that It is my opinion that cislunar travel encounters a baseline GCR level of .45 mgy/day.


I contend all space outside of the earths magnetic field has a background GCR radiation of approximately  470 mgy/day.  I contend this background varies inversely with solar activity within the confines of our galaxy.  If indeed my beliefs are correct then all travel within the galaxy and beyond would have as a consequence 470 mgy/day exposure because we lack the technology to shield GCR radiation.


Which is it? 470 mgy/day or 0.45 mgy/day???

How can there be any confusion about my position?
::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 02:40:25 PM
Remember, I am not claiming the reported doses are deadly.  I am claiming the reported doses do not reflect expected radiation levels for cislunar operations.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 25, 2018, 02:41:14 PM
I find it very interesting not a single one you gentlemen stopped for a moment to consider the implications of my allegations.
That's because we have seen it all before from multiple hoax believers, and they have been debunked multiple times by people who actually work in those fields.

If you are imagining that you have brought something new to the table, then you are badly mistaken

You immediately broke out your preordained rebuttals and condemnations without ever engaging the core precept.
What you call "preordained rebuttals", the rest of the world calls "facts"

Consider for just one moment and that I am right.  Then what?  Play the devil's advocate or even better yet. refute the salient points of my concerns. Make me feel obligated to apologize for my insolence.  Rub my nose in it.
Firstly, you aren't right, so there is no need for any of us to waste our time arguing with you. It is clear that you wont accept facts, you won't provide research and you don't understand the concept of burden of proof. YOU are making the claim, its YOUR job to prove it.

Secondly, until you actually come up with some research and evidence that you have a case worth looking at, you won't get any traction here. So far, you have nothing; "it doesn't look right to me" is not evidence.

Thirdly, it is clear that you are nothing special. You are simply a full blown conspiracy theorist, and nothing more than a run of the mill one at that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 25, 2018, 02:42:10 PM
I am an electrician by trade and I have never designed anything other than motor controls.

And yet you feel qualified to call NASA and anyone else that has in any way supported them liars? Why?

I'm not a radiation expert. I couldn't even pretend to understand it. So I fall back on simple logic when someone claims the Van Allen radiation prevented Apollo from sending humans to the Moon.

We can all agree that NASA can not control the radiation. If they could, it wouldn't be a problem because they could just make it go away. But they also can't control every human on Earth who would have the ability to study the radiation for the rest of time. You see, this isn't something that NASA could have lied about in 1969 and then just forget it... no, they'd have to maintain and protect that lie forever, or they would eventually be exposed as liars. Can you imagine how embarrassing that would be?  :-[

For NASA, lying about the radiation would be like me trying to convince you it was a sunny day when it was really raining. All you would have to do is look out a window to know I was lying. So why would I even bother trying if my lie could so easily be exposed? Why embarrass myself like that?

There were other countries (some hostile to the US) in the 1960s that were capable of independently studying the Van Allen Radiation. They would have known whether NASA was telling the truth and would have been more than happy to catch the United States is such a monumentally embarrassing lie. NASA would have known what the stakes were, and they would have known a lie about something like the radiation would be guaranteed to fail... maybe they could get away with it for a couple years, but come on... do you really expect me to believe they thought they could fool us forever? Why would they lie if they were guaranteed to get caught and embarrass themselves and the country?

So you can make all the claims you want about the radiation. You can claim expertise and quote a bunch of radiation numbers that you know I won't understand. But you will fail the logic test because it makes no sense for NASA to lie about things they can't hide or control.

I am not sure NASA ever lied about radiation.  I am sure they lied about sending men to the moon.  If I had been in their place I would have lied too.  Billions of dollars wasted and national pride on the line.  I would have lied my ass off.  It was one thing to tell a lie and a whole different thing to believe a lie.  I choose not to believe this one.  The king has no clothes...

But you indeed are calling out that NASA DID lie about radiation, since they would have gotten sick and/or died if your hypothesis is correct.   They did neither, therefore it is your hypothesis that was/is incorrect.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 25, 2018, 02:46:30 PM
The implications have been considered.  A while back someone compiled a list of the implications:

Quote
The following assumptions are completely required for the ultimate "moon landings were faked" theory to be true:

1-The photos are all faked.

and

2-The videos are all faked.

and

3-Several people faked the photos and kept that secret.

and

4-Several people faked the videos and kept that a secret.

and

5-The physical evidence, i.e. rock and soil samples are all faked or were retrieved using robotic missions.

and

6-A large group of people faked the rock and soil samples and kept that a secret.

and

7- It was possible with 1960's era technology to fake hundreds of pounds of rocks and soil to make it appear to have come from the moon or it was possible with 1960's era technology to secretly bring back hundreds of pounds of soil.

and

8- Several people organized and coordinated these separate processes and they kept secret.

and

9- All of the astronauts are lying and in on the conspiracy.

and

10- All of the telemetry and systems data coming into the consoles at mission control were faked 24 hours a day for the duration of the missions in a manner good enough to deceive hundreds of NASA technicians, or the hundreds of NASA technicians were all in on it.

and

11-All of the thousands of people who have studied the samples brought back and all of the people doing peer-review on the scientific papers were either fooled by the perfectly faked rocks or in on it too.

and

12- All of the radio buffs, amateur astronomers and other non-governmental witnesses to the signals and spacecraft in flight didn't notice any anomalies, and/or kept quiet about it

and

13- The Soviet Union actively participated in the hoax, and all the radar/radio technicians, astronomers, etc. that might have been able to figure out that the US was faking the multiple flights were told to be quiet.

and

14- Everybody told to be quiet has kept quiet even on their deathbed or every single one of the confessions has been covered up. (this includes the geologists studying the faked samples too)

and

15- The people assigned to monitor and/or threaten everybody who had first hand knowledge of this also keep quiet.

and

16- The pictures from subsequent missions to the moon in which clear pictures of the landing sites showing artifacts exactly as NASA claims happened are faked.

and

17- The people that worked in all the subsequent missions were either duped by these faked pictures being snuck into the data streams, or in on the conspiracy too.

and

18-The range-finding reflective dishes on the moon were placed by secret robotic missions.

and

19- These secret 1960's era robots placed these reflectors more accurately than any other robotic missions did at the time.

and

20- All of the people who built and tested the rockets and other equipment were either duped or were in on it too.

The above series of "and" statements would adequately provide all the available evidence.

Therein lies the problem.

If ANY one thing in this long "and" statement is false, the whole thing is logically false.

This actually isn't enough for some of the conspiracy theorists.

They add to this a few things that aren't really quite necessary to fake the moon landings:

21-Radiation above low earth orbit is so intense it will fry a human being who is exposed to it for even a short time.

and

22- All the data concerning that radiation is faked, showing that radiation levels are low enough for a human to survive.

and

23- Everybody who has designed electronics for satellites that uses this faked data didn't notice that their equipment was failing at much higher rates than it should have.

The weakest links of course are the facts that no one has ever come forward to admit they actively took part in the faking/cover-up, and that the most tangible evidence, namely the rocks, has been exhaustively studied for 40 years.

Next to those gaping holes, another "I don't understand the [radiation environment]" is just another stone on the fail pile.

Every single one of that big list has to be true in order for your theory to hold up. If even one link is broken, it falls apart like tissue paper in rain.

Remember, I am not claiming the reported doses are deadly.  I am claiming the reported doses do not reflect expected radiation levels for cislunar operations.

Given that any hoax would be preposterously complicated and absurd to attempt, I repeat my questions:

When you found that Apollo radiation measurements did not match your expectations for a lunar mission, why was fraud your go-to explanation?

Is it impossible that your understanding of the GCR flux vs. energy levels could be wrong?
Is it impossible that your understanding of Apollo shielding versus the relevant flux and energy levels could be wrong?
Is it impossible that the designed differences between the manned Apollo spacecraft and the unmanned MSL may have been so great as to render invalid 1-1 comparisons between radiation measurements?
Is it impossible that differences between the instruments used to measure radiation on spacecraft built 40 years apart may be so great as to render invalid 1-1 comparisons between measurements?
Is it impossible that the Apollo dosimeters were not designed correctly to measure GCRs in cislunar space, thus leading to the false low readings (after all, Jack Swigert died of bone cancer and Alan Shepard died of leukemia).
Is it impossible that there is anything I haven't mentioned or you have overlooked to explain this discrepancy that you think you have discovered?

Why is the global conspiracy more attractive to you than any of these possibilities?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Drewid on March 25, 2018, 02:47:35 PM

I have already stated that It is my opinion that cislunar travel encounters a baseline GCR level of .45 mgy/day.


I contend all space outside of the earths magnetic field has a background GCR radiation of approximately  470 mgy/day.  I contend this background varies inversely with solar activity within the confines of our galaxy.  If indeed my beliefs are correct then all travel within the galaxy and beyond would have as a consequence 470 mgy/day exposure because we lack the technology to shield GCR radiation.


Which is it? 470 mgy/day or 0.45 mgy/day???

How can there be any confusion about my position?
::) ::) ::)

470 mgy/day isn't too far off 0.45 Mgy/day,

Just saying.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 02:49:04 PM
Remember, I am not claiming the reported doses are deadly.  I am claiming the reported doses do not reflect expected radiation levels for cislunar operations.
And the point you're being challenged on is "expected radiation levels." Your expectation is based on a series of simplistic assumptions in interpreting the data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 02:52:31 PM

I have already stated that It is my opinion that cislunar travel encounters a baseline GCR level of .45 mgy/day.


I contend all space outside of the earths magnetic field has a background GCR radiation of approximately  470 mgy/day.  I contend this background varies inversely with solar activity within the confines of our galaxy.  If indeed my beliefs are correct then all travel within the galaxy and beyond would have as a consequence 470 mgy/day exposure because we lack the technology to shield GCR radiation.


Which is it? 470 mgy/day or 0.45 mgy/day???

How can there be any confusion about my position?
::) ::) ::)

470 mgy/day isn't too far off 0.45 Mgy/day,

Just saying.
Indeed, part of the "expectations" argument is in knowing how much measurements and derived radiometric data would be expected to vary according to all possible sources. In engineering this is called an error analysis. They're often hard to do.  Instead Tim has merely asserted that LEO missions are "the only possible alternative."
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 25, 2018, 02:55:13 PM
The implications have been considered.  A while back someone compiled a list of the implications:

Quote
The following assumptions are completely required for the ultimate "moon landings were faked" theory to be true:

1-The photos are all faked.

and

2-The videos are all faked.

and

3-Several people faked the photos and kept that secret.

and

4-Several people faked the videos and kept that a secret.

and

5-The physical evidence, i.e. rock and soil samples are all faked or were retrieved using robotic missions.

and

6-A large group of people faked the rock and soil samples and kept that a secret.

and

7- It was possible with 1960's era technology to fake hundreds of pounds of rocks and soil to make it appear to have come from the moon or it was possible with 1960's era technology to secretly bring back hundreds of pounds of soil.

and

8- Several people organized and coordinated these separate processes and they kept secret.

and

9- All of the astronauts are lying and in on the conspiracy.

and

10- All of the telemetry and systems data coming into the consoles at mission control were faked 24 hours a day for the duration of the missions in a manner good enough to deceive hundreds of NASA technicians, or the hundreds of NASA technicians were all in on it.

and

11-All of the thousands of people who have studied the samples brought back and all of the people doing peer-review on the scientific papers were either fooled by the perfectly faked rocks or in on it too.

and

12- All of the radio buffs, amateur astronomers and other non-governmental witnesses to the signals and spacecraft in flight didn't notice any anomalies, and/or kept quiet about it

and

13- The Soviet Union actively participated in the hoax, and all the radar/radio technicians, astronomers, etc. that might have been able to figure out that the US was faking the multiple flights were told to be quiet.

and

14- Everybody told to be quiet has kept quiet even on their deathbed or every single one of the confessions has been covered up. (this includes the geologists studying the faked samples too)

and

15- The people assigned to monitor and/or threaten everybody who had first hand knowledge of this also keep quiet.

and

16- The pictures from subsequent missions to the moon in which clear pictures of the landing sites showing artifacts exactly as NASA claims happened are faked.

and

17- The people that worked in all the subsequent missions were either duped by these faked pictures being snuck into the data streams, or in on the conspiracy too.

and

18-The range-finding reflective dishes on the moon were placed by secret robotic missions.

and

19- These secret 1960's era robots placed these reflectors more accurately than any other robotic missions did at the time.

and

20- All of the people who built and tested the rockets and other equipment were either duped or were in on it too.

The above series of "and" statements would adequately provide all the available evidence.

Therein lies the problem.

If ANY one thing in this long "and" statement is false, the whole thing is logically false.

This actually isn't enough for some of the conspiracy theorists.

They add to this a few things that aren't really quite necessary to fake the moon landings:

21-Radiation above low earth orbit is so intense it will fry a human being who is exposed to it for even a short time.

and

22- All the data concerning that radiation is faked, showing that radiation levels are low enough for a human to survive.

and

23- Everybody who has designed electronics for satellites that uses this faked data didn't notice that their equipment was failing at much higher rates than it should have.

The weakest links of course are the facts that no one has ever come forward to admit they actively took part in the faking/cover-up, and that the most tangible evidence, namely the rocks, has been exhaustively studied for 40 years.

Next to those gaping holes, another "I don't understand the [radiation environment]" is just another stone on the fail pile.

Every single one of that big list has to be true in order for your theory to hold up. If even one link is broken, it falls apart like tissue paper in rain.

Remember, I am not claiming the reported doses are deadly.  I am claiming the reported doses do not reflect expected radiation levels for cislunar operations.

Given that any hoax would be preposterously complicated and absurd to attempt, I repeat my questions:

When you found that Apollo radiation measurements did not match your expectations for a lunar mission, why was fraud your go-to explanation?

Is it impossible that your understanding of the GCR flux vs. energy levels could be wrong?
Is it impossible that your understanding of Apollo shielding versus the relevant flux and energy levels could be wrong?
Is it impossible that the designed differences between the manned Apollo spacecraft and the unmanned MSL may have been so great as to render invalid 1-1 comparisons between radiation measurements?
Is it impossible that differences between the instruments used to measure radiation on spacecraft built 40 years apart may be so great as to render invalid 1-1 comparisons between measurements?
Is it impossible that the Apollo dosimeters were not designed correctly to measure GCRs in cislunar space, thus leading to the false low readings (after all, Jack Swigert died of bone cancer and Alan Shepard died of leukemia).
Is it impossible that there is anything I haven't mentioned or you have overlooked to explain this discrepancy that you think you have discovered?

Why is the global conspiracy more attractive to you than any of these possibilities?

Excellent list of the problems HB's need to address.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on March 25, 2018, 02:57:39 PM
I believe that short trips into space in the absence of SPE's are survivable.  The unpredictability and the inability to shield them makes it Russian roulette to send men beyond the VAB.  I think NASA being aware of this faked the moon missions.

Sometimes people take risks knowing they could very easily die. You did it every time you boarded a nuclear submarine.

Did NASA risk the lives of the astronauts by sending them to the Moon? Sure, in many different ways besides just the radiation risk. Does that mean the Moon landings were faked? Nope.

Like I have said previously, if NASA considered the radiation to be too serious a risk the more reasonable outcome would be that they would just come right out and say they can't go to the Moon. It makes no sense to me to say they would lie about it on that scale.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 25, 2018, 03:00:44 PM
Remember, I am not claiming the reported doses are deadly.  I am claiming the reported doses do not reflect expected radiation levels for cislunar operations.
And the point you're being challenged on is "expected radiation levels." Your expectation is based on a series of simplistic assumptions in interpreting the data.

tim you should really look at all the alternatives and by your posts you have not.  In fact I suspect you will not accept the possibility that you are the one who is wrong, not the rest off us.

I posted a thought that fits you to a T, I'm right all the rest of you are wrong.  Sorry it rarely works that way in real life, but then you live in the HB atmosphere.

You need to prove your  "expected radiation levels." are correct by analysis not just looking at them and concluding "the radiation values posted by NASA are incorrect.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on March 25, 2018, 03:02:54 PM
470 mgy/day isn't too far off 0.45 Mgy/day,

Just saying.

Is this one of those situations where capitalization can totally change the meaning of an abbreviation? Like megabit (Mb) and megabyte (MB)? I hate that. Surely it can lead to some deadly mistakes when dealing with something like radiation?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 03:03:41 PM
I am an electrician by trade and I have never designed anything other than motor controls.

And yet you feel qualified to call NASA and anyone else that has in any way supported them liars? Why?

I'm not a radiation expert. I couldn't even pretend to understand it. So I fall back on simple logic when someone claims the Van Allen radiation prevented Apollo from sending humans to the Moon.

We can all agree that NASA can not control the radiation. If they could, it wouldn't be a problem because they could just make it go away. But they also can't control every human on Earth who would have the ability to study the radiation for the rest of time. You see, this isn't something that NASA could have lied about in 1969 and then just forget it... no, they'd have to maintain and protect that lie forever, or they would eventually be exposed as liars. Can you imagine how embarrassing that would be?  :-[

For NASA, lying about the radiation would be like me trying to convince you it was a sunny day when it was really raining. All you would have to do is look out a window to know I was lying. So why would I even bother trying if my lie could so easily be exposed? Why embarrass myself like that?

There were other countries (some hostile to the US) in the 1960s that were capable of independently studying the Van Allen Radiation. They would have known whether NASA was telling the truth and would have been more than happy to catch the United States is such a monumentally embarrassing lie. NASA would have known what the stakes were, and they would have known a lie about something like the radiation would be guaranteed to fail... maybe they could get away with it for a couple years, but come on... do you really expect me to believe they thought they could fool us forever? Why would they lie if they were guaranteed to get caught and embarrass themselves and the country?

So you can make all the claims you want about the radiation. You can claim expertise and quote a bunch of radiation numbers that you know I won't understand. But you will fail the logic test because it makes no sense for NASA to lie about things they can't hide or control.

I am not sure NASA ever lied about radiation.  I am sure they lied about sending men to the moon.  If I had been in their place I would have lied too.  Billions of dollars wasted and national pride on the line.  I would have lied my ass off.  It was one thing to tell a lie and a whole different thing to believe a lie.  I choose not to believe this one.  The king has no clothes...

But you indeed are calling out that NASA DID lie about radiation, since they would have gotten sick and/or died if your hypothesis is correct.   They did neither, therefore it is your hypothesis that was/is incorrect.

You are not paying attention.  a radiation level of .47 mgy/day is not lethal and a 10 mission in such a background is well within the established safe limits.  I contend not that the mission itself would not be feasible, I contend because you could not guarantee that the mission would not encounter an SPE then it would be Russian Roulette.  My point is that mission dose for a lunar transits should as a minimum be at least .47 mgy/day.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 03:08:05 PM
Remember, I am not claiming the reported doses are deadly.  I am claiming the reported doses do not reflect expected radiation levels for cislunar operations.
And the point you're being challenged on is "expected radiation levels." Your expectation is based on a series of simplistic assumptions in interpreting the data.

tim you should really look at all the alternatives and by your posts you have not.  In fact I suspect you will not accept the possibility that you are the one who is wrong, not the rest off us.

I posted a thought that fits you to a T, I'm right all the rest of you are wrong.  Sorry it rarely works that way in real life, but then you live in the HB atmosphere.

You need to prove your  "expected radiation levels." are correct by analysis not just looking at them and concluding "the radiation values posted by NASA are incorrect.

My assumptions are based on empirical data obtained in 2012 by the MSL/RAD detectors aboard the Mars probe.  It is also supported by the the CraTer radiation monitoring of the moon.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 03:09:32 PM
Does anyone have any data to indicate the MSL/RAD data is incorrect?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 25, 2018, 03:14:57 PM
My point is that mission dose for a lunar transits should as a minimum be at least .47 mgy/day.

So its .47 mgy/day now is it? Earlier, you said it was 470mgy/day, and before that, .45Mgy/day

You can't even be consistent with your units of measure

You do realise that .47Mgy is a billion times greater than .47mgy ?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Drewid on March 25, 2018, 03:16:05 PM
470 mgy/day isn't too far off 0.45 Mgy/day,

Just saying.

Is this one of those situations where capitalization can totally change the meaning of an abbreviation? Like megabit (Mb) and megabyte (MB)? I hate that. Surely it can lead to some deadly mistakes when dealing with something like radiation?

I am wondering if there a bit of case-insensitivity going on in someone typing stuff up at some point in the past.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 03:22:19 PM
Cosmic Rays

Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface. These values are expected to double at the low point in the 11-year cycle of solar-flare activity (solar minimum) because of decreased solar magnetic shielding of the central planets. The effect of high-energy cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years. Experimental evidence of the effects of these radiations is dependent on the development of highly advanced particle accelerators or the advent of long-term manned missions outside the Earth's geomagnetic influence.

Source:  https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 03:31:30 PM
Sometimes people take risks knowing they could very easily die. You did it every time you boarded a nuclear submarine.

Or a conventional submarine.  Or any warship.  Or any seagoing vessel.  It's a gradation of accepted risk.  You can't directly compare ordinary nuclear Navy operations -- where there is a much greater impetus to keep the crew safe and alive -- to exploratory missions at the far edge of capability.  The Apollo crews accepted a greater risk to do a great thing.  Expecting the mission design to guarantee safety, or even achieve a high level of safety and reliability commensurate to ordinary activities, is just unwarranted.  It's a straw man.  Heck, we live in a time today when people are chomping at the bit to sign up for a one-way suicide mission to Mars.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 03:33:22 PM
...provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface.

Put on your borrowed astrophysics hat and explain to us why these two numbers should differ.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 03:56:19 PM
It seems the moon is shielded in part by the earth and to some extent by the other planets and the sun from GCR's.  As the alignment of the planets change and as solar activity wanes and ebbs so does the background radiation on the moon.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 04:01:57 PM
It seems the moon is shielded in part by the earth and to some extent by the other planets and the sun from GCR's.

Nope.  Try again.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on March 25, 2018, 04:13:19 PM
It seems the moon is shielded in part by the earth and to some extent by the other planets and the sun from GCR's.

Nope.  Try again.
Because about half the sky is blocked by the moon itself, compared to floating through cislunar space?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 04:16:14 PM
It seems the moon is shielded in part by the earth and to some extent by the other planets and the sun from GCR's.

Nope.  Try again.

Impress me as I am convinced that is the correct answer.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 04:19:40 PM
Because about half the sky is blocked by the moon itself, compared to floating through cislunar space?

Correct.  GCR is isotropic, meaning it flies equally in all directions.  Floating in free space, you're bombarded by GCR from all directions.  Standing on the lunar surface, the bulk of the Moon itself blocks GCR from about half the sphere surrounding you -- the part of that sphere that's underneath you.  In a generalized exposure model, this is called the "configuration factor."  It's essentially a function of intensity over the domain of the surrounding sphere.  It works for many different kinds of radiation, and also can be parameterized for anisotropic sources.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 25, 2018, 04:20:15 PM
Cosmic Rays

Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface. These values are expected to double at the low point in the 11-year cycle of solar-flare activity (solar minimum) because of decreased solar magnetic shielding of the central planets. The effect of high-energy cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years. Experimental evidence of the effects of these radiations is dependent on the development of highly advanced particle accelerators or the advent of long-term manned missions outside the Earth's geomagnetic influence.

Source:  https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

This is not the whole story.

Again, you show that you don't understand the physics, and in particular you don't understand why a particular measured dose to an UNPROTECTED body differs from that which might be suffered by a shielded body

(http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cms/cpg15x/albums/userpics/cosmicrayenergies1.jpg)
The cosmic ray spectrum clearly shows that the number of cosmic rays (the cosmic ray flux) detected drops off dramatically as we go to higher energies. The spectrum exhibits a ‘knee’ and an ‘ankle’, both of which deviate from the standard exponential decline (blue line).

The range of energies encompassed by cosmic rays is truly enormous, starting at about 107 eV and reaching 1020 eV for the most energetic cosmic ray ever detected. By plotting this range of energies against the number of cosmic rays detected at each energy we generate a cosmic ray spectrum which clearly shows that the number of cosmic rays drop off dramatically as we go to higher energies.

Roughly speaking, for every 10% increase in energy beyond 109 eV, the number of cosmic rays per unit area falls by a factor of 1,000. However, if we look at the spectrum more closely we can see a knee at ~ 1015 eV and an ankle at ~ 1018 eV.


http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/C/Cosmic+Ray+Energies

Let me try to put this is layman's terms for you., since you seem to not understand

Imagine that you have to go into an area (in order to perform some task) where there are 10,000 people shooting with shotguns from some distance; not close enough to blow a hole in you, but far enough away so that you will be constantly showered with pellets. However, in among those shooters are a some people armed with .22 cal rifles each firing one round per minute, a couple with a 7.62 mm rifle who will shoot once every 10 minutes, and finally a shooter armed with a 20mm cannon, who will be firing once per hour.. None of these shooters are actually aiming at you, but they are shooting in the general direction of where you are going to be.

What these shooters will be firing at you represents a spectrum of missiles.... at the less dangerous end of the spectrum are the shotgun pellets, huge numbers and frequency, and at the more dangerous end, the 20mm cannon;  far more dangerous but far less frequent.

If you go in unprotected, the shotgun pellets will do you serious damage
If you wear minimal protection, say, heavy leather coveralls, they will protect you from the shotgun pellets but not from anything else
If you wear a lightweight bullet proof vest, it will protect you from the pellets and the 22 cal.
If you go for full Kevlar body armour, that will protect you from everything except the 20mm cannon.
If you wear a suit made of one inch armour plate, it will protect you from the 20mm cannon.

You may choose the full protection, but that is going to compromise your ability to carry out whatever task you need to carry out.

The Apollo missions (and indeed all space missions) are designed and built such that shielding is incorporated into design. This protects the spacecraft (and its occupants) from the vast majority of the radiation (the shotgun pellets, and possibly, the .22 cal). The exposure to the higher end particles (the 7.62 and the 20mm cannon) is the risk they take, but even then, there are procedures put in place to use the existing shielding to help with protection, such as, in the case of a CME, orienting the spacecraft to put the maximum amount of its mass between the crew and the Sun. (not sure of the was a plan on Apollo, I'll leave other more knowledgeable people to answer that)       

 

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 04:23:15 PM
Impress me as I am convinced that is the correct answer.

Then you've convinced yourself of a wrong thing.  Someone else already got the right answer.  This is a pattern with you.  You convince yourself of a certain thing, and not even wild horses can change your mind.  They can't even persuade you to look elsewhere, beyond the thing you've already decided.  You claim you're open to having your mind changed, but we can observe in this debate that your claim isn't true.

Now given that the bulk of the Moon, when you're standing on its surface, shields you from a little less than half of GCR you would receive while not in the proximity of a large absorptive body, what would be the expected GCR exposure of a spacecraft orbiting 90 nautical miles above the lunar surface?  Can you estimate the configuration factor for that?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 04:24:09 PM
Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky.

Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

"The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

While the moon blocks galactic cosmic rays to some extent, the hazards posed by the secondary radiation showers counter the shielding effects, Spence said at a press conference at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco this week.

Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.

Source:  http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34470642/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-poses-radiation-risk-future-travelers/#.WrgEpOjwaUk

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 04:28:39 PM
That didn't hurt did it?  I did not intend that it should...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 04:29:47 PM
Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky.

"High energy particles" is not the same as GCR.

Quote
Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

Secondary radiation is not universally "more dangerous."  It is inevitably of lower energy than the primary radiation, although possibly of higher flux.  Lower energy means it's more susceptible to conventional forms of attenuation than GCR.

Quote
While the moon blocks galactic cosmic rays to some extent, the hazards posed by the secondary radiation showers counter the shielding effects...

But that doesn't tell the whole story.  Converting GCR to a different species of radiation rather mucks up an argument based solely on GCR exposure.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 04:30:01 PM
That didn't hurt did it?  I did not intend that it should...

Please explain this comment.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 04:31:23 PM
Cosmic Rays

Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface. These values are expected to double at the low point in the 11-year cycle of solar-flare activity (solar minimum) because of decreased solar magnetic shielding of the central planets. The effect of high-energy cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years. Experimental evidence of the effects of these radiations is dependent on the development of highly advanced particle accelerators or the advent of long-term manned missions outside the Earth's geomagnetic influence.

Source:  https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

This is not the whole story.

Again, you show that you don't understand the physics, and in particular you don't understand why a particular measured dose to an UNPROTECTED body differs from that which might be suffered by a shielded body

(http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cms/cpg15x/albums/userpics/cosmicrayenergies1.jpg)
The cosmic ray spectrum clearly shows that the number of cosmic rays (the cosmic ray flux) detected drops off dramatically as we go to higher energies. The spectrum exhibits a ‘knee’ and an ‘ankle’, both of which deviate from the standard exponential decline (blue line).

The range of energies encompassed by cosmic rays is truly enormous, starting at about 107 eV and reaching 1020 eV for the most energetic cosmic ray ever detected. By plotting this range of energies against the number of cosmic rays detected at each energy we generate a cosmic ray spectrum which clearly shows that the number of cosmic rays drop off dramatically as we go to higher energies.

Roughly speaking, for every 10% increase in energy beyond 109 eV, the number of cosmic rays per unit area falls by a factor of 1,000. However, if we look at the spectrum more closely we can see a knee at ~ 1015 eV and an ankle at ~ 1018 eV.


http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/C/Cosmic+Ray+Energies

Let me try to put this is layman's terms for you., since you seem to not understand

Imagine that you have to go into an area (in order to perform some task) where there are 10,000 people shooting with shotguns from some distance; not close enough to blow a hole in you, but far enough away so that you will be constantly showered with pellets. However, in among those shooters are a some people armed with .22 cal rifles each firing one round per minute, a couple with a 7.62 mm rifle who will shoot once every 10 minutes, and finally a shooter armed with a 20mm cannon, who will be firing once per hour.. None of these shooters are actually aiming at you, but they are shooting in the general direction of where you are going to be.

What these shooters will be firing at you represents a spectrum of missiles.... at the less dangerous end of the spectrum are the shotgun pellets, huge numbers and frequency, and at the more dangerous end, the 20mm cannon;  far more dangerous but far less frequent.

If you go in unprotected, the shotgun pellets will do you serious damage
If you wear minimal protection, say, heavy leather coveralls, they will protect you from the shotgun pellets but not from anything else
If you wear a lightweight bullet proof vest, it will protect you from the pellets and the 22 cal.
If you go for full Kevlar body armour, that will protect you from everything except the 20mm cannon.
If you wear a suit made of one inch armour plate, it will protect you from the 20mm cannon.

You may choose the full protection, but that is going to compromise your ability to carry out whatever task you need to carry out.

The Apollo missions (and indeed all space missions) are designed and built such that shielding is incorporated into design. This protects the spacecraft (and its occupants) from the vast majority of the radiation (the shotgun pellets, and possibly, the .22 cal). The exposure to the higher end particles (the 7.62 and the 20mm cannon) is the risk they take, but even then, there are procedures put in place to use the existing shielding to help with protection, such as, in the case of a CME, orienting the spacecraft to put the maximum amount of its mass between the crew and the Sun. (not sure of the was a plan on Apollo, I'll leave other more knowledgeable people to answer that)     

You do understand the difference between radiation flux and equivalent biological damage don't you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 04:32:40 PM
That didn't hurt did it?  I did not intend that it should...

Please explain this comment.

Refer to my previous post.  I was asking if the information found in it was painful for you to accept.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 04:35:18 PM
Refer to my previous post.  I was asking if the information found in it was painful for you to accept.

You're being very smug.  Is your primary intent here to inflict distress on your critics, or to understand the factors that affect the validity of your claims?  You seem to have a very inflated opinion of the strength of your interpretations and research methods.  That's not an especially convincing position, given that everyone else who knows this material well disagrees with your interpretation of it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 25, 2018, 04:35:51 PM
...
You are not paying attention.  a radiation level of .47 mgy/day is not lethal and a 10 mission in such a background is well within the established safe limits.  I contend not that the mission itself would not be feasible, I contend because you could not guarantee that the mission would not encounter an SPE then it would be Russian Roulette.  My point is that mission dose for a lunar transits should as a minimum be at least .47 mgy/day.
[/quote]

I was pointing to the ultimate conclusion of radiation effects.  Your point is that you need to prove that the published data are in correct and "It doesn't look right to me" isn't sufficient.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 04:37:35 PM
So let's recap.  Cislunar space is radioactive and the moon is 30% more radioactive than cis lunar space.  Assuming any transit through the VAB is indeed higher that cislunar space and the moon then it is logical that any lunar mission would have to have a higher dose rate than cislunar space.  Can anyone find something wrong with this logic?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 04:39:08 PM
...
You are not paying attention.  a radiation level of .47 mgy/day is not lethal and a 10 mission in such a background is well within the established safe limits.  I contend not that the mission itself would not be feasible, I contend because you could not guarantee that the mission would not encounter an SPE then it would be Russian Roulette.  My point is that mission dose for a lunar transits should as a minimum be at least .47 mgy/day.

I was pointing to the ultimate conclusion of radiation effects.  Your point is that you need to prove that the published data are in correct and "It doesn't look right to me" isn't sufficient.
[/quote]

I am not sure I understand you.  Do you want me to prove published data is correct?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 25, 2018, 04:39:58 PM
Remember, I am not claiming the reported doses are deadly.  I am claiming the reported doses do not reflect expected radiation levels for cislunar operations.
And the point you're being challenged on is "expected radiation levels." Your expectation is based on a series of simplistic assumptions in interpreting the data.

I can read and understand, what you are incapable of doing so far is to show where the radiation data you posted early in the discussion is inaccurate.  You still don't it and I suspect you never will as you are convinced of your analysis is correct when in fact you don not have the knowledge to prove it other than "it doesn't match" which won't be acceptable to the audience.

tim you should really look at all the alternatives and by your posts you have not.  In fact I suspect you will not accept the possibility that you are the one who is wrong, not the rest off us.

I posted a thought that fits you to a T, I'm right all the rest of you are wrong.  Sorry it rarely works that way in real life, but then you live in the HB atmosphere.

You need to prove your  "expected radiation levels." are correct by analysis not just looking at them and concluding "the radiation values posted by NASA are incorrect.

My assumptions are based on empirical data obtained in 2012 by the MSL/RAD detectors aboard the Mars probe.  It is also supported by the the CraTer radiation monitoring of the moon.

ETA-- my commentary that didn't attached to my quote.

Your assumptions that the data collected recently makes the previous data published from the Apollo mission is too low, that is what you need to prove, and not by visual inspections of the numbers.  You need to be able to show the audience how you calculate  visual comparisons of the values will not suffice.  You're wrong but are to enamored of your ideas to accept anything else.  "I'm right the rest of you are wrong"
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 04:40:39 PM
Refer to my previous post.  I was asking if the information found in it was painful for you to accept.

You're being very smug.  Is your primary intent here to inflict distress on your critics, or to understand the factors that affect the validity of your claims?  You seem to have a very inflated opinion of the strength of your interpretations and research methods.  That's not an especially convincing position, given that everyone else who knows this material well disagrees with your interpretation of it.

You are right.  It was very unprofessional of me.  I apologize.  I will contain myself in the future.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 04:42:01 PM
So let's recap.  Cislunar space is radioactive and the moon is 30% more radioactive than cis lunar space.  Assuming any transit through the VAB is indeed higher that cislunar space and the moon then it is logical that any lunar mission would have to have a higher dose rate than cislunar space.  Can anyone find something wrong with this logic?
No, the species of particle matters in your analysis. You're trying to reduce this to pure scalar values. The secondary radiation from the Moon cannot be lumped together with GCR.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 04:46:23 PM
Remember, I am not claiming the reported doses are deadly.  I am claiming the reported doses do not reflect expected radiation levels for cislunar operations.
And the point you're being challenged on is "expected radiation levels." Your expectation is based on a series of simplistic assumptions in interpreting the data.

I can read and understand, what you are incapable of doing so far is to show where the radiation data you posted early in the discussion is inaccurate.  You still don't it and I suspect you never will as you are convinced of your analysis is correct when in fact you don not have the knowledge to prove it other than "it doesn't match" which won't be acceptable to the audience.

tim you should really look at all the alternatives and by your posts you have not.  In fact I suspect you will not accept the possibility that you are the one who is wrong, not the rest off us.

I posted a thought that fits you to a T, I'm right all the rest of you are wrong.  Sorry it rarely works that way in real life, but then you live in the HB atmosphere.

You need to prove your  "expected radiation levels." are correct by analysis not just looking at them and concluding "the radiation values posted by NASA are incorrect.

My assumptions are based on empirical data obtained in 2012 by the MSL/RAD detectors aboard the Mars probe.  It is also supported by the the CraTer radiation monitoring of the moon.
My methodology is sound.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  Without actually conducting actual radiation testing in cislunar, lunar and VAB environment then I must rely on the availability of previous test information.  I simply observe the limits of the available information and made a logical deduction.  If there is an error in my logic point it out and I will address it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 04:48:58 PM
So let's recap.  Cislunar space is radioactive and the moon is 30% more radioactive than cis lunar space.  Assuming any transit through the VAB is indeed higher that cislunar space and the moon then it is logical that any lunar mission would have to have a higher dose rate than cislunar space.  Can anyone find something wrong with this logic?
No, the species of particle matters in your analysis. You're trying to reduce this to pure scalar values. The secondary radiation from the Moon cannot be lumped together with GCR.

I will post this again for clarification:  Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky.

Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

"The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

While the moon blocks galactic cosmic rays to some extent, the hazards posed by the secondary radiation showers counter the shielding effects, Spence said at a press conference at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco this week.

Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 04:51:20 PM
Remember, I am not claiming the reported doses are deadly.  I am claiming the reported doses do not reflect expected radiation levels for cislunar operations.
And the point you're being challenged on is "expected radiation levels." Your expectation is based on a series of simplistic assumptions in interpreting the data.

I can read and understand, what you are incapable of doing so far is to show where the radiation data you posted early in the discussion is inaccurate.  You still don't it and I suspect you never will as you are convinced of your analysis is correct when in fact you don not have the knowledge to prove it other than "it doesn't match" which won't be acceptable to the audience.

tim you should really look at all the alternatives and by your posts you have not.  In fact I suspect you will not accept the possibility that you are the one who is wrong, not the rest off us.

I posted a thought that fits you to a T, I'm right all the rest of you are wrong.  Sorry it rarely works that way in real life, but then you live in the HB atmosphere.

You need to prove your  "expected radiation levels." are correct by analysis not just looking at them and concluding "the radiation values posted by NASA are incorrect.

My assumptions are based on empirical data obtained in 2012 by the MSL/RAD detectors aboard the Mars probe.  It is also supported by the the CraTer radiation monitoring of the moon.
My methodology is sound.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  Without actually conducting actual radiation testing in cislunar, lunar and VAB environment then I must rely on the availability of previous test information.  I simply observe the limits of the available information and made a logical deduction.  If there is an error in my logic point it out and I will address it.
Your haven't shown that it's sound. Absent information that would directly support your case, your inferring it from what you have.  Your inferences are simplistic.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 04:52:16 PM
Akeem's Razor?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 04:56:33 PM
So let's recap.  Cislunar space is radioactive and the moon is 30% more radioactive than cis lunar space.  Assuming any transit through the VAB is indeed higher that cislunar space and the moon then it is logical that any lunar mission would have to have a higher dose rate than cislunar space.  Can anyone find something wrong with this logic?
No, the species of particle matters in your analysis. You're trying to reduce this to pure scalar values. The secondary radiation from the Moon cannot be lumped together with GCR.

I will post this again for clarification:  Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky.

Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

"The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

While the moon blocks galactic cosmic rays to some extent, the hazards posed by the secondary radiation showers counter the shielding effects, Spence said at a press conference at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco this week.

Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.
You didn't address my post. You just quoted it and repeated your claim. I'm explaining that your interpretation of this material makes simplifying assumptions that render it invalid. If the detector is behind substantial structure as opposed to freely exposed, it will differentiate between primary and secondary radiation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 04:57:01 PM
To use a simple analogy.  If you were filling a bucket from 3 tanks of different concentrations then the lowest concentration you could get is to fill the bucket from the lowest concentrated tank.  In this example that wold be cislunar space.  The lowest exposure possible would be that obtained without contribution from lunar or VAB sources.  That is why all lunar missions have to be at least as high as cislunar space.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 05:00:06 PM
So let's recap.  Cislunar space is radioactive and the moon is 30% more radioactive than cis lunar space.  Assuming any transit through the VAB is indeed higher that cislunar space and the moon then it is logical that any lunar mission would have to have a higher dose rate than cislunar space.  Can anyone find something wrong with this logic?
No, the species of particle matters in your analysis. You're trying to reduce this to pure scalar values. The secondary radiation from the Moon cannot be lumped together with GCR.

I will post this again for clarification:  Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky.

Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

"The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

While the moon blocks galactic cosmic rays to some extent, the hazards posed by the secondary radiation showers counter the shielding effects, Spence said at a press conference at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco this week.

Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.
You didn't address my post. You just quoted it and repeated your claim. I'm explaining that your interpretation of this material makes simplifying assumptions that render it invalid. If the detector is behind substantial structure as opposed to freely exposed, it will differentiate between primary and secondary radiation.

We are adressing the radiation environment facing astronauts.  It is undeniably true that the radiation environment of a lunar orbit or a lunar landing is at higher radiation level than cislunar space.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 25, 2018, 05:01:15 PM
Akeem's Razor?

Not even close---Occam's razor

Not only that but the simpler least assumption is that the Apollo missions occurred as published.

Try looking at the list that the list that Count Zero posted.
Quote
The following assumptions are completely required for the ultimate "moon landings were faked" theory to be true:

1-The photos are all faked.

and

2-The videos are all faked.

and

3-Several people faked the photos and kept that secret.

and

4-Several people faked the videos and kept that a secret.

and

5-The physical evidence, i.e. rock and soil samples are all faked or were retrieved using robotic missions.

and

6-A large group of people faked the rock and soil samples and kept that a secret.

and

7- It was possible with 1960's era technology to fake hundreds of pounds of rocks and soil to make it appear to have come from the moon or it was possible with 1960's era technology to secretly bring back hundreds of pounds of soil.

and

8- Several people organized and coordinated these separate processes and they kept secret.

and

9- All of the astronauts are lying and in on the conspiracy.

and

10- All of the telemetry and systems data coming into the consoles at mission control were faked 24 hours a day for the duration of the missions in a manner good enough to deceive hundreds of NASA technicians, or the hundreds of NASA technicians were all in on it.

and

11-All of the thousands of people who have studied the samples brought back and all of the people doing peer-review on the scientific papers were either fooled by the perfectly faked rocks or in on it too.

and

12- All of the radio buffs, amateur astronomers and other non-governmental witnesses to the signals and spacecraft in flight didn't notice any anomalies, and/or kept quiet about it

and

13- The Soviet Union actively participated in the hoax, and all the radar/radio technicians, astronomers, etc. that might have been able to figure out that the US was faking the multiple flights were told to be quiet.

and

14- Everybody told to be quiet has kept quiet even on their deathbed or every single one of the confessions has been covered up. (this includes the geologists studying the faked samples too)

and

15- The people assigned to monitor and/or threaten everybody who had first hand knowledge of this also keep quiet.

and

16- The pictures from subsequent missions to the moon in which clear pictures of the landing sites showing artifacts exactly as NASA claims happened are faked.

and

17- The people that worked in all the subsequent missions were either duped by these faked pictures being snuck into the data streams, or in on the conspiracy too.

and

18-The range-finding reflective dishes on the moon were placed by secret robotic missions.

and

19- These secret 1960's era robots placed these reflectors more accurately than any other robotic missions did at the time.

and

20- All of the people who built and tested the rockets and other equipment were either duped or were in on it too.

The above series of "and" statements would adequately provide all the available evidence.

Therein lies the problem.

If ANY one thing in this long "and" statement is false, the whole thing is logically false.

This actually isn't enough for some of the conspiracy theorists.

They add to this a few things that aren't really quite necessary to fake the moon landings:

21-Radiation above low earth orbit is so intense it will fry a human being who is exposed to it for even a short time.

and

22- All the data concerning that radiation is faked, showing that radiation levels are low enough for a human to survive.

and

23- Everybody who has designed electronics for satellites that uses this faked data didn't notice that their equipment was failing at much higher rates than it should have.

The weakest links of course are the facts that no one has ever come forward to admit they actively took part in the faking/cover-up, and that the most tangible evidence, namely the rocks, has been exhaustively studied for 40 years.

Next to those gaping holes, another "I don't understand the [radiation environment]" is just another stone on the fail pile.

Every single one of that big list has to be true in order for your theory to hold up. If even one link is broken, it falls apart like tissue paper in rain.

Now which of the two choices has the most assumptions:
yours where you are invalidating those 23

or more likely that your are incorrect in your evaluation?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 05:01:42 PM
So let's recap.  Cislunar space is radioactive and the moon is 30% more radioactive than cis lunar space.  Assuming any transit through the VAB is indeed higher that cislunar space and the moon then it is logical that any lunar mission would have to have a higher dose rate than cislunar space.  Can anyone find something wrong with this logic?
No, the species of particle matters in your analysis. You're trying to reduce this to pure scalar values. The secondary radiation from the Moon cannot be lumped together with GCR.

I will post this again for clarification:  Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky.

Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

"The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

While the moon blocks galactic cosmic rays to some extent, the hazards posed by the secondary radiation showers counter the shielding effects, Spence said at a press conference at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco this week.

Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.
You didn't address my post. You just quoted it and repeated your claim. I'm explaining that your interpretation of this material makes simplifying assumptions that render it invalid. If the detector is behind substantial structure as opposed to freely exposed, it will differentiate between primary and secondary radiation.

We are adressing the radiation environment facing astronauts.  It is undeniably true that the radiation environment of a lunar orbit or a lunar landing is at higher radiation level than cislunar space.
The radiation environment, and our measurements of it, involve more complexity than you are allowing.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 05:05:36 PM
To use a simple analogy.  If you were filling a bucket from 3 tanks of different concentrations then the lowest concentration you could get is to fill the bucket from the lowest concentrated tank.  In this example that wold be cislunar space.  The lowest exposure possible would be that obtained without contribution from lunar or VAB sources.  That is why all lunar missions have to be at least as high as cislunar space.
No, that's not an apt analogy. Instead of trying to simplify the problem, try to appreciate it in its full complexity.

The difference in measurement of just GCR as opposed to all sources is a factor you haven't considered correctly. Modeling it as "concentration" obscures important detail. The placement of a full spectrum detector within a shield as opposed to free exposure produces different result when the spectrum is broad.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 05:07:55 PM
You wouldn't have to fake anything but the actual astronauts footage.  You could have sent an unmanned craft while the astronauts hung out in a sound stage.  Everybody else would be outside the loop.  All of the moon debris could actually be there.  Hell, you could have used a footprint robot for all I know.  The only thing I know for sure is the radiation data is outside of expected values.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 25, 2018, 05:08:03 PM
Remember, I am not claiming the reported doses are deadly.  I am claiming the reported doses do not reflect expected radiation levels for cislunar operations.
Knowing that the dosimeters on Apollo and that used by MLS-RAD are decades apart in design, why do you think they would agree?  What percentage of disagreement between the two is acceptable?

If you recall your TLD (DT-526/PD) only needed to be within 15% accurate to pass calibration.  It was also subject to other errors such as not recording the up to X% (still classified I think) neutron radiation coming through the secondary shield while critical, and not sensitive to beta or low energy gamma.

Why do you expect the dosimeters in the Apollo spacecraft to read anywhere near what MLS-RAD did?  Personally I would not be surprised if their actual exposure was several times what was recorded on their dosimeters.  Just another risk they took.
 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 05:09:44 PM
To use a simple analogy.  If you were filling a bucket from 3 tanks of different concentrations then the lowest concentration you could get is to fill the bucket from the lowest concentrated tank.  In this example that wold be cislunar space.  The lowest exposure possible would be that obtained without contribution from lunar or VAB sources.  That is why all lunar missions have to be at least as high as cislunar space.
No, that's not an apt analogy. Instead of trying to simplify the problem, try to appreciate it in its full complexity.

The difference in measurement of just GCR as opposed to all sources is a factor you haven't considered correctly. Modeling it as "concentration" obscures important detail. The placement of a full spectrum detector within a shield as opposed to free exposure produces different result when the spectrum is broad.

Are you implying the detectors aboard the apollo mission were incapable of measuring the effects of GCR exposure?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 25, 2018, 05:11:45 PM
You wouldn't have to fake anything but the actual astronauts footage.  You could have sent an unmanned craft while the astronauts hung out in a sound stage.  Everybody else would be outside the loop.  All of the moon debris could actually be there.  Hell, you could have used a footprint robot for all I know.  The only thing I know for sure is the radiation data is outside of expected values.
And how would that footage be faked?  SG Collins has an interesting video on why he thinks it would have been easier to actually go to the moon than to fake it.  and 

What about the large amount of moon rocks and core samples?  No one has figured out how to do that with a rover yet.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 05:12:15 PM
To use a simple analogy.  If you were filling a bucket from 3 tanks of different concentrations then the lowest concentration you could get is to fill the bucket from the lowest concentrated tank.  In this example that wold be cislunar space.  The lowest exposure possible would be that obtained without contribution from lunar or VAB sources.  That is why all lunar missions have to be at least as high as cislunar space.
No, that's not an apt analogy. Instead of trying to simplify the problem, try to appreciate it in its full complexity.

The difference in measurement of just GCR as opposed to all sources is a factor you haven't considered correctly. Modeling it as "concentration" obscures important detail. The placement of a full spectrum detector within a shield as opposed to free exposure produces different result when the spectrum is broad.

Are you implying the detectors aboard the apollo mission were incapable of measuring the effects of GCR exposure?
No that's not what I'm implying.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 05:12:34 PM
Remember, I am not claiming the reported doses are deadly.  I am claiming the reported doses do not reflect expected radiation levels for cislunar operations.
Knowing that the dosimeters on Apollo and that used by MLS-RAD are decades apart in design, why do you think they would agree?  What percentage of disagreement between the two is acceptable?

If you recall your TLD (DT-526/PD) only needed to be within 15% accurate to pass calibration.  It was also subject to other errors such as not recording the up to X% (still classified I think) neutron radiation coming through the secondary shield while critical, and not sensitive to beta or low energy gamma.

Why do you expect the dosimeters in the Apollo spacecraft to read anywhere near what MLS-RAD did?  Personally I would not be surprised if their actual exposure was several times what was recorded on their dosimeters.  Just another risk they took.

I do not expect the dosimeters of the apollo era were capable of reading directly GCR radiation.  I surmise what they picked up was the secondary emissions caused by the high energy particle bombardment.  Same difference.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 05:13:35 PM
To use a simple analogy.  If you were filling a bucket from 3 tanks of different concentrations then the lowest concentration you could get is to fill the bucket from the lowest concentrated tank.  In this example that wold be cislunar space.  The lowest exposure possible would be that obtained without contribution from lunar or VAB sources.  That is why all lunar missions have to be at least as high as cislunar space.
No, that's not an apt analogy. Instead of trying to simplify the problem, try to appreciate it in its full complexity.

The difference in measurement of just GCR as opposed to all sources is a factor you haven't considered correctly. Modeling it as "concentration" obscures important detail. The placement of a full spectrum detector within a shield as opposed to free exposure produces different result when the spectrum is broad.

Are you implying the detectors aboard the apollo mission were incapable of measuring the effects of GCR exposure?
No that's not what I'm implying.

Then your point is lost on me.  If they could detect the radiation then their exposure should reflect it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 05:15:51 PM
I think 99% of the footage is real.  Only the part that shows astronauts on the moon surface is fake.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 25, 2018, 05:16:09 PM
I do not expect the dosimeters of the apollo era were capable of reading directly GCR radiation.  I surmise what they picked up was the secondary emissions caused by the high energy particle bombardment.  Same difference.
A guess is not the "same difference".  That is why there are no old bold electricians.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 25, 2018, 05:17:44 PM
I think 99% of the footage is real.  Only the part that shows astronauts on the moon surface is fake.
Do you have any idea at all why it might be easier to actually perform a manned landing on the moon than to fake it on an Earth bound sound stage?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 05:17:57 PM
I do not expect the dosimeters of the apollo era were capable of reading directly GCR radiation.  I surmise what they picked up was the secondary emissions caused by the high energy particle bombardment.  Same difference.
A guess is not the "same difference".  That is why there are no old bold electricians.

Shouldn't that be "old" electricians?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 05:20:00 PM
I think 99% of the footage is real.  Only the part that shows astronauts on the moon surface is fake.
Do you have any idea at all why it might be easier to actually perform a manned landing on the moon than to fake it on an Earth bound sound stage?

Truth be told, that is not my cup of tea.  I have one interest in all of this and it is the radiation dosages of the apollo missions.  The rest of it I am content to leave to others.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on March 25, 2018, 05:27:34 PM
To use a simple analogy.  If you were filling a bucket from 3 tanks of different concentrations then the lowest concentration you could get is to fill the bucket from the lowest concentrated tank.  In this example that wold be cislunar space.  The lowest exposure possible would be that obtained without contribution from lunar or VAB sources.  That is why all lunar missions have to be at least as high as cislunar space.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, I'm just a high school drop out, but the .6  millirads per hour of the lunar surface is measure separately from the 1 milirads per hour figure for cis-lunar, yes? So you have two separate buckets. Jay and I both already went over why the lunar and cis-lunar GCR doses are different, you got a whole moon between you and the GCR. Plus, we're measuring GCR here, not the bremsstrahlung from their interaction with the lunar surface. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 25, 2018, 05:29:09 PM
Shouldn't that be "old" electricians?
Electricians like others in somewhat risky occupations can be old (careful and long living) or bold (risk takers who might die young) but not both.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 05:32:58 PM
To use a simple analogy.  If you were filling a bucket from 3 tanks of different concentrations then the lowest concentration you could get is to fill the bucket from the lowest concentrated tank.  In this example that wold be cislunar space.  The lowest exposure possible would be that obtained without contribution from lunar or VAB sources.  That is why all lunar missions have to be at least as high as cislunar space.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, I'm just a high school drop out, but the .6  millirads per hour of the lunar surface is measure separately from the 1 milirads per hour figure for cis-lunar, yes? So you have two separate buckets. Jay and I both already went over why the lunar and cis-lunar GCR doses are different, you got a whole moon between you and the GCR. Plus, we're measuring GCR here, not the bremsstrahlung from their interaction with the lunar surface.

Raven,  I will keep posting this until it is fully understood: 

Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky.

Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

"The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

While the moon blocks galactic cosmic rays to some extent, the hazards posed by the secondary radiation showers counter the shielding effects, Spence said at a press conference at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco this week.

Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 25, 2018, 05:33:40 PM
Truth be told, that is not my cup of tea.  I have one interest in all of this and it is the radiation dosages of the apollo missions.  The rest of it I am content to leave to others.
Neither is your ability to reconcile the differences in data collected near the moon with 1960's era dosimeters and space between the Earth and Mars with much improved technology.  Perhaps you should have used your electrical background to explain why the systems built into Apollo were sufficient (or not) to travel to and from the moon.

Quote
Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected
I wouldn't be surprised to hear we were off by a factor of 200 percent in our measurements of exposure during Apollo.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on March 25, 2018, 05:38:15 PM
And I'll keep posting this: bremsstrahlung from Galactic Cosmic Rays is not the same as Galactic Cosmic Rays. If nothing else, conservation of energy means it's lower energy, and, moreover, some of it is going to be released as EM radiation and not charged particle radiation, which alters the shielding strategies immensely.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 06:02:34 PM
And I'll keep posting this: bremsstrahlung from Galactic Cosmic Rays is not the same as Galactic Cosmic Rays. If nothing else, conservation of energy means it's lower energy, and, moreover, some of it is going to be released as EM radiation and not charged particle radiation, which alters the shielding strategies immensely.

I am not sure it would be technically correct to label the secondary radiation "bremsstrahlung" as bremsstrahlung is electromagnetic radiation, normally in the form of a photon as were the GCR lunar reaction is primarily a neutron radiation from radioactive particle decay.  I could be wrong on this as I have very little time looking at it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on March 25, 2018, 06:03:52 PM
And I'll keep posting this: bremsstrahlung from Galactic Cosmic Rays is not the same as Galactic Cosmic Rays. If nothing else, conservation of energy means it's lower energy, and, moreover, some of it is going to be released as EM radiation and not charged particle radiation, which alters the shielding strategies immensely.

I am not sure it would be technically correct to label the secondary radiation "bremsstrahlung" as bremsstrahlung is electromagnetic radiation, normally in the form of a photon as were the GCR lunar reaction is primarily a neutron radiation from radioactive particle decay.  I could be wrong on this as I have very little time looking at it.
OK, perhaps my bad, but the term 'secondary radiation' certainly applies.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 06:05:44 PM
Truth be told, that is not my cup of tea.  I have one interest in all of this and it is the radiation dosages of the apollo missions.  The rest of it I am content to leave to others.
Neither is your ability to reconcile the differences in data collected near the moon with 1960's era dosimeters and space between the Earth and Mars with much improved technology.  Perhaps you should have used your electrical background to explain why the systems built into Apollo were sufficient (or not) to travel to and from the moon.

Quote
Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected
I wouldn't be surprised to hear we were off by a factor of 200 percent in our measurements of exposure during Apollo.

It is interesting to note that the article says "originally expected" and not measured.  I could read volumes into that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 06:08:01 PM
The relevant point is the lunar orbit and surface are both at a higher radiation level than cislunar space.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 06:13:44 PM
This could mean sixties radiation monitoring was as shitty as Submarine's ELT's in radiation monitoring or it could mean they never left ELO.  I imagine if one was so inclined he could check the spacesuits for identifying isotopes that remained on the suits as generally radioactive decay has a long half life.  It really doesn't matter one way or the other because what is done cannot be undone.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 06:19:55 PM
It has occurred to me that we are like the devoutly religious.  God himself could appear and inform people they got it all wrong and they wouldn't believe him and in the same fashion NASA could own up to the deception and we wouldn't believe them.  I admire your passion and convictions.  Thanks for this momentary diversion from the curse of boredom.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 25, 2018, 06:23:34 PM
It is interesting to note that the article says "originally expected" and not measured.  I could read volumes into that.
Sure you could.  Knowing that what we've learned about radiation in space has been built upon since the 1950's, there is volumes to be told at least.

It's been my experience that the more we learn about radiation, the lower we tend to keep the dose allowed for workers.  From what I've read NASA and other space organizations may need to raise their limits.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on March 25, 2018, 06:25:31 PM
This could mean sixties radiation monitoring was as shitty as Submarine's ELT's in radiation monitoring...
That is unfair.  The DT-526 was miles ahead of film badges as far as I know.  You know as well as I do that we (Sailors, soldiers) get the tools we're given, not always the tools we want.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 06:27:23 PM
 8)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on March 25, 2018, 06:29:49 PM
It has occurred to me that we are like the devoutly religious.  God himself could appear and inform people they got it all wrong and they wouldn't believe him and in the same fashion NASA could own up to the deception and we wouldn't believe them.  I admire your passion and convictions.  Thanks for this momentary diversion from the curse of boredom.
By 'we' you mean 'you' don't you? You refused to acknowledge the blindingly obvious reason why galactic cosmic rays, and specifically GCR, would not be the same, and, in fact, less, on the lunar surface compared to cis-lunar space. But, no, we have to 'impress you'. See you later, alligator.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 06:45:33 PM
It has occurred to me that we are like the devoutly religious.  God himself could appear and inform people they got it all wrong and they wouldn't believe him and in the same fashion NASA could own up to the deception and we wouldn't believe them.  I admire your passion and convictions.  Thanks for this momentary diversion from the curse of boredom.
By 'we' you mean 'you' don't you? You refused to acknowledge the blindingly obvious reason why galactic cosmic rays, and specifically GCR, would not be the same, and, in fact, less, on the lunar surface compared to cis-lunar space. But, no, we have to 'impress you'. See you later, alligator.

Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky.

Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

"The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

While the moon blocks galactic cosmic rays to some extent, the hazards posed by the secondary radiation showers counter the shielding effects, Spence said at a press conference at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco this week.

Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 07:03:54 PM
The relevant point is the lunar orbit and surface are both at a higher radiation level than cislunar space.
No. "Radiation level" abstracts away important points referring to particle species, energy spectrum, and detection factors. Simply retreating back to simplified terms doesn't fix your claim.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 07:09:54 PM
Measurements taken...

To me, the mark of religious belief (as opposed to rational belief) is that religious belief just keeps repeating the believed statement in the face of facts presented to the contrary.  By my count this is the third time you've posted this same statement largely unchanged.

Quote
and potentially more dangerous -- shower...

Any time you apply the word "potentially," that means there's necessarily more discussion that would have to happen.  We're trying to have that discussion, but you keep retreating back to pidgin concepts.  By what exact mechanism would it be more dangerous?  By what criteria?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on March 25, 2018, 07:10:39 PM
An experiment to measure GCR is designed to measure GCR, not secondary radiation from  GCR interacting with the lunar surface. Hence the difference in dose from that specific source, which has its own specific sheilding requirements. As for it being dangerous, future moon missions, when and if they happen, will be weeks, if not months once actual outposts equivalent to at least the ISS are set up. You're going to get a much higher total dose (not to mention much more likely to run into an actually serious solar event) than on the short 'camping trips' of Apollo, which only lasted two weeks at most and spent three days on the moon.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 25, 2018, 07:15:28 PM
You do understand the difference between radiation flux and equivalent biological damage don't you?
Yes, I do.

You, on the other hand, apparently do not.

Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.
You do understand the difference between"potentially" and "actually" don't you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 07:17:09 PM
The relevant point is the lunar orbit and surface are both at a higher radiation level than cislunar space.
No. "Radiation level" abstracts away important points referring to particle species, energy spectrum, and detection factors. Simply retreating back to simplified terms doesn't fix your claim.

I am pretty sure there was no neutron shielding on the apollo crafts so it was as or more deadly than the cosmic radiation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 07:30:53 PM
Truth be told, that is not my cup of tea.

Thankfully it is the cup of tea of several people at this forum.  If you're wondering where I was the past few hours, I was closing a show.  I also work on film productions in and around my area.  It's not how I make my living, obviously, but I have some idea of what's required to produce visual storytelling.  I've been unimpressed with any of the suggestions people have offered regarding how Apollo could have been faked this way.  There are others here who do make their living in film and stage production.  Is their opinion going to be probative, or is this one of those cases where your superior "discernment" trumps everything?

Whether it's your cup of tea or not, these are factors that apply to your theory.  You don't get to dismiss or disregard those elements of your hoax theory simply because you aren't interested in them or don't have the requisite experience to suggest plausible methods.  When you suggest the Apollo visuals were produced rather than simply captured, your disinterest works against you.

Quote
I have one interest in all of this and it is the radiation dosages of the apollo missions.  The rest of it I am content to leave to others.

But you aren't content to leave it to others.  You suggest the photos, video, and film were produced using studio production techniques without knowing whether that's a reasonable suggestion.  Your argument amounts to just speculating that it will somehow all just work out.  That's not a convincing argument.  The Apollo program encompasses a huge amount of evidence of different types from a wide variety of sources.  Focusing on one bellwether event that supposedly decides the whole question, irrespective of all the other evidence, is not convincing thinking.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 07:31:26 PM
I am pretty sure there was no neutron shielding on the apollo crafts so it was as or more deadly than the cosmic radiation.

And this just repeats the error.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 08:06:25 PM
Truth be told, that is not my cup of tea.

Thankfully it is the cup of tea of several people at this forum.  If you're wondering where I was the past few hours, I was closing a show.  I also work on film productions in and around my area.  It's not how I make my living, obviously, but I have some idea of what's required to produce visual storytelling.  I've been unimpressed with any of the suggestions people have offered regarding how Apollo could have been faked this way.  There are others here who do make their living in film and stage production.  Is their opinion going to be probative, or is this one of those cases where your superior "discernment" trumps everything?

Whether it's your cup of tea or not, these are factors that apply to your theory.  You don't get to dismiss or disregard those elements of your hoax theory simply because you aren't interested in them or don't have the requisite experience to suggest plausible methods.  When you suggest the Apollo visuals were produced rather than simply captured, your disinterest works against you.

Quote
I have one interest in all of this and it is the radiation dosages of the apollo missions.  The rest of it I am content to leave to others.

But you aren't content to leave it to others.  You suggest the photos, video, and film were produced using studio production techniques without knowing whether that's a reasonable suggestion.  Your argument amounts to just speculating that it will somehow all just work out.  That's not a convincing argument.  The Apollo program encompasses a huge amount of evidence of different types from a wide variety of sources.  Focusing on one bellwether event that supposedly decides the whole question, irrespective of all the other evidence, is not convincing thinking.

I am of the mind that if I could definitively prove that the apollo missions never left ELO it is entirely unnecessary to prove that the landing was faked as it goes without reason that it had to be.  Is it really necessary to know how the magician does a trick if you can prove that it is a trick?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 25, 2018, 08:20:29 PM
Truth be told, that is not my cup of tea.

Thankfully it is the cup of tea of several people at this forum.  If you're wondering where I was the past few hours, I was closing a show.  I also work on film productions in and around my area.  It's not how I make my living, obviously, but I have some idea of what's required to produce visual storytelling.  I've been unimpressed with any of the suggestions people have offered regarding how Apollo could have been faked this way.  There are others here who do make their living in film and stage production.  Is their opinion going to be probative, or is this one of those cases where your superior "discernment" trumps everything?

Whether it's your cup of tea or not, these are factors that apply to your theory.  You don't get to dismiss or disregard those elements of your hoax theory simply because you aren't interested in them or don't have the requisite experience to suggest plausible methods.  When you suggest the Apollo visuals were produced rather than simply captured, your disinterest works against you.

Quote
I have one interest in all of this and it is the radiation dosages of the apollo missions.  The rest of it I am content to leave to others.

But you aren't content to leave it to others.  You suggest the photos, video, and film were produced using studio production techniques without knowing whether that's a reasonable suggestion.  Your argument amounts to just speculating that it will somehow all just work out.  That's not a convincing argument.  The Apollo program encompasses a huge amount of evidence of different types from a wide variety of sources.  Focusing on one bellwether event that supposedly decides the whole question, irrespective of all the other evidence, is not convincing thinking.

I am of the mind that if I could definitively prove that the apollo missions never left ELO it is entirely unnecessary to prove that the landing was faked as it goes without reason that it had to be.  Is it really necessary to know how the magician does a trick if you can prove that it is a trick?
But you have shown no analysis that Apollo never LEFT LEO.   Rather all you have presented is your incorrect assessment that published radiation data from those Apollo missions look low to you.  You don't have the necessary knowledge to make that assessment.   That is your problem.   You don't see it that way because "you are right and the rest of us are wrong".  Yet you can't show us the analysis and we are supposed to believe your high school approach.

ETA: Changed spelling
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 08:26:23 PM
No amount of information and truth can overcome faith.  If your faith is in what you have been told then you can never see beyond it.  You cannot learn if you already know.  It is when you start with an empty bucket that you can fill it the most.  Be that empty bucket.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 08:30:53 PM
I am not fixed in my position.  If any of you could give me a plausible reason for the unusually low mission dosages, I will discard my position and assume a new one.  I am unfortunate in that I worked for the government and observed first hand its disregard for truth and honesty.  I have no faith in what I am told.  I have complete faith in my ability to understand the things I experience.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 08:36:04 PM
I am not fixed in my position.  If any of you could give me a plausible reason for the unusually low mission dosages, I will discard my position and assume a new one.

You've been given a reason.  You just don't like it, because it means you have to abandon your fantasy of being a "discerning" person who doesn't need to actually know what he's talking about.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 08:40:28 PM
I am not fixed in my position.  If any of you could give me a plausible reason for the unusually low mission dosages, I will discard my position and assume a new one.

You've been given a reason.  You just don't like it, because it means you have to abandon your fantasy of being a "discerning" person who doesn't need to actually know what he's talking about.

Maybe in my zeal to express my opinion, I missed it.  Tell it to me once again.  You have my undivided attention.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 08:45:14 PM
I am of the mind that if I could definitively prove that the apollo missions never left ELO it is entirely unnecessary to prove that the landing was faked as it goes without reason that it had to be.  Is it really necessary to know how the magician does a trick if you can prove that it is a trick?

This is just a tautology:  "If I could prove my point, I will have proven my point."  I'm not talking about that fantasy, but the actual situation in which you find yourself now.  You haven't proven the spacecraft never left LEO.  You concluded that's what "had" to be the case because one thing you looked at didn't meet your expectation.  Then on the basis of that, you conclude that all the rest of the evidence "had" to be faked somehow, even if you don't know whether that's a reasonable claim.  It's an unconvincing argument because it's just one indirection after another.  Convincing arguments are able to explain all the relevant evidence.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 08:45:51 PM
Maybe in my zeal to express my opinion, I missed it.  Tell it to me once again.  You have my undivided attention.

Your interpretation of the radiation information is simplistic and misses important details.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 08:48:40 PM
Maybe in my zeal to express my opinion, I missed it.  Tell it to me once again.  You have my undivided attention.

Your interpretation of the radiation information is simplistic and misses important details.

Details such as?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 08:51:49 PM
Details such as?

I feel we've covered this at length.  I mention things like different particle species and in response you simply repeat your entrenched simplifications.  You keep responding with "the bottom line is..." or "the key concept is..." and thereby pull the discussion back to your oversimplified understanding.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 09:04:06 PM


I feel we've covered this at length.  I mention things like different particle species and in response you simply repeat your entrenched simplifications.  You keep responding with "the bottom line is..." or "the key concept is..." and thereby pull the discussion back to your oversimplified understanding.
[/quote]

That is a definite shortcoming of mine, the need to simplify.  When there is simplicity there is clarity.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 09:06:38 PM
When there is simplicity there is clarity.

But not necessarily truth,
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 09:09:20 PM
How about this and who can argue with Einstein?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 09:17:13 PM
How about this and who can argue with Einstein?

I will happily disagree with Einstein on the many things he got wrong.  Being one of the first "celebrity" scientists, he was often asked to comment on things that had nothing to do with physics.  Needing funding and attention for his later research, he was happy to court the celebrity until he noticed what it was doing to his reputation.  In this case, however, this is one of many quotes attributed to Einstein that, in fact, he never said.

As to the substance of the quote, admonitions against unnecessarily complexity are sound.  That is not an excuse to oversimplify, especially when your simplification leads to a conclusion that differs entirely from that reached by people who are able to incorporate the necessary amount of complexity.  Simplicity is not an overriding virtue.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 25, 2018, 09:31:00 PM
No amount of information and truth can overcome faith.  If your faith is in what you have been told then you can never see beyond it.  You cannot learn if you already know.  It is when you start with an empty bucket that you can fill it the most.  Be that empty bucket.

Personally I have no faith that Apollo landed 6 crews on the Moon, I know it from the data that is freely available.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 25, 2018, 09:48:03 PM
How about this and who can argue with Einstein?

I can quote Einstein too...

"It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience"

Which means Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 09:54:14 PM
No amount of information and truth can overcome faith.  If your faith is in what you have been told then you can never see beyond it.  You cannot learn if you already know.  It is when you start with an empty bucket that you can fill it the most.  Be that empty bucket.

Personally I have no faith that Apollo landed 6 crews on the Moon, I know it from the data that is freely available.

I am a fan of the man.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on March 25, 2018, 09:59:14 PM
It's worth noting that the quote in question is dubiously sourced and might not have actually been said by Einstein.  So there's that.

But I am of the opinion that, if you don't have a full explanation of how everything was faked, it's simpler to assume that you just don't understand the thing that you do think was faked.  As it happens, I'm another one of those people with some knowledge of film, and it's literally impossible to fake the Apollo footage in live action.  I don't just mean the stuff on the Moon, either.  You may be thinking of Apollo 13 and how well director Ron Howard managed to make the scenes in space by filming on the Vomit Comet.  And that's certainly true.  But you will also notice, I'm sure, that those takes are short, or else spliced, because it simply wasn't possible to do takes as long as the footage from the Apollo missions in orbit.

Further, the worst footage as far as accuracy is the fantasy about walking on the Moon.  Because we to this day don't have the technology to fake all that properly without doing enormous amounts of it in CGI.  We can't get the gravity and the vacuum right.  We can't do it now; they couldn't do it in 1969.  And since that footage is impossible to fake, it must therefore logically be real.  And if the footage is real, you must be misunderstanding the thing that convinces you the missions were faked.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 10:18:28 PM
It's worth noting that the quote in question is dubiously sourced and might not have actually been said by Einstein.  So there's that.

But I am of the opinion that, if you don't have a full explanation of how everything was faked, it's simpler to assume that you just don't understand the thing that you do think was faked.  As it happens, I'm another one of those people with some knowledge of film, and it's literally impossible to fake the Apollo footage in live action.  I don't just mean the stuff on the Moon, either.  You may be thinking of Apollo 13 and how well director Ron Howard managed to make the scenes in space by filming on the Vomit Comet.  And that's certainly true.  But you will also notice, I'm sure, that those takes are short, or else spliced, because it simply wasn't possible to do takes as long as the footage from the Apollo missions in orbit.

Further, the worst footage as far as accuracy is the fantasy about walking on the Moon.  Because we to this day don't have the technology to fake all that properly without doing enormous amounts of it in CGI.  We can't get the gravity and the vacuum right.  We can't do it now; they couldn't do it in 1969.  And since that footage is impossible to fake, it must therefore logically be real.  And if the footage is real, you must be misunderstanding the thing that convinces you the missions were faked.

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?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 10:20:37 PM
I have a question for the group.  Look at the planned path of the Orion on its scheduled moon mission.  Why do you believe this is not he same path all the Apollo missions took and if it isn't why isn't it? 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 10:27:47 PM
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?

Hoax believers claim they can tell it isn't real.  Sauce for the gander.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 10:30:22 PM
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?

Hoax believers claim they can tell it isn't real.  Sauce for the gander.
and Hoax deniers claim they can tell it is real.  More sauce?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 10:34:15 PM
I have a question for the group.

Or are you changing the subject?

Quote
Look at the planned path of the Orion on its scheduled moon mission.  Why do you believe this is not he same path all the Apollo missions took and if it isn't why isn't it?

Why do you think "all the Apollo missions" took the same path?  Can you explain the difference (in orbital mechanics terms) between a free-return trajectory and Apollo's so-called hybrid trajectory?

The "planned path" of Orion on its mission is not sufficiently spelled out in the video.  What are the orbital mechanics elements?  Declination, etc.?  I wouldn't expect Orion's translunar mission to follow the exact trajectory of any Apollo mission simply for the fact that no two translunar missions have ever followed the same planned trajectory.  Since this is an unmanned mission, crew radiation exposure is not a concern.  Hence where the video seems to show the mission traversing the Van Allen belts, I would say this is acceptable for this mission, but would not be for a manned mission.  It's common in videos for public consumption to simplify the arrangement among spacecraft, Earth, and Moon to render it all in one plane.  That's not necessarily how any of the missions will actually fly.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 10:36:35 PM
and Hoax deniers claim they can tell it is real.  More sauce?

Essentially yes.  Your point is moot.  You're telling us we wouldn't be able to tell just by looking whether video is real or fake.  If that's your story, then you have to dismiss the basis of the claims that it must be fake just by looking at it.  You told us that everything that wasn't about radiation wasn't your cup of tea.  You said others would cover those arguments.  And others have, but you're yanking the rug out from under them.  That makes it hard for you to rely on their conclusions as part of supporting your disbelief.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on March 25, 2018, 10:44:36 PM
I have a question for the group.  Look at the planned path of the Orion on its scheduled moon mission.  Why do you believe this is not he same path all the Apollo missions took and if it isn't why isn't it? 
We know what the Apollo spacecraft's trajectories were, because the Apollo spacecraft were tracked, not just by NASA installations but by numerous third party (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=43713;topic=1444.285).
And it isn't the same because Apollo's trajectories, while great for skirting the outer edges of the Van Allen Belts, meant that every mission landed in the lunar tropical latitude or with 4 degrees of latitude. There is a lot of moon left to explore, and there's strong evidence that permanently shadowed craters in the lunar poles can be sources of water, and with water, wow, water is everything in space.
You can, among other things, drink it, you can grow plants with it, you can use it for cooling,  you can split it to breathe, you can split it for rocket fuel, you can use it for all sorts of wonderful chemical reactions.
 The ISS gets regular shipments of water and oxygen, and that would get even more expensive for a lunar base, so a lunar outpost that has its own supplies of water would be a lot less expensive to maintain. You could send that water, either cracked or as ice, to an orbital fuel station, because once you're in LEO, you're half-way to anywhere delta-v wise, and the delta-V to send water/hydrogen oxygen from the moon to LEO is less than sending from the Earth's surface to LEO. Plus, you can use the atmosphere to aerobrake, which cuts down the requirements even further. But Apollo couldn't get to the poles; it couldn't get anywhere near the poles, so that's why Orion's trajectory is different.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 10:50:58 PM
I have a question for the group.

Or are you changing the subject?

Quote
Look at the planned path of the Orion on its scheduled moon mission.  Why do you believe this is not he same path all the Apollo missions took and if it isn't why isn't it?


Why do you think "all the Apollo missions" took the same path?  Can you explain the difference (in orbital mechanics terms) between a free-return trajectory and Apollo's so-called hybrid trajectory?

The "planned path" of Orion on its mission is not sufficiently spelled out in the video.  What are the orbital mechanics elements?  Declination, etc.?  I wouldn't expect Orion's translunar mission to follow the exact trajectory of any Apollo mission simply for the fact that no two translunar missions have ever followed the same planned trajectory.  Since this is an unmanned mission, crew radiation exposure is not a concern.  Hence where the video seems to show the mission traversing the Van Allen belts, I would say this is acceptable for this mission, but would not be for a manned mission.  It's common in videos for public consumption to simplify the arrangement among spacecraft, Earth, and Moon to render it all in one plane.  That's not necessarily how any of the missions will actually fly.

I guess you didn't get the memo.  It seems President Trump asked NASA to move the window up on a manned mission.  The next mission will be a manned flyby of the moon.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 25, 2018, 10:57:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 11:03:11 PM
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?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 11:05:41 PM
I guess you didn't get the memo.  It seems President Trump asked NASA to move the window up on a manned mission.  The next mission will be a manned flyby of the moon.

https://www.nasa.gov/EXPERIENCE-EM1 , where your video comes from, still says the mission will be unmanned.  Trump also said Mexico would pay for his border wall.  If you believe anything that man says, you deserve what you get.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 25, 2018, 11:18:37 PM
I guess you didn't get the memo.  It seems President Trump asked NASA to move the window up on a manned mission.  The next mission will be a manned flyby of the moon.

https://www.nasa.gov/EXPERIENCE-EM1 , where your video comes from, still says the mission will be unmanned.  Trump also said Mexico would pay for his border wall.  If you believe anything that man says, you deserve what you get.

https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Orion/Exploration_Mission_2
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2018, 11:22:43 PM
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Orion/Exploration_Mission_2

From the linked article:  "Following Orion’s Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1), during which the spacecraft will travel beyond the Moon, enter a distant retrograde orbit around the Moon and return to Earth unmanned, EM-2 will see a crewed spacecraft complete a slightly different flight path." (emphasis added)

The video you posted describes EM-1, and unmanned mission.  EM-2 will follow a different flight path.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 25, 2018, 11:25:10 PM
I have a question for the group.  Look at the planned path of the Orion on its scheduled moon mission.  Why do you believe this is not he same path all the Apollo missions took and if it isn't why isn't it? 

This is not the best illustration of the generalized trajectory outbound, you will notice that the trajectory travelled through the VARB in the vicinity of the  North Pole, where the VARB is least dense.  I don't know the trajectory of Orion(EM-1), but as Jay mentioned it is an unmanned mission so radiation will only affect the electronic components.  The first Orion mission travelled through the denser part of the VARB, to check how the electronics performed.  Radiation received during this mission was higher than that of the Apollo missions, since Apollo traveled in a less dense portion.  Any comparisons to prove/disprove Apollo are simply not valid.
Why do you ask a simple question for which there are reports to read.

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts#page-3
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 25, 2018, 11:27:50 PM
I have a question for the group.

Or are you changing the subject?

Quote
Look at the planned path of the Orion on its scheduled moon mission.  Why do you believe this is not he same path all the Apollo missions took and if it isn't why isn't it?


Why do you think "all the Apollo missions" took the same path?  Can you explain the difference (in orbital mechanics terms) between a free-return trajectory and Apollo's so-called hybrid trajectory?

The "planned path" of Orion on its mission is not sufficiently spelled out in the video.  What are the orbital mechanics elements?  Declination, etc.?  I wouldn't expect Orion's translunar mission to follow the exact trajectory of any Apollo mission simply for the fact that no two translunar missions have ever followed the same planned trajectory.  Since this is an unmanned mission, crew radiation exposure is not a concern.  Hence where the video seems to show the mission traversing the Van Allen belts, I would say this is acceptable for this mission, but would not be for a manned mission.  It's common in videos for public consumption to simplify the arrangement among spacecraft, Earth, and Moon to render it all in one plane.  That's not necessarily how any of the missions will actually fly.

I guess you didn't get the memo.  It seems President Trump asked NASA to move the window up on a manned mission.  The next mission will be a manned flyby of the moon.


You really should get the facts straight, NASA nixed EM-1 manned status and it remains unmanned.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-affirms-plan-for-first-mission-of-sls-oriion
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on March 25, 2018, 11:37:50 PM
I have a question for the group.  Look at the planned path of the Orion on its scheduled moon mission.  Why do you believe this is not he same path all the Apollo missions took and if it isn't why isn't it? 

That's not a real orbit. At no point does it cross the equator. All orbits starting from Earth cross the equator at some point.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 12:20:06 AM
Now this is the path of the trans-lunar injection orbit.  Examine closely the path in relation to the equator and the poles.  This path is deviated only slightly in inclination by all of the apollo missions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 12:29:33 AM
This path is deviated only slightly in inclination by all of the apollo missions.

If by "only slightly" you mean up to 30 degrees' difference in inclination (Apollo 15).  And if by "only slightly" you include the midcourse corrections to achieve the hybrid trajectory, a feature not shown on your diagram.  Keep in mind nobody in this forum is an Apollo novice.  You're not telling anyone anything they don't already know.  Speaking of which, how much training have you had in orbital mechanics?  I know, I know -- none.  And "I don't need to know the science blah blah blah."  Thing is, yes you do.  Orbital mechanics is counterintuitive.

Now if your point is to show how translunar trajectories interact with the Van Allen belts, you need to tell us what the inclination/axis of the Van Allen belts is for any particular trajectory.  Your video simplifies it all greatly.  Don't assume it's coincident with Earth's rotational axis.  This is something that's nontrivial even for astrophysicists.  Good luck.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 12:44:49 AM
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.  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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 12:47:31 AM
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?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 01:03:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 26, 2018, 01:04:27 AM
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?

Only you "guess". We "research and find out things"

(https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/655_1x_/public/import/2014/image-of-Apollo-11-and-van-allen-belts.gif?itok=05jwtOp-)

This is a rough indication of Apollo 11's trip through the VARB... notice that it went nowhere near "the heart of the VAB"... Oh dear, try again.

Now here is a young lady who has a better understanding of Apollo, orbits and radiation than most people, including you it seems. If you can be bothered watching you might actually learn something.



And here is a little factoid for you. Over the course of the lunar missions, astronauts were exposed to doses lower than the yearly 5 rem average experienced by workers with the Atomic Energy Commission who regularly deal with radioactive materials. And in no case did any astronaut experience any debilitating medical or biological effects. And beside, the Apollo astronauts were former test pilots. Flying to the Moon, radiation exposure included, was still a safer day at the office than putting an experimental aircraft through its paces in the skies above Edwards Air Force Base.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 01:15:42 AM
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?

Only you "guess". We "research and find out things"

(https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/655_1x_/public/import/2014/image-of-Apollo-11-and-van-allen-belts.gif?itok=05jwtOp-)

This is a rough indication of Apollo 11's trip through the VARB... notice that it went nowhere near "the heart of the VAB"... Oh dear, try again.

Now here is a young lady who has a better understanding of Apollo, orbits and radiation than most people, including you it seems. If you can be bothered watching you might actually learn something.



And here is a little factoid for you. Over the course of the lunar missions, astronauts were exposed to doses lower than the yearly 5 rem average experienced by workers with the Atomic Energy Commission who regularly deal with radioactive materials. And in no case did any astronaut experience any debilitating medical or biological effects. And beside, the Apollo astronauts were former test pilots. Flying to the Moon, radiation exposure included, was still a safer day at the office than putting an experimental aircraft through its paces in the skies above Edwards Air Force Base.

does that look like the plane of rotation the moon takes around the earth? If it isn't then that is not the path the TLI takes.  Remember a launch is simply circling around the earth on the same plane as the moon and then expanding outward in an elliptical orbit.  That drawing was designed to confuse the mildly interested.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 26, 2018, 01:38:59 AM
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?

Only you "guess". We "research and find out things"

(https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/655_1x_/public/import/2014/image-of-Apollo-11-and-van-allen-belts.gif?itok=05jwtOp-)

This is a rough indication of Apollo 11's trip through the VARB... notice that it went nowhere near "the heart of the VAB"... Oh dear, try again.

Now here is a young lady who has a better understanding of Apollo, orbits and radiation than most people, including you it seems. If you can be bothered watching you might actually learn something.



And here is a little factoid for you. Over the course of the lunar missions, astronauts were exposed to doses lower than the yearly 5 rem average experienced by workers with the Atomic Energy Commission who regularly deal with radioactive materials. And in no case did any astronaut experience any debilitating medical or biological effects. And beside, the Apollo astronauts were former test pilots. Flying to the Moon, radiation exposure included, was still a safer day at the office than putting an experimental aircraft through its paces in the skies above Edwards Air Force Base.

does that look like the plane of rotation the moon takes around the earth? If it isn't then that is not the path the TLI takes.  Remember a launch is simply circling around the earth on the same plane as the moon and then expanding outward in an elliptical orbit.  That drawing was designed to confuse the mildly interested.

Jesus Christ.. use that slab of useless grey stuff between your ears!

The diagram doesn't show a "plane" (Hint: Its a 2D diagram and the dotted line is not the orbit, its defines the most most dangerous general area of the Varb)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 01:41:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 26, 2018, 01:46:56 AM
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.

You have no understanding of a 2D diagram

Incidentally, you do understand, don't you, that the VARB are not perpendicular to the Earth's axis of rotation (as a submariner, you should know that), and neither is the moon. The VARB are tilted with respect to the rotation axis by about 23°, and the plane of the Moon's orbit is tilted by about 5.5°. Think about it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 26, 2018, 02:01:09 AM
a radiation level of .47 mgy/day is not lethal and a 10 mission in such a background is well within the established safe limits.  I contend not that the mission itself would not be feasible, I contend because you could not guarantee that the mission would not encounter an SPE then it would be Russian Roulette.

The odds of dying in Russian Roulette are 1-in-6 per round.  The odds of a dangerous SPE aimed at the Earth in a given 12-day period is much lower than that.  By contrast, Many astronauts were recruited from the US Navy's flight test center at Patuxent River where, at the time, test pilots had a 1-in-4 chance of getting killed during a tour of duty (Chapter 1 of Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff graphically describes this period).  Before circling the Moon in Apollo 8, crewman Bill Anders believed he had a 1-in-3 chance of not making it back alive.  Today, our culture believes in "safety first". Back then, they believed that great achievement goes hand-in-hand with great risk. A man on the moon was seen as the ultimate achievement, and they would not have shied away from ultimate risk.  As I have pointed out twice now, two of the Apollo astronauts died of possible radiation-related illnesses (bone cancer and leukemia).

Remember, I am not claiming the reported doses are deadly.  I am claiming the reported doses do not reflect expected radiation levels for cislunar operations.

I am not fixed in my position.  If any of you could give me a plausible reason for the unusually low mission dosages, I will discard my position and assume a new one.

So, if radiation was not a show-stopper, and you are willing to consider the possibility that your position is flawed, and keeping in mind that attempting a hoax is far more difficult than simply accepting known risks, then I repeat the questions that you have ignored twice before:

When you found that Apollo radiation measurements did not match your expectations for a lunar mission, why was fraud your go-to explanation?

Why is the global conspiracy more attractive to you than any more reasonable possibilities?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on March 26, 2018, 02:02:03 AM
I am of the mind that if I could definitively prove that the apollo missions never left ELO it is entirely unnecessary to prove that the landing was faked as it goes without reason that it had to be.  Is it really necessary to know how the magician does a trick if you can prove that it is a trick?

And if the overwhelming weight of other evidence proves that they did leave LEO then would that demonstrate to you that perhaps your understanding of radiation is inadequate?

If astronauts can broadcast on live TV images of Earth that are provably accurate in every way? If samples returned by the people who took them are provably of lunar origin? If equipment planted by people returned data for years after it was placed? If photographs taken on the surface show features that are corroborated decades later? If probes from countries other than the USA show the presence of human activity?

Where does that proof leave your faith?

And to add my voice to those who have said the same: do not make the arrogant assumption that you are the only person who has ever looked into the Apollo missions. Don't assume that people here are arguing out of ignorance and have not conducted research of our own.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on March 26, 2018, 02:09:13 AM
Now this is the path of the trans-lunar injection orbit.  Examine closely the path in relation to the equator and the poles.  This path is deviated only slightly in inclination by all of the apollo missions.

It is a generalised and stylised depiction of a TLI burn of many kinds. It makes no claim to be an accurate depiction of the all Apollo TLI burns, two of which are described in the article from which it came:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 26, 2018, 02:21:18 AM
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.

I never liked that illustration; it's confusing until you realize that it shows only the altitude vs. angle to the magnetic axis without showing the motion around the Earth.  These three videos (based on the actual Apollo 11 orbital elements, which are freely available) show much more clearly how the spacecraft trajectory bypassed the most intense areas of the VAB:



Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 26, 2018, 02:22:48 AM
This will be my last attempt.

This is a view looking, from the pole, down on TLI and TEI (note how the moon moves between them.. it was even longer for Apollo 17)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/zqqu31qqyrbhp96/TLI-TEI%20top%20view.png?raw=1)

Now visualise tipping this diagram, so that the top is away from you and the bottom is towards you, so that you are looking at it "edge on"

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/vwtyrv3qcxdaryr/TLI-TEI-VARB%20edge%20view.jpg?raw=1)

Now you should be able to visualise the TLI line as it really is, not as a line at right angles to the the plane of the earth's equator (flat on the diagram)  but as a line that is coming towards you... the bottom of the line is further away from you, the top of the line is nearer to you.

If you don't get it this time, then I'm afraid you are unteachable, and incapable of understanding the limitations of trying to show a 3D concept in 2D (no worries, its a lack of capability that you would share with almost all other hoax nuts)






Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on March 26, 2018, 02:47:11 AM
These three images are stills, or a montage of stills from Apollo 8, 11, and 17 respectively.


(https://i.imgur.com/EZ91cC9.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/3ZDOtB9.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/fk3YJRy.jpg)


Apollo 8 and 11 show the north Atlantic, Apollo 17 southern Africa. None of these images show that they were taken directly above the equator. All three were taken shortly after TLI and the evidence is in the footage that proves this to be the case. I'll see if you can fathom out what that evidence might be.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 26, 2018, 06:23:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 26, 2018, 06:52:48 AM
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.



Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 26, 2018, 07:19:34 AM
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMBcLg0DkLA).

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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn1S-flYkaQ).

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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQfauGJaTs).

Here (https://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/FendellEI/FendellEI_10-19-00.pdf) is an 80-page interview with Ed Fendell.  The discussion of the RC camera begins on page 56.  Enjoy!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 26, 2018, 08:47:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 09:41:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 09:44:34 AM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 10:01:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 10:44:41 AM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on March 26, 2018, 10:54:32 AM
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?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on March 26, 2018, 10:55:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 26, 2018, 11:07:11 AM
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.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/dYY6K9zy8aBOw/giphy.gif)

;)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 26, 2018, 11:30:40 AM
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".
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 12:26:33 PM
So you don't think they could have relayed transmission through the unmanned craft.  They were not that smart?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 12:28:31 PM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 12:31:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 12:31:48 PM
So you don't think they could have relayed transmission through the unmanned craft.  They were not that smart?

No, they can't transmit faster than the speed of light.  In order for NET-1 technicians to have an interactive conversation with a crew on the ground, but make it sound like it comes from the spacecraft, the technician's outbound transmission would have to be relayed back down to Earth, and the astronaut's response would have to be transmitted back up to the spacecraft to be relayed back down to Earth.  That's two round-trips instead of one.  Each round trip is over 3 seconds in the worst case.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 12:33:04 PM
If you say so....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 12:36:10 PM
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.

I don't want to be the one to burst your bubble but as GCR is inversely proportion to solar activity SPE's are directly proportional and the threat to personnel increases.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 12:37:56 PM
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.

But you keep talking about the other stuff anyway.  And you can't get around the fact that the other stuff still has to have an answer in order for your LEO hypothesis to be true.  Your inability to think of those answers isn't a neutral factor in your argument.  If the totality of evidence is best answered by the authenticity of the mission, then that makes it more likely that your interpretation of the radiation information is wrong.  Since there many other factors pointing to the likelihood of error on your part in that respect, you start to see where parsimony leads us.

Quote
I am 100% certain of this.

But why are you 100% certain of it?  You haven't convinced anyone that you've given the problem sufficient informed thought to be that sure on the merits.  Instead you tend to devolve into blustery ideology-based arguments -- everyone else is faith-hobbled sheeple, etc.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 12:41:02 PM
I don't want to be the one to burst your bubble but as GCR is inversely proportion to solar activity SPE's are directly proportional and the threat to personnel increases.

Yes, but not at all in the same way.  GCR, while it ebbs and flows, is a constant, ubiquitous phenomenon.  Solar particle events are events.  Those that would be a danger to manned spaceflight occur only about six times a year during the peak of solar max (2-4 times a year otherwise), while the other aspects of the solar maximum phenomenon keep GCR at bay.  And SPEs are directional.  They go out in shotgun blasts in specific directions that may or may not include the Earth-Moon system.  Trying to compare SPEs and GCR on the same footing is just nonsensical.

Remember about how you disclaimed any expertise in astrophysics?  Given that admission, why do you think you're the one to "burst" anyone's bubble on the relevant subjects?  Does it even occur to you to consider that your hastily Googled tidbits might not be good knowledge?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 12:53:34 PM
Gentlemen, I provide this in-depth analysis of radiation exposure for your consideration.  It is interesting to note that the author indicates the only way the math works is to remove all contributions from solar radiation.  Take your time and embrace the consequences of this revelation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322643901_Radiation_Analysis_for_Moon_and_Mars_Missions
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 12:59:59 PM
Take your time and embrace the consequences of this revelation.

Self-published, non-peer-reviewed research?  While I read the paper, please tell us what steps you took to determine that this author was appropriately qualified and that his conclusions would be accepted by the relevant scientific community.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 01:04:29 PM
According to the author, it was sheer luck that the astronauts didn't die in the trip.  Now if you consider there were nine manned missions to the moon then the odds are astronomical. 

VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The radiation level  on a  flight to  the  Moon or  Mars can vary from moderate over significant to deadly. Moderate radiation levels can be expected when the Sun is almost calm. Then one may overcome a flight to the Moon and back with a moderate shielding without radiation damage. The shielding is only compulsory in the Van Allen radiation belt. The flight path of Apollo 11 avoids the centre of the Van Allen  radiation  belt in  an  elegant  way.  It’s  a  pity  that  this skilful trajectory has  not been  highlighted  by NASA. For  an even  better  avoidance  one  would  have  to  fly  first  a  polar parking orbit and then to turn off in direction Moon – or Mars. But this would cost much more energy.  If the Sun suddenly got  active, what cannot be  predicted, also not for a short time span [lectures of solar researchers] & [14],  one  would  rapidly  be  covered  with  a  health  affecting dose. This  substantial  risk  is  confirmed  by  the  following  two statements of ESA [7] „In the near-term, manned activities are limited to low altitude, and mainly low-inclination missions.“ and  [8]  “During  the Apollo  missions  of  the  1960s–70s,  the astronauts were simply lucky not to have been in space during a  major  solar  eruption  that  would  have  flooded  their spacecraft with  deadly radiation”. With  other words  a lunar mission or beyond is regarded as not controllable. The  radiation,  specifically  the  massive  rise  from  500  to 1000  km  altitude  [Fig.  3],  is  also  a  main  reason  why  the International  Space  Station  ISS  remains  between  300  and 400 km altitude.

Radiation Analysis for Moon and Mars Missions (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322643901_Radiation_Analysis_for_Moon_and_Mars_Missions [accessed Mar 26 2018].
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 01:06:43 PM
According to the author, it was sheer luck that the astronauts didn't die in the trip.

Same question:  what steps did you take to ensure your author was a suitable authority on the subject, such that his opinions would have evidentiary value?  If you're going to rely on his authority and expertise, you have to first lay a foundation for it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 01:08:33 PM
Take your time and embrace the consequences of this revelation.

Self-published, non-peer-reviewed research?  While I read the paper, please tell us what steps you took to determine that this author was appropriately qualified and that his conclusions would be accepted by the relevant scientific community.

I am not sure I am qualified to ascertain his qualifications as I am a lowly Industrial Maintenance Electrician with not astrophysical training whatsoever.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 01:09:18 PM
Additionally, if you're going to cite this author as an authority, are you able to reconcile your claims in this forum with assertions he's made in the paper, such as that aluminum is commonly used as a radiation shielding material, and that translunar and interplanetary trajectories are possible that don't involve flying through the Van Allen belts?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 01:10:52 PM
Feel free to disregard any information that doesn't support your hypothesis.  It is the way of religious fanatics isn't it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 01:12:54 PM
I am not sure I am qualified to ascertain his qualifications as I am a lowly Industrial Maintenance Electrician with not astrophysical training whatsoever.

I am sure you are not qualified to assess his qualifications, therefore to pose him as an authority is hopeful at best.  I am also sure you are not qualified to assess the paper on its merits, to determine whether a defensible methodology was pursued, or to determine whether his conclusions would be indicative of the prevailing knowledge in the field.  Would it be accurate to say that you're simply grasping for any and all material you think supports your case, regardless of its objective merit, instead of seeking to understand the subjects that pertain to your theory irrespective of whether the theory is true?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 01:17:33 PM
Considering my distinct lack of expertise in the subject matter, I am totally reliant upon the expertise of others but is not not true of us all?  Even scientist rely upon the research of others.  It is our collective knowledge that empowers us and not the sole efforts of any single person.  Consider the article and take from it what you may.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 01:19:11 PM
Feel free to disregard any information that doesn't support your hypothesis.  It is the way of religious fanatics isn't it?

Name-calling is childish and disrespectful.

I'm not questioning the information because it seems to contradict a hypothesis.  I'm questioning the information because there are factors immediately present that indicate the information may not be reliable.  First, the author does not state any qualification except his place of employment and a vague claim to have worked in the aerospace field.  From his online profile I am able to glean the kind of work he does there, and there is nothing that requires expertise in cislunar or interplanetary radiation.  Second, he has self-published his findings.  Third, he lists no reviewers for his publication.  Those factors would normally accompany research that is intended to achieve scientific rigor.

Those factors notwithstanding, I am proceeding to evaluate the paper on its merits.  You urged us to take our time in digesting it, so you'll please have patience while that occurs.  I'm in the second column of page 1 and I've already run into a methodology snag.  The author attempts to use an online space radiation modeling tool to estimate the dose rates for orbits in the Van Allen belts, but he does not manipulate the model according to geomagnetic parameters nor orbital elements.  This indicates a simplistic approach to his survey.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on March 26, 2018, 01:20:32 PM
If you say so....
"If you say so"?! The speed of light is one of those damn basic laws of physics. Ye canna change the laws o' physics! Unless you have an explanation for this, your whole argument is stillborn.
Besides I noticed a problem in the paper you linked already, just reading the abstract . "By only changing the flight duration an assessment for the total dose of a journey to Mars is provided." See, Apollo was something of a roll of the dice. With its short duration, two weeks max, it was unlikely to encounter a potentially dangerous solar event. Not impossible, but a risk they were willing to take for national pride. A Mars mission, on the other hand, would last over a year using current and near-term propulsion tech. Many planned Mars missions have some kind of 'solar storm shelter' to account for this. So its methodology is already flawed, by my reading. I am not nearly so qualified as many of the others here to comment on the rest of the paper, but it seems a pretty damning error right out of the gate.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 01:27:49 PM
I apologize for any offense.  Your immediate response to the article without due process elicited such a response.  I will try to be better in the future.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 01:28:37 PM
Considering my distinct lack of expertise in the subject matter, I am totally reliant upon the expertise of others...

Yes you are dependent in that way, and your choice of experts to advise you is not encouraging, nor your vetting criteria.  You were quite willing to trust an Australian kid to advise you on astrophysics, but you reject the findings of actual working professionals and call them names.

Quote
...but is not not true of us all?

No.  Most of us work in situations where there are serious empirical consequences for error or misconception.  No, you don't get to make the argument that science is necessarily a faith-based exercise.

Quote
Consider the article and take from it what you may.

If you consider the author to be a suitably qualified expert and his findings to be robust enough to require explanation from your critics, can you explain why he has -- just one page 1 -- contradicted two suggestions you have made here in this forum?  Do you accept his authority to contradict and correct your misconceptions?  I'm not asking you to assert that he is a qualified expert.  I'm asking you to reconcile the inconsistency between your claims about shielding material with his claims about shielding material, under the presumption arguendo that he is expert.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 01:30:29 PM
If you say so....
"If you say so"?! The speed of light is one of those damn basic laws of physics. Ye canna change the laws o' physics! Unless you have an explanation for this, your whole argument is stillborn.
Besides I noticed a problem in the paper you linked already, just reading the abstract . "By only changing the flight duration an assessment for the total dose of a journey to Mars is provided." See, Apollo was something of a roll of the dice. With its short duration, two weeks max, it was unlikely to encounter a potentially dangerous solar event. Not impossible, but a risk they were willing to take for national pride. A Mars mission, on the other hand, would last over a year using current and near-term propulsion tech. Many planned Mars missions have some kind of 'solar storm shelter' to account for this. So its methodology is already flawed, by my reading. I am not nearly so qualified as many of the others here to comment on the rest of the paper, but it seems a pretty damning error right out of the gate.

When you consider the fact that there was nine manned lunar missions then can you really justify NASA's cavalier approach to the safety of the astronauts?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 01:32:40 PM
Considering my distinct lack of expertise in the subject matter, I am totally reliant upon the expertise of others...

Yes you are dependent in that way, and your choice of experts to advise you is not encouraging, nor your vetting criteria.  You were quite willing to trust an Australian kid to advise you on astrophysics, but you reject the findings of actual working professionals and call them names.

Quote
...but is not not true of us all?

No.  Most of us work in situations where there are serious empirical consequences for error or misconception.  No, you don't get to make the argument that science is necessarily a faith-based exercise.

Quote
Consider the article and take from it what you may.

If you consider the author to be a suitably qualified expert and his findings to be robust enough to require explanation from your critics, can you explain why he has -- just one page 1 -- contradicted two suggestions you have made here in this forum?  Do you accept his authority to contradict and correct your misconceptions?  I'm not asking you to assert that he is a qualified expert.  I'm asking you to reconcile the inconsistency between your claims about shielding material with his claims about shielding material, under the presumption arguendo that he is expert.

Are you sure you looked at the entire pdf as there is more than a single page?  I claim that the apollo craft had no dedicated shielding and relied on the superstructure, heat shields and onboard equipment to provide shielding.  Nothing he says contradicts anything I have said.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 01:37:34 PM
If the shoe were on the other foot then the approach I would have used would be to acknowledge that the readings are circumspect and probably the result of archaic measurement equipment.  I don't think I would disregard what is an obvious incongruence.  I'm just saying...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on March 26, 2018, 01:41:58 PM
Feel free to disregard any information that doesn't support your hypothesis.  It is the way of religious fanatics isn't it?

You seem to be doing that by not reading what your posted research text says, eg:

Quote
The flight path of Apollo 11 avoids the centre of the Van Allen  radiation  belt in  an  elegant  way
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on March 26, 2018, 01:45:12 PM
If you say so....
"If you say so"?! The speed of light is one of those damn basic laws of physics. Ye canna change the laws o' physics! Unless you have an explanation for this, your whole argument is stillborn.
Besides I noticed a problem in the paper you linked already, just reading the abstract . "By only changing the flight duration an assessment for the total dose of a journey to Mars is provided." See, Apollo was something of a roll of the dice. With its short duration, two weeks max, it was unlikely to encounter a potentially dangerous solar event. Not impossible, but a risk they were willing to take for national pride. A Mars mission, on the other hand, would last over a year using current and near-term propulsion tech. Many planned Mars missions have some kind of 'solar storm shelter' to account for this. So its methodology is already flawed, by my reading. I am not nearly so qualified as many of the others here to comment on the rest of the paper, but it seems a pretty damning error right out of the gate.

When you consider the fact that there was nine manned lunar missions then can you really justify NASA's cavalier approach to the safety of the astronauts?
9 rolls of the dice, with separate forecasts to make sure the risks were as low as possible, is quite a bit different than the all in 28 'rolls' for a year long Mars mission, with no chance for a high risk forecast delaying the mission, since they would be already in space.  Besides, whether we would currently justify it by today's standards is  irrelevant to the question of whether it happened or not.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 01:47:33 PM
Your immediate response to the article without due process elicited such a response.

My immediate response arose out of information I was able to discover immediately, and which bears upon the evidentiary value of the paper.  You proffered this paper, which presents itself as scientific findings.  Due process requires me to evaluate it not just on its facial value, but on foundational factors that would ordinarily transform such findings into evidence.  Foundational factors may be assessed in mere minutes.  Facial factors may be assessed in an hour or so.  A proper methdology vetting would take days.  All those factors matter in determining whether the author's conclusions have the effect you desire.  What can be determined in zero time is to what extent you performed due process before offering this material as evidence.  If you didn't do any, or don't consider yourself qualified to do it, then its value as evidence is not something you can claim to be sure of.  That reduces the importance for others to take on the mantle of vetting it for you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 01:53:09 PM
Are you sure you looked at the entire pdf as there is more than a single page?

I have the entire paper.  My point is that, having proceeded no farther than the first page, I already have encountered materials that require your attention.

Quote
I claim that the apollo craft had no dedicated shielding...

That is not the claim to which I refer.  When we were discussing the materials used for shielding, you insisted that shielding had to be composed of hydrogen-rich materials.  I pointed out that aluminum was commonly used as a radiation shielding material.  You responded that this was impossible because it would produce secondary radation, presumably in unsustainable amounts.  If you accept this author as an expert, and this author says that aluminum is commonly used as a shielding material, do you concede that you were wrong when you claimed it wasn't, or couldn't be?

Further, you suggested last night and then today that a translunar trajectory would have to pass through the Van Allen belts.  You pooh-poohed depictions of the orbital geometry as having been "drawn in crayon for children."  Yet your author here agrees that there was an "elegant" way of flying the trajectory that avoided all but the fringes of the trapped radiation.  If you accept this author as an expert, do you concede that your dismissal of Apollo trajectories was premature and not properly informed?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 26, 2018, 02:24:47 PM
Gentlemen, I provide this in-depth analysis of radiation exposure for your consideration.  It is interesting to note that the author indicates the only way the math works is to remove all contributions from solar radiation.  Take your time and embrace the consequences of this revelation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322643901_Radiation_Analysis_for_Moon_and_Mars_Missions
From his conclusions.
Quote
The flight path of Apollo voids the centre of the Van Allen radiation in an elegant way.  It's a pity that this skillful trajectory has no been highlighted by NASA.Fr a better avoidance one would have to fly first a polar parking orbit and then turn off in the direction Moon--or Mars.  But this would cost much more energy.

Even you un-reviewed author detects that Apollo missed the most dense portions of the VARB, why can't you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 26, 2018, 02:28:49 PM
If you say so....
"If you say so"?! The speed of light is one of those damn basic laws of physics. Ye canna change the laws o' physics! Unless you have an explanation for this, your whole argument is stillborn.
Besides I noticed a problem in the paper you linked already, just reading the abstract . "By only changing the flight duration an assessment for the total dose of a journey to Mars is provided." See, Apollo was something of a roll of the dice. With its short duration, two weeks max, it was unlikely to encounter a potentially dangerous solar event. Not impossible, but a risk they were willing to take for national pride. A Mars mission, on the other hand, would last over a year using current and near-term propulsion tech. Many planned Mars missions have some kind of 'solar storm shelter' to account for this. So its methodology is already flawed, by my reading. I am not nearly so qualified as many of the others here to comment on the rest of the paper, but it seems a pretty damning error right out of the gate.

When you consider the fact that there was nine manned lunar missions then can you really justify NASA's cavalier approach to the safety of the astronauts?

They choose a program that had defined risks, but those risks were small enough, although not zero to proceed.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 26, 2018, 02:29:12 PM
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.

I don't want to be the one to burst your bubble but as GCR is inversely proportion to solar activity SPE's are directly proportional and the threat to personnel increases.

You can't burst what doesn't exist.  However, I would like to know why you think it is at all reasonable for you to reference an article (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.06631.pdf) for the data you argue supports your position, yet disavow it when it specifically conflicts with your faulty conclusions?  You have been busted for entering the CSCA without anti-c's and erroneously claim the posting was invalid.  Report to Captain's Mast.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: mako88sb on March 26, 2018, 02:32:46 PM
If you say so....
"If you say so"?! The speed of light is one of those damn basic laws of physics. Ye canna change the laws o' physics! Unless you have an explanation for this, your whole argument is stillborn.
Besides I noticed a problem in the paper you linked already, just reading the abstract . "By only changing the flight duration an assessment for the total dose of a journey to Mars is provided." See, Apollo was something of a roll of the dice. With its short duration, two weeks max, it was unlikely to encounter a potentially dangerous solar event. Not impossible, but a risk they were willing to take for national pride. A Mars mission, on the other hand, would last over a year using current and near-term propulsion tech. Many planned Mars missions have some kind of 'solar storm shelter' to account for this. So its methodology is already flawed, by my reading. I am not nearly so qualified as many of the others here to comment on the rest of the paper, but it seems a pretty damning error right out of the gate.

When you consider the fact that there was nine manned lunar missions then can you really justify NASA's cavalier approach to the safety of the astronauts?

Hardly cavalier since it's already been mentioned that they were able to predict solar flares with about a weeks worth of warning. If one did happen to occur while a mission was in progress, they had contingency plans ready to attempt to minimize the additional radiation exposure as much as possible which of course, the degree of success or failure would depend on when during a mission an event occurred. It was always known that there was potential for an event that could cause the death of the entire crew in space but they did everything they could to minimize the possibility of it happening. As already mentioned, the astronauts were all former test pilots. Most were also naval aviators who risked their lives landing on aircraft carriers. They knew exactly what they were getting into and accepted the risks involved.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 02:58:31 PM
The paper is riddled with conceptual errors, errors in method, simplifying assumptions, and assumptions made in lieu of data.  An example of conceptual error:  that SPEs cannot be predicted.  Example of error in method:  simplistic manipulation of trapped radiation model solver.  Examples of simplifying assumptions:  one-body model of translunar trajectory; quiescent Sun contribution is negligible; VA radiation level is constant.  Example of assumptions made in lieu of data:  shielding factors of Apollo structure, mission success estimates.  These errors make his findings in the form of dosage estimates essentially worthless.  Notably absent also is any sort of error analysis, which must be present in any rationale that relies heavily on estimates made in lieu of data.  The error analysis would have helped the author determine the degree to which his final numbers could vary.  Also, it's not accurate to say that the only way the author could get the numbers to work was to eliminate the Sun.  It's more accurate to say he assumed the contribution of a quiescent Sun would be negligible compared to other factors he was going to consider.  That's arguably another error.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on March 26, 2018, 03:00:42 PM
If you say so....

Lord, I hate passive-aggressive  non-denials.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 26, 2018, 03:03:40 PM
mako88sb, it never fails to entertain me when hoax/conspiracy proponents argue that the risk was unacceptable, as this speaks volumes regarding their own fortitude.  Men of honor, courage and dedication will do extraordinary things, notably under extraordinary circumstances.  Because of my unique qualifications and knowledge as a Physical Science Technician, when the Fukishima accident occurred, radiological control personnel were needed to assist in the relief and recovery efforts being made.  Prior to knowing how bad things were going to progress (I am happy to say that things had already reached their apex, but no one knew that at the time), I volunteered to go, while others admittedly were afraid to.  I did what I felt needed to be done, and I am still not worthy to carry the jock strap of the Apollo (and many other) astronauts.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 26, 2018, 03:15:33 PM
So you don't think they could have relayed transmission through the unmanned craft.  They were not that smart?

They simply could not have got away with it. Too many people, many of them foreigners (not Americans) at the DSN tracking stations, would have known about it. Technicians are not stupid, they set up, tested and tracked every feed; voice & telemetry. A voice feed of lunar surface operations being uplinked (especially one without quindar tones) would have stood out like Dolly Parton on a fashion show catwalk.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 03:29:31 PM
Are you sure you looked at the entire pdf as there is more than a single page?

I have the entire paper.  My point is that, having proceeded no farther than the first page, I already have encountered materials that require your attention.

Quote
I claim that the apollo craft had no dedicated shielding...

That is not the claim to which I refer.  When we were discussing the materials used for shielding, you insisted that shielding had to be composed of hydrogen-rich materials.  I pointed out that aluminum was commonly used as a radiation shielding material.  You responded that this was impossible because it would produce secondary radation, presumably in unsustainable amounts.  If you accept this author as an expert, and this author says that aluminum is commonly used as a shielding material, do you concede that you were wrong when you claimed it wasn't, or couldn't be?

Further, you suggested last night and then today that a translunar trajectory would have to pass through the Van Allen belts.  You pooh-poohed depictions of the orbital geometry as having been "drawn in crayon for children."  Yet your author here agrees that there was an "elegant" way of flying the trajectory that avoided all but the fringes of the trapped radiation.  If you accept this author as an expert, do you concede that your dismissal of Apollo trajectories was premature and not properly informed?
The author speaks of shielding electron radiation in the VAB,  Electrons can be attenuated by aluminum.  The high energy Proton flux of GCR's is not shielded by aluminum and the damage is increased due to secondary emissions.  I contend the path of the TLI is the determining factor and it is a fortuitous consequence that this path takes an oblique angle through the VAB.  Fuel was the determining factor.  I stand by my statements.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 03:35:39 PM
Gentlemen, I provide this in-depth analysis of radiation exposure for your consideration.  It is interesting to note that the author indicates the only way the math works is to remove all contributions from solar radiation.  Take your time and embrace the consequences of this revelation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322643901_Radiation_Analysis_for_Moon_and_Mars_Missions
From his conclusions.
Quote
The flight path of Apollo voids the centre of the Van Allen radiation in an elegant way.  It's a pity that this skillful trajectory has no been highlighted by NASA.Fr a better avoidance one would have to fly first a polar parking orbit and then turn off in the direction Moon--or Mars.  But this would cost much more energy.

Even you un-reviewed author detects that Apollo missed the most dense portions of the VARB, why can't you?

If you recall the heart of my argument had nothing to do with the radiation of the VAB rather the ever present GCR radiation that should establish a minimum exposure rate for all lunar missions.  The fact that only one of the nine missions had sufficiently high enough mission doses to validate a transit beyond ELO is the point I defend.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 26, 2018, 03:39:03 PM
The paper is riddled with conceptual errors, errors in method, simplifying assumptions, and assumptions made in lieu of data.  An example of conceptual error:  that SPEs cannot be predicted.  Example of error in method:  simplistic manipulation of trapped radiation model solver.  Examples of simplifying assumptions:  one-body model of translunar trajectory; quiescent Sun contribution is negligible; VA radiation level is constant.  Example of assumptions made in lieu of data:  shielding factors of Apollo structure, mission success estimates.  These errors make his findings in the form of dosage estimates essentially worthless.  Notably absent also is any sort of error analysis, which must be present in any rationale that relies heavily on estimates made in lieu of data.  The error analysis would have helped the author determine the degree to which his final numbers could vary.  Also, it's not accurate to say that the only way the author could get the numbers to work was to eliminate the Sun.  It's more accurate to say he assumed the contribution of a quiescent Sun would be negligible compared to other factors he was going to consider.  That's arguably another error.

You see timfinch... this is is what happens when you offer "evidence" without checking its accuracy and veracity... that evidence can be demolished by someone who actually has real expertise.

It must be discouraging to post a link to evidence you think will support you, only to find that others actually DO read what you posted and then point out the link contains statements that directly contradict your position.

It must be really frustrating for the uninformed to have to argue about astrophysics, aerospace engineering and rocket science with actual astrophysicists, aerospace engineers and rocket scientists. This is why HBs don't survive here for very long... its hard for them make headway against actual expertise... the uninformed get found out very, very quickly..   
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 26, 2018, 03:40:47 PM
Gentlemen, I provide this in-depth analysis of radiation exposure for your consideration.  It is interesting to note that the author indicates the only way the math works is to remove all contributions from solar radiation.  Take your time and embrace the consequences of this revelation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322643901_Radiation_Analysis_for_Moon_and_Mars_Missions
From his conclusions.
Quote
The flight path of Apollo voids the centre of the Van Allen radiation in an elegant way.  It's a pity that this skillful trajectory has no been highlighted by NASA.Fr a better avoidance one would have to fly first a polar parking orbit and then turn off in the direction Moon--or Mars.  But this would cost much more energy.

Even you un-reviewed author detects that Apollo missed the most dense portions of the VARB, why can't you?

If you recall the heart of my argument had nothing to do with the radiation of the VAB rather the ever present GCR radiation that should establish a minimum exposure rate for all lunar missions.  The fact that only one of the nine missions had sufficiently high enough mission doses to validate a transit beyond ELO is the point I defend.

A fringe reset without the fringe!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 03:41:48 PM
The author speaks of shielding electron radiation in the VAB,  Electrons can be attenuated by aluminum.

That's the context in which we discussed what materials to use as shielding.  It was a general discussion.  Most missions I have worked with both traverse the Van Allen belts and spend considerable time in cislunar space bombarded by GCR and other sources of radiation.  Aluminum is still the material of choice whether you choose to acknowledge your error or not.

Quote
I contend the path of the TLI is the determining factor and it is a fortuitous consequence that this path takes an oblique angle through the VAB.

It wasn't "fortuitous."  It was planned that way.  Dr. James Van Allen himself helped plan the trajectories specifically with the goal of minimizing exposure to trapped radiation.  You spent several hours trying to fumble and bluff your way through a discussion of orbital maneuvers, and you still seem to think you got away with it.

Quote
Fuel was the determining factor.

Fuel is one of several factors that affect mission planning, and it did not materially limit which translunar trajectories could be attained, especially with the hybrid trajectory (which you still have not addressed).  Desired landing site, relative positions of Moon, Earth, and Sun, solar weather are other factors in mission planning.

Quote
I stand by my statements.

Your statements have been shown to be naive and simplistic, especially on the subject lately of orbital mechanics.  Not unexpected for someone who admits he has no appropriate qualifications, training, or experience.  Again, the reader must decide who is most likely right on the subject of astrophysics and astrodynamics -- tens of thousands of trained, experienced, and knowledgeable professionals, or an electrician named Tim.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 03:42:51 PM
The paper is riddled with conceptual errors, errors in method, simplifying assumptions, and assumptions made in lieu of data.  An example of conceptual error:  that SPEs cannot be predicted.  Example of error in method:  simplistic manipulation of trapped radiation model solver.  Examples of simplifying assumptions:  one-body model of translunar trajectory; quiescent Sun contribution is negligible; VA radiation level is constant.  Example of assumptions made in lieu of data:  shielding factors of Apollo structure, mission success estimates.  These errors make his findings in the form of dosage estimates essentially worthless.  Notably absent also is any sort of error analysis, which must be present in any rationale that relies heavily on estimates made in lieu of data.  The error analysis would have helped the author determine the degree to which his final numbers could vary.  Also, it's not accurate to say that the only way the author could get the numbers to work was to eliminate the Sun.  It's more accurate to say he assumed the contribution of a quiescent Sun would be negligible compared to other factors he was going to consider.  That's arguably another error.

You see timfinch... this is is what happens when you offer "evidence" without checking its accuracy and veracity... that evidence can be demolished by someone who actually has real expertise.

It must be discouraging to post a link to evidence you think will support you, only to find that others actually DO read what you posted and then point out the link contains statements that directly contradict your position.

It must be really frustrating for the uninformed to have to argue about astrophysics, aerospace engineering and rocket science with actual astrophysicists, aerospace engineers and rocket scientists. This is why HBs don't survive here for very long... its hard for them make headway against actual expertise... the uninformed get found out very, very quickly..

So am I to understand you believe the technology exist to predict SPE's to the point to provide a safety margin for lunar missions and that his technology existed during the apollo lunar missions?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 03:44:46 PM
The author speaks of shielding electron radiation in the VAB,  Electrons can be attenuated by aluminum.

That's the context in which we discussed what materials to use as shielding.  It was a general discussion.  Most missions I have worked with both traverse the Van Allen belts and spend considerable time in cislunar space bombarded by GCR and other sources of radiation.  Aluminum is still the material of choice whether you choose to acknowledge your error or not.

Quote
I contend the path of the TLI is the determining factor and it is a fortuitous consequence that this path takes an oblique angle through the VAB.

It wasn't "fortuitous."  It was planned that way.  Dr. James Van Allen himself helped plan the trajectories specifically with the goal of minimizing exposure to trapped radiation.  You spent several hours trying to fumble and bluff your way through a discussion of orbital maneuvers, and you still seem to think you got away with it.

Quote
Fuel was the determining factor.

Fuel is one of several factors that affect mission planning, and it did not materially limit which translunar trajectories could be attained, especially with the hybrid trajectory (which you still have not addressed).  Desired landing site, relative positions of Moon, Earth, and Sun, solar weather are other factors in mission planning.

Quote
I stand by my statements.

Your statements have been shown to be naive and simplistic, especially on the subject lately of orbital mechanics.  Not unexpected for someone who admits he has no appropriate qualifications, training, or experience.  Again, the reader must decide who is most likely right on the subject of astrophysics and astrodynamics -- tens of thousands of trained, experienced, and knowledgeable professionals, or an electrician named Tim.

I read the TLI launch was pioneered and proven by the Russians and the Americans adapted it.  Go figure...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 03:46:53 PM
The author speaks of shielding electron radiation in the VAB,  Electrons can be attenuated by aluminum.

That's the context in which we discussed what materials to use as shielding.  It was a general discussion.  Most missions I have worked with both traverse the Van Allen belts and spend considerable time in cislunar space bombarded by GCR and other sources of radiation.  Aluminum is still the material of choice whether you choose to acknowledge your error or not.

Quote
I contend the path of the TLI is the determining factor and it is a fortuitous consequence that this path takes an oblique angle through the VAB.

It wasn't "fortuitous."  It was planned that way.  Dr. James Van Allen himself helped plan the trajectories specifically with the goal of minimizing exposure to trapped radiation.  You spent several hours trying to fumble and bluff your way through a discussion of orbital maneuvers, and you still seem to think you got away with it.

Quote
Fuel was the determining factor.

Fuel is one of several factors that affect mission planning, and it did not materially limit which translunar trajectories could be attained, especially with the hybrid trajectory (which you still have not addressed).  Desired landing site, relative positions of Moon, Earth, and Sun, solar weather are other factors in mission planning.

Quote
I stand by my statements.

Your statements have been shown to be naive and simplistic, especially on the subject lately of orbital mechanics.  Not unexpected for someone who admits he has no appropriate qualifications, training, or experience.  Again, the reader must decide who is most likely right on the subject of astrophysics and astrodynamics -- tens of thousands of trained, experienced, and knowledgeable professionals, or an electrician named Tim.

Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.  Why would it be the shielding of choice?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 03:48:23 PM
So am I to understand you believe the technology exist to predict SPE's to the point to provide a safety margin for lunar missions and that his technology existed during the apollo lunar missions?

I made no representations about "safety margins."  As a matter of fact, SPEs do not travel at the speed of light.  However, they are preceded by x-ray bursts which do travel at the speed of light and take only minutes to arrive at Earth.  The SPE wave front follows several hours later.  That gives the crew time to effect whatever steps they can to mitigate exposure.  There was no presumption that they would ever be perfectly safe from the most severe solar events.  For example, had one occurred when the crews were on the lunar surface, the plan was to immediately return to the LM, take off, and rendezvous with the CSM.  In lunar orbit their exposure would have been cut roughly in half.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 26, 2018, 03:50:18 PM
So am I to understand you believe the technology exist to predict SPE's to the point to provide a safety margin for lunar missions and that his technology existed during the apollo lunar missions?
[/quote]

Darned good question, as you have yet to show much ability to understand any of the principles involved.  You still haven't answered my question regarding your cherry-picking within your own reference.  How do you explain that?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 03:51:48 PM
So am I to understand you believe the technology exist to predict SPE's to the point to provide a safety margin for lunar missions and that his technology existed during the apollo lunar missions?

I made no representations about "safety margins."  As a matter of fact, SPEs do not travel at the speed of light.  However, they are preceded by x-ray bursts which do travel at the speed of light and take only minutes to arrive at Earth.  The SPE wave front follows several hours later.  That gives the crew time to effect whatever steps they can to mitigate exposure.  There was no presumption that they would ever be perfectly safe from the most severe solar events.  For example, had one occurred when the crews were on the lunar surface, the plan was to immediately return to the LM, take off, and rendezvous with the CSM.  In lunar orbit their exposure would have been cut roughly in half.

There is a considerable difference between detecting and predicting.  Is he not correct in saying SPE's cannot be predicted?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 03:53:48 PM
So am I to understand you believe the technology exist to predict SPE's to the point to provide a safety margin for lunar missions and that his technology existed during the apollo lunar missions?

Darned good question, as you have yet to show much ability to understand any of the principles involved.  You still haven't answered my question regarding your cherry-picking within your own reference.  How do you explain that?
[/quote]

I see no point of conflict with any of my stated positions by the author.  Hence no need to cherry pick.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 03:54:26 PM
Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.

No.  Secondary radiation from GCR is not the same as GCR.  Secondary radiation necessarily occurs at significantly lower energies where aluminum shielding is somewhat effective.  If you look at a normalized graph of full-spectrum detected radiation behind a shield versus shield thickness, you see a rise in the first few millimeters (due to secondary radiation created in the outer regions of the shield) followed by a sharp, not-quite-linear drop as millimeters increase.  This is because secondary radiation created in the outer portion of the shield is then absorbed by the inner layers.  The more inner layers, the better.

Quote
Why would it be the shielding of choice?

It is the shielding of choice.  That's a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  The reason it is so despite your belief is that your belief is wrong.  Specifically, you do not understand the complexity of the different species of radiation as they occur in space.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 03:56:14 PM
I see no point of conflict with any of my stated positions by the author.

Only because you're now trying to retrospectively reinterpret what you said in order to make it sound congruent.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 26, 2018, 04:00:06 PM
So am I to understand you believe the technology exist to predict SPE's to the point to provide a safety margin for lunar missions and that his technology existed during the apollo lunar missions?

Darned good question, as you have yet to show much ability to understand any of the principles involved.  You still haven't answered my question regarding your cherry-picking within your own reference.  How do you explain that?

I see no point of conflict with any of my stated positions by the author.  Hence no need to cherry pick.
[/quote]

Yet you did cherry pick in Reply #347.  Is blind denial your new tactic?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on March 26, 2018, 04:01:28 PM
Feel free to disregard any information that doesn't support your hypothesis.  It is the way of religious fanatics isn't it?

More projection than an IMAX there.

Tim, seriously, you're dealing with subject matter experts in a wide range of fields, including orbital mechanics, spacecraft design and manufacture, various types of radiation and its effects, visual effects, radio communications, etc.  Their rebuttals are anything but faith-based .  They're based on experience and deep practical knowledge.  You're also dealing with a number of enthusiastic amateurs who've taken non-trivial amounts of time to do their own research in those same fields1 (probably enough hours to earn an undergraduate degree or two). 

And then you have people who simply understand logic.  Like LO and others have said, a hoax of this magnitude would inevitably have been exposed long before now.  Literally tens of thousands of people (in different countries, not all of whom are friends with the US, no less!) would have to have been in on it.  Like the old saying goes, three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead. 

I've seen this pattern play out in other fora (particularly talk.origins, with people who don't even have a rudimentary layman's knowledge of biology explaining why evolution is impossible to evolutionary biologists).  To borrow a trite argument from that group, you're not the first person to ask "if humans are descended from apes, why are there still apes?"  You're not the thousandth person to ask that question. 

Your arguments here are neither new nor novel. 

You're basically proving out Tom Nichols' thesis in "The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Expertise)".  Anyone can find a link on Google or a paper in an "open" journal that supports their particular viewpoint.  The question is (a) whether that paper is representative of the best research on the subject, and (b) whether that paper actually supports your argument or not. 

The radiation levels reported from Apollo in cis-lunar space may well be below that reported by MSL during its transit.  That could come down to differences in detectors; it could be the Apollo-era detectors were less sensitive than the MSL-era detectors.  It could also be that the radiation environment during the Apollo missions really was lower than during the MSL transit - either the Apollo period was unusually quiescent, or the MSL period was unusually active.  Or they could be within a normal range of variation.  Can you eliminate that as a possibility?

There are plenty of explanations that are far, far more likely than "NASA faked the data to make it look like humans could go to the Moon when they really can't." 

It's like I ask of people who claim the surface footage was shot on a soundstage - find me evidence for that soundstage.  Don't waste time arguing over reflections, backgrounds, or perspective - find me a paper trail.  People had to get paid to build it, to design, build, and light the sets, to operate the cameras, etc.  There will be bank records somewhere.  Find pictures from "backstage".  Show me a picture of a grip smoking a cigarette between takes. 

And I'm not talking about the training mockups, which are quite obviously training mockups.  They're not what was presented as the lunar surface during the actual missions. 


1.  I am not one of those people.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 04:02:11 PM
Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.

No.  Secondary radiation from GCR is not the same as GCR.  Secondary radiation necessarily occurs at significantly lower energies where aluminum shielding is somewhat effective.  If you look at a normalized graph of full-spectrum detected radiation behind a shield versus shield thickness, you see a rise in the first few millimeters (due to secondary radiation created in the outer regions of the shield) followed by a sharp, not-quite-linear drop as millimeters increase.  This is because secondary radiation created in the outer portion of the shield is then absorbed by the inner layers.  The more inner layers, the better.

Quote
Why would it be the shielding of choice?

It is the shielding of choice.  That's a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  The reason it is so despite your belief is that your belief is wrong.  Specifically, you do not understand the complexity of the different species of radiation as they occur in space.

The fact that the apollo missions had no shielding capable of attenuating GCR is the crux of my belief.  It means mission doses must always reflect background GCR levels and they don't, which is undeniable proof that they never left LEO.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 04:03:32 PM

There is a considerable difference between detecting and predicting.

No, that's just semantics.  We predict terrestrial weather by observing (i.e., detecting) conditions that experience has shown lead to known consequences.  If the barometer drops suddenly and we predict rough weather will follow, that's no different a situation.  Can you give me any example of scientifically defensible prediction that isn't in some way predicated on first detecting impending signs of the phenomena to be predicted?

The author insinuates that if a solar event occurred, the arrival of the particle wave front at the spacecraft would be the first they'd know of it.  This is simply not true, either from a general science standpoint or a mission planning standpoint.  The author's reference list is scant on the available technical information that would have filled in the gaps in his understanding.  He quotes only from the mission report and from the biomedical results paper.  He omits the various technical experience reports and the statistical abstracts.

Quote
Is he not correct in saying SPE's cannot be predicted?

He provides no detail about what he means by prediction.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 04:04:58 PM
Feel free to disregard any information that doesn't support your hypothesis.  It is the way of religious fanatics isn't it?

More projection than an IMAX there.

Tim, seriously, you're dealing with subject matter experts in a wide range of fields, including orbital mechanics, spacecraft design and manufacture, various types of radiation and its effects, visual effects, radio communications, etc.  Their rebuttals are anything but faith-based .  They're based on experience and deep practical knowledge.  You're also dealing with a number of enthusiastic amateurs who've taken non-trivial amounts of time to do their own research in those same fields1 (probably enough hours to earn an undergraduate degree or two). 

And then you have people who simply understand logic.  Like LO and others have said, a hoax of this magnitude would inevitably have been exposed long before now.  Literally tens of thousands of people (in different countries, not all of whom are friends with the US, no less!) would have to have been in on it.  Like the old saying goes, three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead. 

I've seen this pattern play out in other fora (particularly talk.origins, with people who don't even have a rudimentary layman's knowledge of biology explaining why evolution is impossible to evolutionary biologists).  To borrow a trite argument from that group, you're not the first person to ask "if humans are descended from apes, why are there still apes?"  You're not the thousandth person to ask that question. 

Your arguments here are neither new nor novel. 

You're basically proving out Tom Nichols' thesis in "The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Expertise)".  Anyone can find a link on Google or a paper in an "open" journal that supports their particular viewpoint.  The question is (a) whether that paper is representative of the best research on the subject, and (b) whether that paper actually supports your argument or not. 

The radiation levels reported from Apollo in cis-lunar space may well be below that reported by MSL during its transit.  That could come down to differences in detectors; it could be the Apollo-era detectors were less sensitive than the MSL-era detectors.  It could also be that the radiation environment during the Apollo missions really was lower than during the MSL transit - either the Apollo period was unusually quiescent, or the MSL period was unusually active.  Or they could be within a normal range of variation.  Can you eliminate that as a possibility?

There are plenty of explanations that are far, far more likely than "NASA faked the data to make it look like humans could go to the Moon when they really can't." 

It's like I ask of people who claim the surface footage was shot on a soundstage - find me evidence for that soundstage.  Don't waste time arguing over reflections, backgrounds, or perspective - find me a paper trail.  People had to get paid to build it, to design, build, and light the sets, to operate the cameras, etc.  There will be bank records somewhere.  Find pictures from "backstage".  Show me a picture of a grip smoking a cigarette between takes. 

And I'm not talking about the training mockups, which are quite obviously training mockups.  They're not what was presented as the lunar surface during the actual missions. 


1.  I am not one of those people.

Follow the radiation or the lack therein.  It leads to the yellow brick road and the man behind the curtain.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 04:09:24 PM
Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.

No.  Secondary radiation from GCR is not the same as GCR.  Secondary radiation necessarily occurs at significantly lower energies where aluminum shielding is somewhat effective.  If you look at a normalized graph of full-spectrum detected radiation behind a shield versus shield thickness, you see a rise in the first few millimeters (due to secondary radiation created in the outer regions of the shield) followed by a sharp, not-quite-linear drop as millimeters increase.  This is because secondary radiation created in the outer portion of the shield is then absorbed by the inner layers.  The more inner layers, the better.

Quote
Why would it be the shielding of choice?

It is the shielding of choice.  That's a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  The reason it is so despite your belief is that your belief is wrong.  Specifically, you do not understand the complexity of the different species of radiation as they occur in space.

The fact that the apollo missions had no shielding capable of attenuating GCR is the crux of my belief.  It means mission doses must always reflect background GCR levels and they don't, which is undeniable proof that they never left LEO.
And you're just repeating your original claim along with its misconceptions and oversimplifications.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 04:11:41 PM

There is a considerable difference between detecting and predicting.

No, that's just semantics.  We predict terrestrial weather by observing (i.e., detecting) conditions that experience has shown lead to known consequences.  If the barometer drops suddenly and we predict rough weather will follow, that's no different a situation.  Can you give me any example of scientifically defensible prediction that isn't in some way predicated on first detecting impending signs of the phenomena to be predicted?

The author insinuates that if a solar event occurred, the arrival of the particle wave front at the spacecraft would be the first they'd know of it.  This is simply not true, either from a general science standpoint or a mission planning standpoint.  The author's reference list is scant on the available technical information that would have filled in the gaps in his understanding.  He quotes only from the mission report and from the biomedical results paper.  He omits the various technical experience reports and the statistical abstracts.

Quote
Is he not correct in saying SPE's cannot be predicted?

He provides no detail about what he means by prediction.

Might I suggest the dictionary?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 04:12:22 PM
Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.

No.  Secondary radiation from GCR is not the same as GCR.  Secondary radiation necessarily occurs at significantly lower energies where aluminum shielding is somewhat effective.  If you look at a normalized graph of full-spectrum detected radiation behind a shield versus shield thickness, you see a rise in the first few millimeters (due to secondary radiation created in the outer regions of the shield) followed by a sharp, not-quite-linear drop as millimeters increase.  This is because secondary radiation created in the outer portion of the shield is then absorbed by the inner layers.  The more inner layers, the better.

Quote
Why would it be the shielding of choice?

It is the shielding of choice.  That's a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  The reason it is so despite your belief is that your belief is wrong.  Specifically, you do not understand the complexity of the different species of radiation as they occur in space.

The fact that the apollo missions had no shielding capable of attenuating GCR is the crux of my belief.  It means mission doses must always reflect background GCR levels and they don't, which is undeniable proof that they never left LEO.
And you're just repeating your original claim along with its misconceptions and oversimplifications.

Consistency is a virtue.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on March 26, 2018, 04:14:24 PM
Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.

No.  Secondary radiation from GCR is not the same as GCR.  Secondary radiation necessarily occurs at significantly lower energies where aluminum shielding is somewhat effective.  If you look at a normalized graph of full-spectrum detected radiation behind a shield versus shield thickness, you see a rise in the first few millimeters (due to secondary radiation created in the outer regions of the shield) followed by a sharp, not-quite-linear drop as millimeters increase.  This is because secondary radiation created in the outer portion of the shield is then absorbed by the inner layers.  The more inner layers, the better.

Quote
Why would it be the shielding of choice?

It is the shielding of choice.  That's a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  The reason it is so despite your belief is that your belief is wrong.  Specifically, you do not understand the complexity of the different species of radiation as they occur in space.

The fact that the apollo missions had no shielding capable of attenuating GCR is the crux of my belief.  It means mission doses must always reflect background GCR levels and they don't, which is undeniable proof that they never left LEO.
And you're just repeating your original claim along with its misconceptions and oversimplifications.

Consistency is a virtue.

Not when you are consistently wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 26, 2018, 04:16:33 PM
Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.

No.  Secondary radiation from GCR is not the same as GCR.  Secondary radiation necessarily occurs at significantly lower energies where aluminum shielding is somewhat effective.  If you look at a normalized graph of full-spectrum detected radiation behind a shield versus shield thickness, you see a rise in the first few millimeters (due to secondary radiation created in the outer regions of the shield) followed by a sharp, not-quite-linear drop as millimeters increase.  This is because secondary radiation created in the outer portion of the shield is then absorbed by the inner layers.  The more inner layers, the better.

Quote
Why would it be the shielding of choice?

It is the shielding of choice.  That's a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  The reason it is so despite your belief is that your belief is wrong.  Specifically, you do not understand the complexity of the different species of radiation as they occur in space.

The fact that the apollo missions had no shielding capable of attenuating GCR is the crux of my belief.  It means mission doses must always reflect background GCR levels and they don't, which is undeniable proof that they never left LEO.

You have in no manner shown that the Apollo missions do not reflect background GCRs.  You have not accounted for ANY of the multiple significant differences between the missions, equipment and timing of Apollo vs MSL/RAD.  Also, because the Sun's magnetic field is responsible for diminishing the flux of GCR's the inverse square law comes into play.  This means the farther from the Sun (and its magnetic field) the higher the GCR flux.  How did you take this into account for your "conclusion"?

EDIT:  I retract my portion regarding the inverse square law as the magnetic fields most responsible for the diminished GCR flux are from the SPE's, not the Sun directly. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 04:20:02 PM

There is a considerable difference between detecting and predicting.

No, that's just semantics.  We predict terrestrial weather by observing (i.e., detecting) conditions that experience has shown lead to known consequences.  If the barometer drops suddenly and we predict rough weather will follow, that's no different a situation.  Can you give me any example of scientifically defensible prediction that isn't in some way predicated on first detecting impending signs of the phenomena to be predicted?

The author insinuates that if a solar event occurred, the arrival of the particle wave front at the spacecraft would be the first they'd know of it.  This is simply not true, either from a general science standpoint or a mission planning standpoint.  The author's reference list is scant on the available technical information that would have filled in the gaps in his understanding.  He quotes only from the mission report and from the biomedical results paper.  He omits the various technical experience reports and the statistical abstracts.

Quote
Is he not correct in saying SPE's cannot be predicted?

He provides no detail about what he means by prediction.

I am curious.  Do you believe the apollo astronauts could have survived a major SPE event beyond the VAB if they were given a couple hours advance notice?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 04:23:24 PM
I don't want to be the one to burst your bubble but as GCR is inversely proportion to solar activity

Interesting that you should mention this little nugget of information. The sata you are using to assume your baseline GCR was taken in 2012, during solar cycle 24. As it happens, this cycle was quite a subdued one as they go. If you look it up you can see that the sunspot number peaked around 2012 at about 75. The Apollo missions happened in solar cycle 20, and if you look at the sunspot number for that maximum you can see it was significantly higher than that for the entire duration of the lunar flight phase of the Apollo program (between 100 and 150). Have you factored this into your baseline? No, you just took the MSL data and presented it as a constant GCR background level that should be present in all missions beyond LEO.

Quote
SPE's are directly proportional and the threat to personnel increases.

Yes, but they are discrete events and are detectable in the EM spectrum before the spacecraft gets hit by the particle flare. They are also directional. A massive flare from a sunspot on the limb of the sun as viewed from Earth won't send the most intense particle radiation anywhere near the spacecraft. So, the ground control team had time to detect a flare, decide if it was going to impact the spacecraft, and arrange some degree of protective action (which basically meant turning the spacecraft so the bulk of it was between the astronauts and the sun to provide maximum shielding).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: mako88sb on March 26, 2018, 04:27:47 PM
mako88sb, it never fails to entertain me when hoax/conspiracy proponents argue that the risk was unacceptable, as this speaks volumes regarding their own fortitude.  Men of honor, courage and dedication will do extraordinary things, notably under extraordinary circumstances.  Because of my unique qualifications and knowledge as a Physical Science Technician, when the Fukishima accident occurred, radiological control personnel were needed to assist in the relief and recovery efforts being made.  Prior to knowing how bad things were going to progress (I am happy to say that things had already reached their apex, but no one knew that at the time), I volunteered to go, while others admittedly were afraid to.  I did what I felt needed to be done, and I am still not worthy to carry the jock strap of the Apollo (and many other) astronauts.

Yes, much like they go on about how 60's technology was inadequate for landing men on the moon. Somehow the USA managed to go from small rockets that were unreliable to the Saturn family of rockets that were some of the most complicated machines ever built and had a 100% successful launch rate. Those guys sitting at the tops of each manned mission didn't know that at the time. There could have easily been some malfunction that would have destroyed the launch vehicle. Sure, they had an LES but still pretty gutsy to be an astronaut, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 04:27:56 PM
Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.

No.  Secondary radiation from GCR is not the same as GCR.  Secondary radiation necessarily occurs at significantly lower energies where aluminum shielding is somewhat effective.  If you look at a normalized graph of full-spectrum detected radiation behind a shield versus shield thickness, you see a rise in the first few millimeters (due to secondary radiation created in the outer regions of the shield) followed by a sharp, not-quite-linear drop as millimeters increase.  This is because secondary radiation created in the outer portion of the shield is then absorbed by the inner layers.  The more inner layers, the better.

Quote
Why would it be the shielding of choice?

It is the shielding of choice.  That's a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  The reason it is so despite your belief is that your belief is wrong.  Specifically, you do not understand the complexity of the different species of radiation as they occur in space.

The fact that the apollo missions had no shielding capable of attenuating GCR is the crux of my belief.  It means mission doses must always reflect background GCR levels and they don't, which is undeniable proof that they never left LEO.

You have in no manner shown that the Apollo missions do not reflect background GCRs.  You have not accounted for ANY of the multiple significant differences between the missions, equipment and timing of Apollo vs MSL/RAD.  Also, because the Sun's magnetic field is responsible for diminishing the flux of GCR's the inverse square law comes into play.  This means the farther from the Sun (and its magnetic field) the higher the GCR flux.  How did you take this into account for your "conclusion"?

The minimum GCR background levels occurred at solar peak and were recorded at .2 mgy/hr.  now if you add the fact that the moon has a higher background radiation than cislunar space as does the trip through the VAB then it is unreasonable to believe that apollo 11's daily dose rate of .22 mgy/day reflects anything but an ELO transit.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 04:28:02 PM
I am curious.  Do you believe the apollo astronauts could have survived a major SPE event beyond the VAB if they were given a couple hours advance notice?

Based on the known situations, the belief is they had a good chance of surviving, dependent upon the precise time in the mission, the intensity of the SPE and various other factors that you are pretty well determined to ignore in favour of radiaiton blast = death in all circumstances. Was it a guarantee they'd survive? No. But the risk was accepted by everyone concerned based on the probabilities and the available data collected over the preceding years.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 04:31:30 PM
The minimum GCR background levels occurred at solar peak

All solar peaks are not created equal.

Quote
and were recorded at .2 mgy/hr.

I think you made an error in units there. mGy/day surely?

Quote
now if you add the fact that the moon has a higher background radiation than cislunar space

WHat kind of radiation? How much higher?

Quote
as does the trip through the VAB

Which part? For how long? What kind of radiation? How much higher?

Quote
then it is unreasonable to believe that apollo 11's daily dose rate of .22 mgy/day reflects anything but an ELO transit.

Then why doesn't the entire world's science community, people who are actually educated and professionally engaged to work on this stuff, agree with you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 04:33:40 PM
I don't want to be the one to burst your bubble but as GCR is inversely proportion to solar activity

Interesting that you should mention this little nugget of information. The sata you are using to assume your baseline GCR was taken in 2012, during solar cycle 24. As it happens, this cycle was quite a subdued one as they go. If you look it up you can see that the sunspot number peaked around 2012 at about 75. The Apollo missions happened in solar cycle 20, and if you look at the sunspot number for that maximum you can see it was significantly higher than that for the entire duration of the lunar flight phase of the Apollo program (between 100 and 150). Have you factored this into your baseline? No, you just took the MSL data and presented it as a constant GCR background level that should be present in all missions beyond LEO.

Quote
SPE's are directly proportional and the threat to personnel increases.

Yes, but they are discrete events and are detectable in the EM spectrum before the spacecraft gets hit by the particle flare. They are also directional. A massive flare from a sunspot on the limb of the sun as viewed from Earth won't send the most intense particle radiation anywhere near the spacecraft. So, the ground control team had time to detect a flare, decide if it was going to impact the spacecraft, and arrange some degree of protective action (which basically meant turning the spacecraft so the bulk of it was between the astronauts and the sun to provide maximum shielding).

So you believe the structure of the space craft is adequate shielding for the high energy proton flux of a large SPE?  Can you corroborate that with something other than your opinion?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on March 26, 2018, 04:35:50 PM
Point A, which is a minor point--not everyone here is a gentleman.

Point B, can you please answer why you believe "Apollo was faked" is a more logical answer than "there's something I don't understand"?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 04:38:15 PM
I am curious.  Do you believe the apollo astronauts could have survived a major SPE event beyond the VAB if they were given a couple hours advance notice?

You haven't nailed down enough of the variables to warrant a discrete yes-or-no answer.  Factors to consider would include the class and type of the event ("major" is too ambiguous), the solar longitude of the eruption, the phase of the mission they were in, and how long survivability is to be reckoned.  The baseline for survivability in a radiation exposure context is designated LD 50/30 -- it is the amount of absorbed radiation that will kill fifty percent of the affected population within 30 days.  There are scenarios in your question, for example, in which the astronauts survive long enough to return to Earth, but expire within a few days or weeks.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 04:39:19 PM
Can you corroborate that with something other than your opinion?

Whereas your opinion requires no such corroboration?  Do you realize Jason is a professional scientist?  His opinion would be considered evidence in a court of law.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 04:39:51 PM
The minimum GCR background levels occurred at solar peak

All solar peaks are not created equal.

Quote
and were recorded at .2 mgy/hr.

I think you made an error in units there. mGy/day surely?

Quote
now if you add the fact that the moon has a higher background radiation than cislunar space

WHat kind of radiation? How much higher?

Quote
as does the trip through the VAB

Which part? For how long? What kind of radiation? How much higher?

Quote
then it is unreasonable to believe that apollo 11's daily dose rate of .22 mgy/day reflects anything but an ELO transit.

Then why doesn't the entire world's science community, people who are actually educated and professionally engaged to work on this stuff, agree with you?

Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky.

Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

"The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

While the moon blocks galactic cosmic rays to some extent, the hazards posed by the secondary radiation showers counter the shielding effects, Spence said at a press conference at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco this week.

Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 04:41:02 PM
Measurements taken...

Asked and answered.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 26, 2018, 04:42:03 PM
Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.

No.  Secondary radiation from GCR is not the same as GCR.  Secondary radiation necessarily occurs at significantly lower energies where aluminum shielding is somewhat effective.  If you look at a normalized graph of full-spectrum detected radiation behind a shield versus shield thickness, you see a rise in the first few millimeters (due to secondary radiation created in the outer regions of the shield) followed by a sharp, not-quite-linear drop as millimeters increase.  This is because secondary radiation created in the outer portion of the shield is then absorbed by the inner layers.  The more inner layers, the better.

Quote
Why would it be the shielding of choice?

It is the shielding of choice.  That's a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  The reason it is so despite your belief is that your belief is wrong.  Specifically, you do not understand the complexity of the different species of radiation as they occur in space.

The fact that the apollo missions had no shielding capable of attenuating GCR is the crux of my belief.  It means mission doses must always reflect background GCR levels and they don't, which is undeniable proof that they never left LEO.

You have in no manner shown that the Apollo missions do not reflect background GCRs.  You have not accounted for ANY of the multiple significant differences between the missions, equipment and timing of Apollo vs MSL/RAD.  Also, because the Sun's magnetic field is responsible for diminishing the flux of GCR's the inverse square law comes into play.  This means the farther from the Sun (and its magnetic field) the higher the GCR flux.  How did you take this into account for your "conclusion"?

The minimum GCR background levels occurred at solar peak and were recorded at .2 mgy/hr.  now if you add the fact that the moon has a higher background radiation than cislunar space as does the trip through the VAB then it is unreasonable to believe that apollo 11's daily dose rate of .22 mgy/day reflects anything but an ELO transit.

Once again, you ignore the difference factors I mentioned.  Why?  Also, since some of their trip was in LEO, those days would naturally be lower for their daily dose rate, thereby lowering the overall average for the entire mission.  You have failed to account for that.  Just another empty car in your logic train.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 04:44:12 PM
Point A, which is a minor point--not everyone here is a gentleman.

Point B, can you please answer why you believe "Apollo was faked" is a more logical answer than "there's something I don't understand"?

If the data is to be trusted then Apollo 11's mission dosage doe not reflect that it left LEO.  If in fact it didn't then the mission had to be faked.  The only explanation that I can deduce for such a low mission dosage is either it was faked or the equipment was archaic and incapable of measuring accurately exposure in the VAB and cislunar space.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 04:44:21 PM
So you believe the structure of the space craft is adequate shielding for the high energy proton flux of a large SPE?

It isn't a matter of what I believe, it is a matter of what I know the contingency plans were, and that in any event putting the entire bulk of the spacecraft between the crew and the Sun offers the best option for shielding against a highly directional proton flux. Several layers of metals, plastics, fuel, oxygen and hydrogen tanks and their contents, the phenolic resin of the heat shield, all the equipment and stowage containers on the interior, and so on.

Quote
Can you corroborate that with something other than your opinion?

Not my burden of proof. I am telling you what is known about SPEs, the spacecraft and the plans for mitigating the effects of any SPE that happened to fall in the two-week flight window of any given Apollo lunar mission. This is documented, and I'd provide a link except I read it in a book or two, not by trawling online sources. You want to argue it was inadequate, it is your burden of proof to show this is the case.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 04:45:57 PM
Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.

No.  Secondary radiation from GCR is not the same as GCR.  Secondary radiation necessarily occurs at significantly lower energies where aluminum shielding is somewhat effective.  If you look at a normalized graph of full-spectrum detected radiation behind a shield versus shield thickness, you see a rise in the first few millimeters (due to secondary radiation created in the outer regions of the shield) followed by a sharp, not-quite-linear drop as millimeters increase.  This is because secondary radiation created in the outer portion of the shield is then absorbed by the inner layers.  The more inner layers, the better.

Quote
Why would it be the shielding of choice?

It is the shielding of choice.  That's a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  The reason it is so despite your belief is that your belief is wrong.  Specifically, you do not understand the complexity of the different species of radiation as they occur in space.

The fact that the apollo missions had no shielding capable of attenuating GCR is the crux of my belief.  It means mission doses must always reflect background GCR levels and they don't, which is undeniable proof that they never left LEO.

You have in no manner shown that the Apollo missions do not reflect background GCRs.  You have not accounted for ANY of the multiple significant differences between the missions, equipment and timing of Apollo vs MSL/RAD.  Also, because the Sun's magnetic field is responsible for diminishing the flux of GCR's the inverse square law comes into play.  This means the farther from the Sun (and its magnetic field) the higher the GCR flux.  How did you take this into account for your "conclusion"?

The minimum GCR background levels occurred at solar peak and were recorded at .2 mgy/hr.  now if you add the fact that the moon has a higher background radiation than cislunar space as does the trip through the VAB then it is unreasonable to believe that apollo 11's daily dose rate of .22 mgy/day reflects anything but an ELO transit.

Once again, you ignore the difference factors I mentioned.  Why?  Also, since some of their trip was in LEO, those days would naturally be lower for their daily dose rate, thereby lowering the overall average for the entire mission.  You have failed to account for that.  Just another empty car in your logic train.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 04:46:10 PM
The only explanation that I can deduce for such a low mission dosage is either it was faked or the equipment was archaic and incapable of measuring accurately exposure in the VAB and cislunar space.

Now explain why 'or I am wrong' is not one of your possible explanations that deserves examination.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on March 26, 2018, 04:46:47 PM
I don't want to be the one to burst your bubble but as GCR is inversely proportion to solar activity

Interesting that you should mention this little nugget of information. The sata you are using to assume your baseline GCR was taken in 2012, during solar cycle 24. As it happens, this cycle was quite a subdued one as they go. If you look it up you can see that the sunspot number peaked around 2012 at about 75. The Apollo missions happened in solar cycle 20, and if you look at the sunspot number for that maximum you can see it was significantly higher than that for the entire duration of the lunar flight phase of the Apollo program (between 100 and 150). Have you factored this into your baseline? No, you just took the MSL data and presented it as a constant GCR background level that should be present in all missions beyond LEO.

Quote
SPE's are directly proportional and the threat to personnel increases.

Yes, but they are discrete events and are detectable in the EM spectrum before the spacecraft gets hit by the particle flare. They are also directional. A massive flare from a sunspot on the limb of the sun as viewed from Earth won't send the most intense particle radiation anywhere near the spacecraft. So, the ground control team had time to detect a flare, decide if it was going to impact the spacecraft, and arrange some degree of protective action (which basically meant turning the spacecraft so the bulk of it was between the astronauts and the sun to provide maximum shielding).

So you believe the structure of the space craft is adequate shielding for the high energy proton flux of a large SPE?  Can you corroborate that with something other than your opinion?

Given that no such event occurred during any of the Apollo missions, the point's kind of moot, isn't it?

The cis-lunar radiation environment is not static.  It varies in ways that are largely predictable, and the Apollo missions were planned to fly when the odds of such an event were low.  Had a CME occurred during a mission, and if it were aimed in the direction of the Earth-Moon system, then no, the spacecraft mass likely would not have been adequate shielding. 

Do you cross the street when traffic's at its heaviest, or do you wait for a lull? 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 04:48:39 PM
So you believe the structure of the space craft is adequate shielding for the high energy proton flux of a large SPE?

It isn't a matter of what I believe, it is a matter of what I know the contingency plans were, and that in any event putting the entire bulk of the spacecraft between the crew and the Sun offers the best option for shielding against a highly directional proton flux. Several layers of metals, plastics, fuel, oxygen and hydrogen tanks and their contents, the phenolic resin of the heat shield, all the equipment and stowage containers on the interior, and so on.

Quote
Can you corroborate that with something other than your opinion?

Not my burden of proof. I am telling you what is known about SPEs, the spacecraft and the plans for mitigating the effects of any SPE that happened to fall in the two-week flight window of any given Apollo lunar mission. This is documented, and I'd provide a link except I read it in a book or two, not by trawling online sources. You want to argue it was inadequate, it is your burden of proof to show this is the case.

So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?  You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 04:52:30 PM
The only explanation that I can deduce for such a low mission dosage is either it was faked or the equipment was archaic and incapable of measuring accurately exposure in the VAB and cislunar space.

Now explain why 'or I am wrong' is not one of your possible explanations that deserves examination.

I am not the collector of data or the tester of parameters.  I cannot be wrong because I didn't do any of it.  I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported.  Blame NASA, not me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 04:53:41 PM
So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

Quote
You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 26, 2018, 04:54:51 PM
Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.

No.  Secondary radiation from GCR is not the same as GCR.  Secondary radiation necessarily occurs at significantly lower energies where aluminum shielding is somewhat effective.  If you look at a normalized graph of full-spectrum detected radiation behind a shield versus shield thickness, you see a rise in the first few millimeters (due to secondary radiation created in the outer regions of the shield) followed by a sharp, not-quite-linear drop as millimeters increase.  This is because secondary radiation created in the outer portion of the shield is then absorbed by the inner layers.  The more inner layers, the better.

Quote
Why would it be the shielding of choice?

It is the shielding of choice.  That's a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  The reason it is so despite your belief is that your belief is wrong.  Specifically, you do not understand the complexity of the different species of radiation as they occur in space.

The fact that the apollo missions had no shielding capable of attenuating GCR is the crux of my belief.  It means mission doses must always reflect background GCR levels and they don't, which is undeniable proof that they never left LEO.

You have in no manner shown that the Apollo missions do not reflect background GCRs.  You have not accounted for ANY of the multiple significant differences between the missions, equipment and timing of Apollo vs MSL/RAD.  Also, because the Sun's magnetic field is responsible for diminishing the flux of GCR's the inverse square law comes into play.  This means the farther from the Sun (and its magnetic field) the higher the GCR flux.  How did you take this into account for your "conclusion"?

The minimum GCR background levels occurred at solar peak and were recorded at .2 mgy/hr.  now if you add the fact that the moon has a higher background radiation than cislunar space as does the trip through the VAB then it is unreasonable to believe that apollo 11's daily dose rate of .22 mgy/day reflects anything but an ELO transit.

Once again, you ignore the difference factors I mentioned.  Why?  Also, since some of their trip was in LEO, those days would naturally be lower for their daily dose rate, thereby lowering the overall average for the entire mission.  You have failed to account for that.  Just another empty car in your logic train.

*Ahem*  That graph is a MISSION dose graph, NOT a daily dose graph.  You also continue to ignore the difference factors.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 04:55:23 PM
So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

Once again, I am not offering an opinion, nor a conclusion. I am telling you what the plans were. You are offering a conclusion, and furthermore one that disgrees with literally the entire professional field in which you are dabbling here. Like it or not, you bear far more burden of proof than I do in this discussion.

Quote
You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

Again, I am not offering an opinion. What you think of my opinion is of very little interest. All I actually want from you is to address the facts that are being put to you and do it with some degree of understanding of what scientific rigor actually is.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 04:56:22 PM
I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported.  Blame NASA, not me.

No, we went through this already.  What's at stake is not the incongruity in the data, but your claim of why the data appear incongruous.  You have put forward a hypothesis you think best explains it.  You're being shown the errors, assumptions, and simplifications in that hypothesis.  Do not mistake an interpretation of the meaning of data for the data themselves.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 04:57:39 PM
So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

Quote
You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 04:58:40 PM
I am not the collector of data or the tester of parameters.  I cannot be wrong because I didn't do any of it.  I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported.  Blame NASA, not me.

Really? You honestly can't see that it is valid to question your conclusion? That you might just not be fully grasping the facts of space flight? That the fact people on this forum here have spent literally decades actually doing this stuff for a living and reach different conclusions to you doesn't in any way suggest that the error might be yours?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 05:00:18 PM
So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

Quote
You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demosntrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 05:10:20 PM
I am not the collector of data or the tester of parameters.  I cannot be wrong because I didn't do any of it.  I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported.  Blame NASA, not me.

Really? You honestly can't see that it is valid to question your conclusion? That you might just not be fully grasping the facts of space flight? That the fact people on this forum here have spent literally decades actually doing this stuff for a living and reach different conclusions to you doesn't in any way suggest that the error might be yours?

Argumentum ad populum?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 05:12:11 PM
So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

Quote
You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demosntrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.

Pardon my insolence and arrogance but I don't know him and my telepathic receptors have a distance limitation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 05:13:20 PM
I am not the collector of data or the tester of parameters.  I cannot be wrong because I didn't do any of it.  I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported.  Blame NASA, not me.

Really? You honestly can't see that it is valid to question your conclusion? That you might just not be fully grasping the facts of space flight? That the fact people on this forum here have spent literally decades actually doing this stuff for a living and reach different conclusions to you doesn't in any way suggest that the error might be yours?
Personally, I am embarrassed for the lot of you...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 05:14:18 PM
Argumentum ad populum?

No, that is the fallacy of assuming majority consensus makes something right with no foundation in fact. Nowhere, anywhere, has anyone made such a claim. The argument is not the numbers, it is the demonstrated knowledge and epxertise on either side of the discussion. Numbers aside, you come up way short. You're arguing against professionals and qualified individuals. Some people on this forum have actually designed, built and operated space hardware. Some people have been researching this subject, and related ones, for literally decades for a variety of reasons.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 26, 2018, 05:16:57 PM
So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

Quote
You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demosntrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.

Pardon my insolence and arrogance but I don't know him and my telepathic receptors have a distance limitation.

They have apparently also short-circuited your logic center.  You have yet to adequately reply to my post asking how you figured the LEO portions of the Apollo missions into their daily dose average, or why you continue to ignore the difference factors mentioned.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 05:24:14 PM
Argumentum ad populum?

No, that is the fallacy of assuming majority consensus makes something right with no foundation in fact. Nowhere, anywhere, has anyone made such a claim. The argument is not the numbers, it is the demonstrated knowledge and epxertise on either side of the discussion. Numbers aside, you come up way short. You're arguing against professionals and qualified individuals. Some people on this forum have actually designed, built and operated space hardware. Some people have been researching this subject, and related ones, for literally decades for a variety of reasons.
Unless some people concocted and enacted a global hoaxes then they are not experts on global hoaxes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on March 26, 2018, 05:27:15 PM
The only explanation that I can deduce for such a low mission dosage is either it was faked or the equipment was archaic and incapable of measuring accurately exposure in the VAB and cislunar space.

Now explain why 'or I am wrong' is not one of your possible explanations that deserves examination.

I am not the collector of data or the tester of parameters.  I cannot be wrong because I didn't do any of it.  I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported.  Blame NASA, not me.

Going back to a question I asked earlier - why is it not possible that the radiation environment actually was different during the Apollo missions vs. MSL?   
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 05:27:43 PM
So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

Quote
You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demosntrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.

Pardon my insolence and arrogance but I don't know him and my telepathic receptors have a distance limitation.

They have apparently also short-circuited your logic center.  You have yet to adequately reply to my post asking how you figured the LEO portions of the Apollo missions into their daily dose average, or why you continue to ignore the difference factors mentioned.

What are you going on about?  I did not include LEO doses in my calculations, nor did I include lunar or VAB doses.  I simply assert that mission doses have to be greater than cislunar GCR doses.  The fact that they don't indicates they never ventured beyond LEO.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 05:30:49 PM
The only explanation that I can deduce for such a low mission dosage is either it was faked or the equipment was archaic and incapable of measuring accurately exposure in the VAB and cislunar space.

Now explain why 'or I am wrong' is not one of your possible explanations that deserves examination.

I am not the collector of data or the tester of parameters.  I cannot be wrong because I didn't do any of it.  I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported.  Blame NASA, not me.

Going back to a question I asked earlier - why is it not possible that the radiation environment actually was different during the Apollo missions vs. MSL?

I am quite sure it is.  The range of possibilities limit the probabilities.  The minimum GCR background recorded occurred at Solar peak  and set the lower limit of GCR.  Apollo 11 mission dosages do not reflect even this low of an exposure.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 05:31:18 PM
Unless some people concocted and enacted a global hoaxes then they are not experts on global hoaxes.

Is that really the best you can do? You came here arguing about radiation and spacecraft. There are xperts in those subjects here talking to you. You have yet to prove there is a global hoax. Prove that, then we can discuss expertise in global hoaxes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 05:32:12 PM
The minimum GCR background recorded occurred at Solar peak  and set the lower limit of GCR.

I repeat, not all solar peaks are created equal.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 26, 2018, 05:32:24 PM
So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

Quote
You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demosntrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.

Pardon my insolence and arrogance but I don't know him and my telepathic receptors have a distance limitation.

They have apparently also short-circuited your logic center.  You have yet to adequately reply to my post asking how you figured the LEO portions of the Apollo missions into their daily dose average, or why you continue to ignore the difference factors mentioned.

What are you going on about?  I did not include LEO doses in my calculations, nor did I include lunar or VAB doses.  I simply assert that mission doses have to be greater than cislunar GCR doses.  The fact that they don't indicates they never ventured beyond LEO.

Correct, you didn't include LEO doses, as they were all part of the total mission dose.  The total mission dose divided by the number of days in the mission gives the average dose per day, which your asserion is based on.  Therefor your conlcusion that they are not included is a glaring error on your part.

Note:  Edited for spelling.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 05:33:05 PM
Unless some people concocted and enacted a global hoaxes then they are not experts on global hoaxes.

How many global hoaxes have you concocted?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 05:36:44 PM
Unless some people concocted and enacted a global hoaxes then they are not experts on global hoaxes.

Is that really the best you can do? You came here arguing about radiation and spacecraft. There are xperts in those subjects here talking to you. You have yet to prove there is a global hoax. Prove that, then we can discuss expertise in global hoaxes.

If a thing can't be then it isn't.  There is absolutely no way Apollo 11 transited the VAB, Cislunar space and landed on the moon and only received .22 mgy/day radiation exposure.  No way.  Now, either the measuring equipment didn't operate properly or it didn't leave ELO but that reading cannot be correct.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 05:38:42 PM
Unless some people concocted and enacted a global hoaxes then they are not experts on global hoaxes.

How many global hoaxes have you concocted?
"0" but I do not claim such knowledge.  I claim the radiation exposure documented for Apollo 11 cannot be correct and it is indicative of a hoax or ineptitude one or the other.  You choose.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 05:39:35 PM
If a thing can't be then it isn't.  There is absolutely no way Apollo 11 transited the VAB, Cislunar space and landed on the moon and only received .22 mgy/day radiation exposure.  No way.  Now, either the measuring equipment didn't operate properly or it didn't leave ELO but that reading cannot be correct.

Or you are simply wrong in your conclusion. Given that the alternative requires decades of complicity and vast swathes of other, more knowledgable professionals to be wrong or lying, the balance of probability still favours you being the one in error.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on March 26, 2018, 05:39:56 PM
The only explanation that I can deduce for such a low mission dosage is either it was faked or the equipment was archaic and incapable of measuring accurately exposure in the VAB and cislunar space.

Now explain why 'or I am wrong' is not one of your possible explanations that deserves examination.

I am not the collector of data or the tester of parameters.  I cannot be wrong because I didn't do any of it.  I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported.  Blame NASA, not me.

Going back to a question I asked earlier - why is it not possible that the radiation environment actually was different during the Apollo missions vs. MSL?

I am quite sure it is.  The range of possibilities limit the probabilities.  The minimum GCR background recorded occurred at Solar peak  and set the lower limit of GCR.  Apollo 11 mission dosages do not reflect even this low of an exposure.

Which solar peak?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 05:40:33 PM
If a thing can't be then it isn't.

But "I can't figure out how it happened" is not the same as "can't happen."

Quote
There is absolutely no way Apollo 11 transited the VAB, Cislunar space and landed on the moon and only received .22 mgy/day radiation exposure.  No way.

As I explained before, there is a way but you don't like it because it means you have to admit you don't know enough about the problem to understand how it could happen.  Eliminating possibilities just because they're distasteful to you isn't good thinking.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 05:41:29 PM
Now you guys could easily shut me up by demonstrating using published documentation to show such a level as depicted by Apollo 11 is reasonable.  Any takers?  Anyone willing to go out on a limb and shut the brash arrogant ex-Navy electrician up?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 05:45:16 PM
"0" but I do not claim such knowledge.

Then you shouldn't have any problem conceding that you are not an expert on global conspiracies.

But then there's a problem.  You told us if people found out this terrible secret, it would be the end of life as we know it.  You told us that people would easily lie to protect this secret, because you so totally would.  You chided us for not properly stopping to consider the vast implications of what you were proposing.  When we asked you why you are supposedly right and all those professionals and academics are wrong in their judgment, you told us they were part of a vast conspiracy to protect the truth.  So it seems you are claiming to be an expert on global conspiracies.  That's what would be required to make the sorts of judgments you've made in this thread.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 05:45:32 PM
Now you guys could easily shut me up by demonstrating using published documentation to show such a level as depicted by Apollo 11 is reasonable.  Any takers?  Anyone willing to go out on a limb and shut the brash arrogant ex-Navy electrician up?

Once again, not our burden of proof. You're the one making the claim, you're the one who has to support it. You've been shown repeatedly where the oversimplifications and plain errors are, but you are refusing to address them.

That Apollo happened as per the historical record is the default position until proven otherwise. The evidence in its favour is massive, and will not collapse on the basis of one factor as you wish it to. Your theory is it was faked. That theory has to fit all the observed evdience better than the conclusion it was genuine. That's how actual science and reasoning works.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 05:46:36 PM
"0" but I do not claim such knowledge.

Then you shouldn't have any problem conceding that you are not an expert on global conspiracies.

But then there's a problem.  You told us if people found out this terrible secret, it would be the end of life as we know it.  You told us that people would easily lie to protect this secret, because you so totally would.  You chided us for not properly stopping to consider the vast implications of what you were proposing.  When we asked you why you are supposedly right and all those professionals and academics are wrong in their judgment, you told us they were part of a vast conspiracy to protect the truth.  So it seems you are claiming to be an expert on global conspiracies.  That's what would be required to make the sorts of judgments you've made in this thread.

If you say so....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 05:47:14 PM
Now you guys could easily shut me up by demonstrating using published documentation to show...

No, you don't get to dictate how your critics must refute you.  You don't get to reverse the burden of proof.  You've been shown the errors in your line of reasoning.  Your argument fails for those reasons irrespective of any potential counterclaims.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 05:50:12 PM
If you say so....

It's not about what I say, it's about what you said.  Do you agree that you -- not having met your own criteria for knowing about global conspiracies -- have no basis for the statements you made alleging a global conspiracy?  And if your "global conspiracy" excuse is no longer valid for explaining why all qualified people disagree with you, do you agree that their superior knowledge, experience, and judgment is evidence against your argument?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 05:51:17 PM
So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

Quote
You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demosntrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.

Pardon my insolence and arrogance but I don't know him and my telepathic receptors have a distance limitation.

They have apparently also short-circuited your logic center.  You have yet to adequately reply to my post asking how you figured the LEO portions of the Apollo missions into their daily dose average, or why you continue to ignore the difference factors mentioned.

What are you going on about?  I did not include LEO doses in my calculations, nor did I include lunar or VAB doses.  I simply assert that mission doses have to be greater than cislunar GCR doses.  The fact that they don't indicates they never ventured beyond LEO.

Correct, you didn't include LEO doses, as they were all part of the total mission dose.  The total mission dose divided by the number of days in the mission gives the average dose per day, which your asserion is based on.  Therefor your conlcusion that they are not included is a glaring error on your part.

Note:  Edited for spelling.

You don't get it do you?  What I am saying is if you discounted contributions from all sources and used only the contribution from GCR's of cislunar space then all lunar missions as a minimum must have at least a mission does as high as cislunar space.  They do not and that indicates they never left LEO.  Is that difficult to understand?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 05:53:38 PM
If you say so....

It's not about what I say, it's about what you said.  Do you agree that you -- not having met your own criteria for knowing about global conspiracies -- have no basis for the statements you made alleging a global conspiracy?  And if your "global conspiracy" excuse is no longer valid for explaining why all qualified people disagree with you, do you agree that their superior knowledge, experience, and judgment is evidence against your argument?

No.  It is a logical extrapolation from the obvious.  It requires no special skills or knowledge to ascertain that if a thing cannot be then it isn't and if it appears to be then it is because of deception.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 05:57:48 PM
Now you guys could easily shut me up by demonstrating using published documentation to show...

No, you don't get to dictate how your critics must refute you.  You don't get to reverse the burden of proof.  You've been shown the errors in your line of reasoning.  Your argument fails for those reasons irrespective of any potential counterclaims.

You guys are the expert in the field.  It should be a simple matter to demonstrate how Apollo 11's mission dosage is not only possible but probable for the environment.  What is the problem here?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 05:59:10 PM
No.  It is a logical extrapolation from the obvious.  It requires no special skills or knowledge to ascertain that if a thing cannot be then it isn't and if it appears to be then it is because of deception.

All elephants are pink. Nellie is an elephant, thereofre Nellie is pink. Perfectly sound logically, but based on a false premise, much like your argument. Logic just enables you to be wrong with authority....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 06:01:11 PM
You guys are the expert in the field.

That's how we're able to show you the errors in your thinking.

Quote
It should be a simple matter to demonstrate how Apollo 11's mission dosage is not only possible but probable for the environment.

We've done that by listing all the various factors you didn't consider before concluding by process of "elimination" that the data are impossible as claimed.  It's now up to you to correct your reasoning to account for them.

Quote
What is the problem here?

The problem is that you're demanding more than is necessary to refute your argument.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 06:11:57 PM
No.  It is a logical extrapolation from the obvious.  It requires no special skills or knowledge to ascertain that if a thing cannot be then it isn't and if it appears to be then it is because of deception.

No, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.  You claim no special skills are required to accuse someone of conspiracy, but special skills are required to refute the accusation.  That's special pleading.

You're also posing a false dilemma.  You're saying the facts must either meet your expectations or else some deception has occurred.  You don't have direct proof for the deception; you just conclude it "must" be the default if the conventional narrative fails your expectations.  Among the options you refuse to consider is whether your expectations are valid.  You have been shown the reasons why your expectation is invalid, but you simply repeat your beliefs and ignore the reasons.

Very often, especially in science, determining the whys and wherefores does require special skills or knowledge.  Especially if one's argument is based on eliminating all the other possibilities, leaving the one alternative, one must have an encyclopedic understanding of those other possibilities in order to refute them individually.  You've disclaimed any special knowledge of astrophysics or space engineering or orbital mechanics or any of the other highly developed fields that pertain to your argument.  It is therefore unreasonable for you to beg the reader to believe you have exhaustively eliminated the alternatives from your uninformed position.  Lest that seem too abstract, you have been presented with examples of alternatives which you simply disregard.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 06:16:47 PM
No.  It is a logical extrapolation from the obvious.  It requires no special skills or knowledge to ascertain that if a thing cannot be then it isn't and if it appears to be then it is because of deception.

All elephants are pink. Nellie is an elephant, thereofre Nellie is pink. Perfectly sound logically, but based on a false premise, much like your argument. Logic just enables you to be wrong with authority....

The premise:  All lunar missions must have as a minimum, a mission dosage that reflects background cislunar GCR radiation.  Show me the fallacy in the premise.  I'm waiting....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 06:21:25 PM
The premise:  All lunar missions must have as a minimum, a mission dosage that reflects background cislunar GCR radiation.  Show me the fallacy in the premise.  I'm waiting....

That's not your premise.  Your premise is that GCR, as encountered in cislunar space, is essentially a constant.  That premise is based on a faulty understanding of the nature of GCR and of space radiation in general.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 06:23:45 PM
The premise:  All lunar missions must have as a minimum, a mission dosage that reflects background cislunar GCR radiation.  Show me the fallacy in the premise.  I'm waiting....

That's not your premise.  Your premise is that GCR, as encountered in cislunar space, is essentially a constant.  That premise is based on a faulty understanding of the nature of GCR and of space radiation in general.
Then you would no problem claiming this premise is false?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 06:26:24 PM
The premise:  All lunar missions must have as a minimum, a mission dosage that reflects background cislunar GCR radiation.  Show me the fallacy in the premise.  I'm waiting....

That's not your premise.  Your premise is that GCR, as encountered in cislunar space, is essentially a constant.  That premise is based on a faulty understanding of the nature of GCR and of space radiation in general.
No, I have stated that GCR is inversely proportional to the solar cycle.  It is constant outside of the galaxy but it is affected by solar activity and shielding from planets and moons and even asteroids to a degree.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 06:27:31 PM
The premise:  All lunar missions must have as a minimum, a mission dosage that reflects background cislunar GCR radiation.  Show me the fallacy in the premise.  I'm waiting....

Don't misrepresent your own premise in order to win an argument. That's disngenuous at best, deceptive at worst. The premise as you have stated it here is sound: all missions will have background GCR levels. Your actual premise that you are basing your conclusion on is a quantification of that GCR that must be true for the concusion to hold. That is where the fault is, and you have been told repeatedly why that quantification is incorrect.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 26, 2018, 06:29:57 PM
The premise:  All lunar missions must have as a minimum, a mission dosage that reflects background cislunar GCR radiation.  Show me the fallacy in the premise.  I'm waiting....

That's not your premise.  Your premise is that GCR, as encountered in cislunar space, is essentially a constant.  That premise is based on a faulty understanding of the nature of GCR and of space radiation in general.
No, I have stated that GCR is inversely proportional to the solar cycle.  It is constant outside of the galaxy but it is affected by solar activity and shielding from planets and moons and even asteroids to a degree.


ANd yet you are taking data from decades after Apollo and stating that the GCR levels reflected in those data must hold true for Apollo. Either it is constant enough for you to do that or it is variable, in which case why do you insist the levels must be at least what they were reorded as decades after the fact?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on March 26, 2018, 06:30:16 PM
Frankly, the premise here is "I know enough about radiation in space to be able to assert, without evidence, that literally every expert in every field who claims the Apollo missions must have been real in order for their job to work is either lying or mistaken."
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 06:34:58 PM
The premise:  All lunar missions must have as a minimum, a mission dosage that reflects background cislunar GCR radiation.  Show me the fallacy in the premise.  I'm waiting....

That's not your premise.  Your premise is that GCR, as encountered in cislunar space, is essentially a constant.  That premise is based on a faulty understanding of the nature of GCR and of space radiation in general.
No, I have stated that GCR is inversely proportional to the solar cycle.  It is constant outside of the galaxy but it is affected by solar activity and shielding from planets and moons and even asteroids to a degree.


ANd yet you are taking data from decades after Apollo and stating that the GCR levels reflected in those data must hold true for Apollo. Either it is constant enough for you to do that or it is variable, in which case why do you insist the levels must be at least what they were reorded as decades after the fact?
The only variant is your understanding of my premise.  I have been consistent all along.   Compare apples to apples.  It is simply not possible for Apollo 11's mission dosage to reflect a lunar transit.  You cannot make the math work no matter how you manipulate the factors.  Even faith can't produce the magic to make the math work.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 26, 2018, 06:37:34 PM
So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

Quote
You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demonstrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.

Pardon my insolence and arrogance but I don't know him and my telepathic receptors have a distance limitation.

They have apparently also short-circuited your logic center.  You have yet to adequately reply to my post asking how you figured the LEO portions of the Apollo missions into their daily dose average, or why you continue to ignore the difference factors mentioned.

What are you going on about?  I did not include LEO doses in my calculations, nor did I include lunar or VAB doses.  I simply assert that mission doses have to be greater than cislunar GCR doses.  The fact that they don't indicates they never ventured beyond LEO.

Correct, you didn't include LEO doses, as they were all part of the total mission dose.  The total mission dose divided by the number of days in the mission gives the average dose per day, which your asserion is based on.  Therefor your conlcusion that they are not included is a glaring error on your part.

Note:  Edited for spelling.

You don't get it do you?  What I am saying is if you discounted contributions from all sources and used only the contribution from GCR's of cislunar space then all lunar missions as a minimum must have at least a mission does as high as cislunar space.  They do not and that indicates they never left LEO.  Is that difficult to understand?

It's quite easy to understand how confused YOU are.  You cannot fathom that LEO receives far less GCRs than cislunar space, and since the LEO data is included in the data you use, you have a glaring omission in your deterministic process. 

An analogy to your confusion would be something like saying you went on an 8 day trip through the desert and the daily temperature average outside your car was 90 degrees.  Then you note that the daily average temperature was recorded as 100 degrees by the weather stations you encountered after day 2 of the journey, and for a few hours you passed by some highly reflective background that increased the temperature beyond 100 degrees, but you are not sure by how much.  So, you argue that the average daily temperature HAS to be >100 degrees.  Yet back in the first two days of the trip, the area was overcast and temperatures had plunged to 50 degrees during that time.  To get the 8 day average you HAVE to include those days into your data fields.  So, 2 x 50 + 6 x 100 = 700.  700/8 = 87.5.  Meow the difference between 87.5 and the recorded 90 average can be concluded to be from the few hours of highly reflective background travel. 

There is no reason to expect differently from the available data.  The same goes for the Apollo missions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 06:39:44 PM
No, I have stated that GCR is inversely proportional to the solar cycle.

Fair enough.  I originally wrote "constant" and then added "essentially constant" to try to embody propositions such as the above.  However, you have not properly accounted for the ordinary effects of the solar cycle, nor for the irregularities in it.  Variation occurs in real life that is unaccounted for in your model.  As has been noted, the premise is not merely that the radiation environment for every space mission must include the GCR component.  The premise is that the measurement of that component should be a certain thing, with only limited ways in which it can vary.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 06:40:28 PM
You cannot make the math work no matter how you manipulate the factors.

If we limit the problem only to the factors you allow into the model, that might be true.  The refutation is that there are factors you don't consider.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 06:41:40 PM
So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

Quote
You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demonstrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.

Pardon my insolence and arrogance but I don't know him and my telepathic receptors have a distance limitation.

They have apparently also short-circuited your logic center.  You have yet to adequately reply to my post asking how you figured the LEO portions of the Apollo missions into their daily dose average, or why you continue to ignore the difference factors mentioned.

What are you going on about?  I did not include LEO doses in my calculations, nor did I include lunar or VAB doses.  I simply assert that mission doses have to be greater than cislunar GCR doses.  The fact that they don't indicates they never ventured beyond LEO.

Correct, you didn't include LEO doses, as they were all part of the total mission dose.  The total mission dose divided by the number of days in the mission gives the average dose per day, which your asserion is based on.  Therefor your conlcusion that they are not included is a glaring error on your part.

Note:  Edited for spelling.

You don't get it do you?  What I am saying is if you discounted contributions from all sources and used only the contribution from GCR's of cislunar space then all lunar missions as a minimum must have at least a mission does as high as cislunar space.  They do not and that indicates they never left LEO.  Is that difficult to understand?

It's quite easy to understand how confused YOU are.  You cannot fathom that LEO receives far less GCRs than cislunar space, and since the LEO data is included in the data you use, you have a glaring omission in your deterministic process. 

An analogy to your confusion would be something like saying you went on an 8 day trip through the desert and the daily temperature average outside your car was 90 degrees.  Then you note that the daily average temperature was recorded as 100 degrees by the weather stations you encountered after day 2 of the journey, and for a few hours you passed by some highly reflective background that increased the temperature beyond 100 degrees, but you are not sure by how much.  So, you argue that the average daily temperature HAS to be >100 degrees.  Yet back in the first two days of the trip, the area was overcast and temperatures had plunged to 50 degrees during that time.  To get the 8 day average you HAVE to include those days into your data fields.  So, 2 x 50 + 6 x 100 = 700.  700/8 = 87.5.  Meow the difference between 87.5 and the recorded 90 average can be concluded to be from the few hours of highly reflective background travel. 

There is no reason to expect differently from the available data.  The same goes for the Apollo missions.

You are working your butt of to justify the deception.  Good job.  Stick to your guns as long as you can.  Truth is self evident.  It will become obvious as we strive to reproduce the miracle of 1969.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 06:43:45 PM
It will become obvious as we strive to reproduce the miracle of 1969.

Yeah, that's what I do for a living.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 06:44:34 PM
You cannot make the math work no matter how you manipulate the factors.

If we limit the problem only to the factors you allow into the model, that might be true.  The refutation is that there are factors you don't consider.

If you can create the scenario in which you can duplicate a lunar transit with a mission dosage of .22 mgy/day then I will concede and shut up and go back to being an Industrial Maintenance Electrician with only a remote interest in space.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 06:45:29 PM
It will become obvious as we strive to reproduce the miracle of 1969.

Yeah, that's what I do for a living.

Work your butt off to justify deceptions or make miracles?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 06:49:32 PM
If you can create the scenario in which you can duplicate a lunar transit with a mission dosage of .22 mgy/day then I will concede and shut up and go back to being an Industrial Maintenance Electrician whit only a remote interest in space.

I have no interest in satisfying or placating you.  You have offered a line of reasoning you say makes it all but impossible for Apollo to have left LEO.  We've shown you where that line of reasoning falls short, in the form of things it doesn't consider.  That's enough for me.  Rehabilitating your argument according to the criticism it has received is entirely up to you, if you want to.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 06:50:02 PM
Work your butt off to justify deceptions or make miracles?

What sentence did I quote?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 06:51:47 PM
Work your butt off to justify deceptions or make miracles?

What sentence did I quote?

The miracle of 1969 was a deception...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 26, 2018, 06:51:53 PM
So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

Quote
You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demonstrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.

Pardon my insolence and arrogance but I don't know him and my telepathic receptors have a distance limitation.

They have apparently also short-circuited your logic center.  You have yet to adequately reply to my post asking how you figured the LEO portions of the Apollo missions into their daily dose average, or why you continue to ignore the difference factors mentioned.

What are you going on about?  I did not include LEO doses in my calculations, nor did I include lunar or VAB doses.  I simply assert that mission doses have to be greater than cislunar GCR doses.  The fact that they don't indicates they never ventured beyond LEO.

Correct, you didn't include LEO doses, as they were all part of the total mission dose.  The total mission dose divided by the number of days in the mission gives the average dose per day, which your asserion is based on.  Therefor your conlcusion that they are not included is a glaring error on your part.

Note:  Edited for spelling.

You don't get it do you?  What I am saying is if you discounted contributions from all sources and used only the contribution from GCR's of cislunar space then all lunar missions as a minimum must have at least a mission does as high as cislunar space.  They do not and that indicates they never left LEO.  Is that difficult to understand?

It's quite easy to understand how confused YOU are.  You cannot fathom that LEO receives far less GCRs than cislunar space, and since the LEO data is included in the data you use, you have a glaring omission in your deterministic process. 

An analogy to your confusion would be something like saying you went on an 8 day trip through the desert and the daily temperature average outside your car was 90 degrees.  Then you note that the daily average temperature was recorded as 100 degrees by the weather stations you encountered after day 2 of the journey, and for a few hours you passed by some highly reflective background that increased the temperature beyond 100 degrees, but you are not sure by how much.  So, you argue that the average daily temperature HAS to be >100 degrees.  Yet back in the first two days of the trip, the area was overcast and temperatures had plunged to 50 degrees during that time.  To get the 8 day average you HAVE to include those days into your data fields.  So, 2 x 50 + 6 x 100 = 700.  700/8 = 87.5.  Meow the difference between 87.5 and the recorded 90 average can be concluded to be from the few hours of highly reflective background travel. 

There is no reason to expect differently from the available data.  The same goes for the Apollo missions.

You are working your butt of to justify the deception.  Good job.  Stick to your guns as long as you can.  Truth is self evident.  It will become obvious as we strive to reproduce the miracle of 1969.

Where specifically is the deception?  The truth IS self-evident - you have only a vague idea regarding the subject and draw erroneous conclusions due to that truth.  I provided a valid example of the chasm in your reasoning and you just hand wave it away.  The conclusion to be drawn from THAT is self-evident, also.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 06:53:06 PM
The miracle of 1969 was a deception...

No, that was not the sentence I quoted.  Is this all we're going to get from you now?  Petty word games?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on March 26, 2018, 06:56:46 PM
I have fulfilled my quota for entertaining pompous, self-righteous know-it-alls for this quarter.  I'll check back sometime next quarter to see if the light of epiphany has shined on you guys.  Be well and be vigilant.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 26, 2018, 06:58:52 PM
Okay.  Don't let the facts...oh, wait...you DID let the facts kick your butt on the way out.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 26, 2018, 07:01:05 PM
I have fulfilled my quota for entertaining pompous, self-righteous know-it-alls for this quarter.  I'll check back sometime next quarter to see if the light of epiphany has shined on you guys.  Be well and be vigilant.

Some people know more than you about certain subjects.  Deal with it.  Taking a break would be advisable and welcome if the alternative means watching you continue to argue like a six-year-old.  When and if you return, expect to be subjected to the same level of rigor as before.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 26, 2018, 07:02:20 PM
Consistency is a virtue.

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/consistencydemotivator.jpeg?v=1414004030)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 26, 2018, 07:13:56 PM
The only explanation that I can deduce for such a low mission dosage is either it was faked or the equipment was archaic and incapable of measuring accurately exposure in the VAB and cislunar space.

So, given those two options, why is fraud your go-to explanation?
Why is a massive global conspiracy involving tens or hundreds of thousands of people more attractive to you than the simple possibility that the dosimeters were not up to the task?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on March 26, 2018, 07:48:42 PM
The only explanation that I can deduce for such a low mission dosage is either it was faked or the equipment was archaic and incapable of measuring accurately exposure in the VAB and cislunar space.

So, given those two options, why is fraud your go-to explanation?
Why is a massive global conspiracy involving tens or hundreds of thousands of people more attractive to you than the simple possibility that the dosimeters were not up to the task?

I mean, it couldn't possibly be that he just doesn't understand the subject matter . . . .
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on March 26, 2018, 07:57:22 PM
Is this an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 26, 2018, 07:58:48 PM
I think that since he also seems to be into the 9/11 conspiracy, he may be too far gone to reason with.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on March 26, 2018, 07:59:22 PM


So, given those two options, why is fraud your go-to explanation?
Why is a massive global conspiracy involving tens or hundreds of thousands of people more attractive to you than the simple possibility that the dosimeters were not up to the task?

I mean, it couldn't possibly be that he just doesn't understand the subject matter . . . .
But that would mean . . . gasp, admitting he was wrong about something! :o I haven't read every post in this thread, but has this happened yet, except for minor matters of manners?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 26, 2018, 08:28:37 PM
I have fulfilled my quota for entertaining pompous, self-righteous know-it-alls for this quarter.  I'll check back sometime next quarter to see if the light of epiphany has shined on you guys.  Be well and be vigilant.


Flouncy flouncy.....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on March 26, 2018, 08:38:04 PM
Next time, I am going to run a pool on how many posts people will make before they flounce....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 26, 2018, 09:15:37 PM
That reminds me; the link to the bingo cards is dead.  Has it changed?  http://www.apollohoax.net/bingo/
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on March 26, 2018, 10:23:12 PM
That reminds me; the link to the bingo cards is dead.  Has it changed?  http://www.apollohoax.net/bingo/
When the website started getting those 508 errors I deactivated a number of plugins hoping to reduce the amount of resources it was using. Now that we're on the new server and I'm confident that the 508 errors are gone I'll bring back the bingo cards.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 26, 2018, 10:34:19 PM
Next time, I am going to run a pool on how many posts people will make before they flounce....

I think it would vary, depend on each individual HB's tolerance for having their arse handed to them. Another factor could be how long it takes before they realise they are totally out of their depth in the sheer level of knowledge and expertise here. This forum is unlike others on the web; you simply cannot bluff your way past the experts, they will spot you a mile off.

As ex-military with 20 years experience in the Avionics Trade, I am somewhat disappointed with timfinch. I didn't expect a full blown CT nutcase to come from the ranks of the US Navy, especially a technician working on Nuke subs. Disturbing to say the least. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 26, 2018, 10:36:26 PM
Hey Gillianren, do you remember that episode of Buffy with the girl who got ignored so much that she literally turned invisible?  I sometimes feel that way with some of these HBs.  At least you got one response.  I didn't even get a nibble for the videos on page 22.  The thing is, you and I were asking a simple question that did not require any technical knowledge - just a little self-examination.  "Aye, there's the rub..."
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on March 26, 2018, 10:49:34 PM
(http://www.apollohoax.net/images/bingo/timfinch.jpg)

He didn't technically call us "government schills" or "sheeple", or claim 6 feet of lead would be required, but it's what he implied. So half points for those?  ;)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 27, 2018, 12:16:47 AM
timfinch:"I am right, the rest of you are wrong".
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on March 27, 2018, 12:57:11 AM
I have fulfilled my quota for entertaining pompous, self-righteous know-it-alls for this quarter.  I'll check back sometime next quarter to see if the light of epiphany has shined on you guys.  Be well and be vigilant.

Diddums.

While you're gone, have a read up about the solar flare monitoring efforts in place during Apollo 11

ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/docs.lib/htdocs/rescue/journals/essa_world/QC851U461969oct.pdf

and perhaps consider some of the many points you ignored in favour of "yeah but what if...".
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on March 27, 2018, 12:59:34 AM
Hey Gillianren, do you remember that episode of Buffy with the girl who got ignored so much that she literally turned invisible?  I sometimes feel that way with some of these HBs.  At least you got one response.  I didn't even get a nibble for the videos on page 22.  The thing is, you and I were asking a simple question that did not require any technical knowledge - just a little self-examination.  "Aye, there's the rub..."

I didn't even get an acknowledgement that I'm not a gentleman!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on March 27, 2018, 01:09:44 AM
I didn't even get an acknowledgement that I'm not a gentleman!
Should have pulled an Éowyn on the dastard.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 27, 2018, 03:16:10 AM
can i just thank everybody here for this thread. i actually feel sorry for starting it all now lol

as you may have guessed my knowledge on this matter is limited and i have learned a lot.

i am correct in breaking it down to the following.

1. the GCR is not all High Energy Particles but consists of a spectrum of radiation. this means that it is quite difficult to calculate what dosage any mission should receive.

2. the Mars missions vehicle and the apollo mission vehicle were different by design (if not by radiation design) and would therefore be impossible to compare due to those differences.


if the above is correct does anybody have a diagram showing that GCR spectrum. that would be interesting.

can i also add a thought for corroboration. i read somewhere that High Energy Particles are very rare with 1 only striking the earth every hundred or so years. i am aware that the VAB would stop most but surely if they were everywhere all at the same (which i assume is Tims argument) more than 1 every hundred years would strike the earth.

is the above correct or have i confirmed my denseness on this matter.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 27, 2018, 03:26:26 AM
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.

True, but you can find fault when they repeatedly refuse to consider the third dimension after having it pointed out several times, and even shown to them in other ways...

Quote
That said, relying on public-relations material for technical accuracy is a mistake in and of itself.

Indeed. my favourite example being the people who insist the LM must have a visible flame under it because those nice NASA artists painted it with one in the pictures for the papers.

Quote
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.

Thanks for the clarification, Jay. I fell into the trap of leaving out the understood parts of the argument. I figured that, given the choice between using the absolutely critical, no backup, if-we-screw-this-up-we're-boned SPS to effect a significant plane change right at the point of insertion and the whacking great J2 engine on the S-IVB to effect a TLI burn that puts you on more or less the right plane with an option for some mid-course corrections over the next couple of days to get it just right they'd go for the latter. However, presenting it as a requirement was a flawed argument. Always good to get picked up on these things. I'm out of practice! :)

Quote
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.

Indeed, and you could do this with a 90 degree angle between orbital plane and transfer plane, if you had the fuel. Provided you can slow down enough to be captured you'll go into orbit.

Now I'm curious as to the ability to conduct a lunar landing mission from a polar orbit with the Apollo configuration....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 27, 2018, 03:42:28 AM
Next time, I am going to run a pool on how many posts people will make before they flounce....

I think it would vary, depend on each individual HB's tolerance for having their arse handed to them. Another factor could be how long it takes before they realise they are totally out of their depth in the sheer level of knowledge and expertise here. This forum is unlike others on the web; you simply cannot bluff your way past the experts, they will spot you a mile off.

As ex-military with 20 years experience in the Avionics Trade, I am somewhat disappointed with timfinch. I didn't expect a full blown CT nutcase to come from the ranks of the US Navy, especially a technician working on Nuke subs. Disturbing to say the least.

My experiences with the Navy's nuclear personnel has been pretty positive overall, but they still had their share of "eccentrics", as well as one or two that are rightfully in prison at this time.  But that's the human condition, I suppose.

Now, for a new conspiracy theory regarding Obviousman's pool: I say he is setting us up for a sock-puppet of his to enter the fray, which will guarantee Obviousman a victory and a windfall of swag from his victims.  Prove me wrong! ..................hold on...OH NOOOOOOOOOO.....I seem to be morphing into a version of timfinch......but smarter......and better looking.........and above all, much more humble..............
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 27, 2018, 04:51:18 AM
I am not sure NASA ever lied about radiation.  I am sure they lied about sending men to the moon.  If I had been in their place I would have lied too.  Billions of dollars wasted and national pride on the line.  I would have lied my ass off. 

I'll just leave this right here:
Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02018.x/abstract)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 27, 2018, 07:57:43 AM
Hey Gillianren, do you remember that episode of Buffy with the girl who got ignored so much that she literally turned invisible?  I sometimes feel that way with some of these HBs.  At least you got one response.  I didn't even get a nibble for the videos on page 22.  The thing is, you and I were asking a simple question that did not require any technical knowledge - just a little self-examination.  "Aye, there's the rub..."

I didn't even get an acknowledgement that I'm not a gentleman!

Uum I thought about that but since we were being bombarded by some rather discourteous one liners, I stopped, sorry.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 27, 2018, 08:04:43 AM
can i just thank everybody here for this thread.

You're welcome.

Quote
i actually feel sorry for starting it all now lol

No need to feel sorry. It's good to get into a debate. The only thing I'm sorry about is his lack of staying power. Two days of intense activity followed by a flounce. One of the shortest we've had I think.

Quote
as you may have guessed my knowledge on this matter is limited and i have learned a lot.

The last five words of that sentence are what sets you apart from Tim....

Quote
1. the GCR is not all High Energy Particles but consists of a spectrum of radiation. this means that it is quite difficult to calculate what dosage any mission should receive.

Not only a spectrum but variable over time, influenced by solar activity, and several other variables that Tim seemed unwilling to believe existed or influenced the radiation levels sufficiently to matter.

Quote
2. the Mars missions vehicle and the apollo mission vehicle were different by design (if not by radiation design) and would therefore be impossible to compare due to those differences.

Essentially correct as far as I understand it, since radiation exposure is entirely dependent on what is between you and the source. Tim insisted we 'lack the technology' to shield GCRs. That's not strictly true, since sticking anything in between you and the source will shield to some extent. The question is how much and what is acceptable for the mission requirements and crew health.

He also insisted on using averaged data without considering error margins. Another of his oversimplifications. Here's an illustration of why:

Imagine you are in space for 10 days and you measure the radiation exposure every day. In the units of choice anything under 10 is 'safe', anything over 20 increases your likelihood of getting cancer in the next 20 years by 50% and anything over 30 will see you dead within 24 hours of exposure. Let's say on that mission your data set looks like this:

6,6,2,3,3,4,7,6,5,8

Average that out and you have experienced a mean of 5 units per day on the mission. A safe mission.

Now imagine someone else goes up and the data set looks like this:

2,1,2,1,3,2,33,3,2,1

If you look at the average there's a mean of 5 units per day of exposure, so looking at that data set you would conclude it was safe. However, there was a spike over 30 in the middle of that, so the reality is your astronaut was dead before they came home. The average data (safe daily levels for both missions) and the observed reality (one healthy and one dead astronaut) don't match, so you can't use it to compare the two missions directly.

Quote
is the above correct or have i confirmed my denseness on this matter.

I can't comment on your HEP query as I am unqualified to do so, however, don't confuse ignorance and 'denseness'. Everyone is ignorant of something, and in the case of complex fields like radiation more people are way more ignorant than others because it takes a lot of study to get a real grasp of it, and it's an evolving science anyway. You may be ignorant, but your willingness to listen and learn counts against any suggestion of 'denseness'.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 27, 2018, 08:12:06 AM
Great stuff thanks a lot Jason.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 27, 2018, 08:18:54 AM
Do you realize Jason is a professional scientist?  His opinion would be considered evidence in a court of law.

Thank you for the vote of confidence. In the interests of transparency however, I should say that I am a biochemist and not a qualified expert on any matters of radiation, so my opinion in a court of law on a subject involving radiation really shouldn't hold too much sway.

To the broader point, however, it does raise the question of where the line is between accepting the testimony of a professional expert and requiring them to provide corroboration. Someone asked to testify on a matter in their field in which their opinion is based on their accrued knowledge rather than ability to point to a specific reference would quite probably be unable to cite a specific publication or report simply because it would be lost in the pool of knowledge they have acquired. As it was when I brought up the plan to orient the spacecraft to put the bulk of it between the crew and the sun. I know that was the plan, I've read it in many sources over the last few years, but I could not point anyone to the precise document from NASA that describes it, as some HBs would have me do.

It reminds me of an argument at work some years ago when a debate about expiry dates of a component came down on the side of having to expend significant time and resource gathering evidence that the performance did not degrade over time when all of us on the technical side knew it wouldn't because apparently the argument 'we've known how this chemically inert stuff that is used all over the world for many applications including several that are identical in all significant respects to our intended use behaves for literally centuries' was insufficient because we could not provide a specific documented justification that it would work in this instance. Of course, the other side couldn't provide a documented justification to show how anything we were doing differed from these other instances either, but never mind....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 27, 2018, 08:27:57 AM
can i just thank everybody here for this thread. i actually feel sorry for starting it all now lol

as you may have guessed my knowledge on this matter is limited and i have learned a lot.

i am correct in breaking it down to the following.

1. the GCR is not all High Energy Particles but consists of a spectrum of radiation. this means that it is quite difficult to calculate what dosage any mission should receive.

2. the Mars missions vehicle and the apollo mission vehicle were different by design (if not by radiation design) and would therefore be impossible to compare due to those differences.


if the above is correct does anybody have a diagram showing that GCR spectrum. that would be interesting.

can i also add a thought for corroboration. i read somewhere that High Energy Particles are very rare with 1 only striking the earth every hundred or so years. i am aware that the VAB would stop most but surely if they were everywhere all at the same (which i assume is Tims argument) more than 1 every hundred years would strike the earth.

is the above correct or have i confirmed my denseness on this matter.

tim has tried on two different forums CosmoQuest and here to show his ineptitude and been handed his hat to him.  More than those here attempted to steer him towards a better understanding of radiation and away form the "average" rate he has embraced, without thinking trough the error bars as Jason has indicated in his last post.
If he really wanted an apple to apple comparison, I believe he should obtain the Curiosity radiation set  and look at the values taken from launch to 238000 miles for an average look.  I'm not sure how the flux varies over distance from the source, nor I have I looked into it.  Those "dummies" at NAS have the data and will no doubt make the best optimal use of mission parameters/components to insure a successful mission to Mars in the future.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 27, 2018, 08:43:30 AM
Do you realize Jason is a professional scientist?  His opinion would be considered evidence in a court of law.

Thank you for the vote of confidence. In the interests of transparency however, I should say that I am a biochemist and not a qualified expert on any matters of radiation, so my opinion in a court of law on a subject involving radiation really shouldn't hold too much sway.

To the broader point, however, it does raise the question of where the line is between accepting the testimony of a professional expert and requiring them to provide corroboration. Someone asked to testify on a matter in their field in which their opinion is based on their accrued knowledge rather than ability to point to a specific reference would quite probably be unable to cite a specific publication or report simply because it would be lost in the pool of knowledge they have acquired. As it was when I brought up the plan to orient the spacecraft to put the bulk of it between the crew and the sun. I know that was the plan, I've read it in many sources over the last few years, but I could not point anyone to the precise document from NASA that describes it, as some HBs would have me do.

It reminds me of an argument at work some years ago when a debate about expiry dates of a component came down on the side of having to expend significant time and resource gathering evidence that the performance did not degrade over time when all of us on the technical side knew it wouldn't because apparently the argument 'we've known how this chemically inert stuff that is used all over the world for many applications including several that are identical in all significant respects to our intended use behaves for literally centuries' was insufficient because we could not provide a specific documented justification that it would work in this instance. Of course, the other side couldn't provide a documented justification to show how anything we were doing differed from these other instances either, but never mind....

That being said, you do possess the professional habits of looking at data, authors, presentation and ask the real world questions that a scientific mind should ask.  tim does not have those abilities as he look at two sets of data and concluded one of them must be faked, instead of asking the question what factors are present in each set that MAY make both correct and still look entirely different, to an unprofessional mind.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 27, 2018, 08:47:36 AM
yes i introduced him there also lol i believe a gent called grant engaged him there a lot
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 27, 2018, 08:48:25 AM
just on the subject of GCR does anybody know of a chart of diagram showing the GCR spectrum and possible frequency of each
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 27, 2018, 10:17:04 AM
tim does not have those abilities as he look at two sets of data and concluded one of them must be faked, instead of asking the question what factors are present in each set that MAY make both correct and still look entirely different, to an unprofessional mind.

It wasn't even that.  He accepted the Apollo data set as genuine, but because the numbers were lower in most (but not all!) cases, the missions must not have gone to the Moon, therefore ALL of the landings were faked.  At the same time, he asserted that his expected dose rates were not fatal or even particularly dangerous (I repeat:  He accepted the Apollo 14 as being in his "acceptable" range) - they were simply more than the "official" data showed... but somehow this meant everything was faked.

I can't even begin to understand the logical disconnect in this attitude.  Gillianren & I pinged him again and again on this point (at least 7 times, I think).  In his fevered imagination, Tim imagined that "moon-walking robots" left the footprints and collected the samples (feats that even modern robots can't come close to).  Wouldn't the mustache-twirling villains in his head simply send their dosimeters along with these missions to bring back the "correct" dosage data?

At any rate, anyone who knows anything about these astronauts or the times in which they lived knows that they would not have balked if the expected mission dose was ten times what Tim imagines.  I said it before:  Bill Anders gave himself a 1-in-3 chance of dying on the Apollo 8 mission Link, page 12 (https://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/AndersWA/WAA_10-8-97-amended.pdf).

Tim repeatedly claimed that he was here only to argue about the radiation numbers, but he also said his numbers were not show-stoppers.  I really would have liked to have read (in his own words) his reasoning (I use the term loosely) why he preferred to believe the missions were faked.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on March 27, 2018, 10:52:16 AM
Uum I thought about that but since we were being bombarded by some rather discourteous one liners, I stopped, sorry.

The first time he used the word, I hadn't commented yet (my boyfriend and I spent a night away from the kids for our fifteenth anniversary, and even if I'd had a computer with me, I wasn't inclined to spend the time arguing with an HB!), so I let it slide.  The second time was after I'd commented, and I needed to make the observation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on March 27, 2018, 10:53:58 AM
Uum I thought about that but since we were being bombarded by some rather discourteous one liners, I stopped, sorry.

The first time he used the word, I hadn't commented yet (my boyfriend and I spent a night away from the kids for our fifteenth anniversary, and even if I'd had a computer with me, I wasn't inclined to spend the time arguing with an HB!), so I let it slide.  The second time was after I'd commented, and I needed to make the observation.

Happy (belated) Anniversary wishes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on March 27, 2018, 11:05:56 AM
yes i introduced him there also lol i believe a gent called grant engaged him there a lot
I thought he sounded familiar. I see that he's an expert at flouncing.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 27, 2018, 11:53:56 AM
are you Grant atomic dog
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on March 27, 2018, 12:24:30 PM
are you Grant atomic dog

Nope. Just a space exploration fan and a Trekkie with a smart mouth.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 27, 2018, 12:29:23 PM
Is this an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

I'm reluctant to say because this isn't really my area of specialty.  Dunning and Kruger studied competence and its effect on subjects' ability to judge their own competence and that of others.  It also briefly studied the mutability of this phenomenon.  My feeling is -- and this goes beyond just Tim -- that many fringe claimants exhibit behavior that Dunning and Kruger didn't study, but which might be related to or involved in some way with what they did uncover.  If I second-guess how psychologists tend to think through these problems, I would say that they would see a difference between simply misjudging competence and responding to it with hostility.

Keep in mind also that fringe argumentation often wants to invoke different modes of thinking.  A person may recognize that others are, say, "book smart" about something while he has a certain intuition or insight that provides expertise in a different way or via different means.  I don't think any such effect was made visible in "Unskilled and unaware of it," Dunning and Kruger's seminal paper.  They made no distinctions in different constructions of competence.  To borrow an example from the paper, someone who has objectively poor grammar skills would be said to lack the metacognition necessary to recognize that he was unskilled.  And he would be similarly ill equipped to judge the grammar skills of another person.  But in the paper, that subject would believe he is competent in the normal way, not in some alternative way he invented to make up for an acknowledged deficiency in the standard mode of knowledge.  My impression is that psychologists would see that as a significant departure from Dunning and Kruger's conclusions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on March 27, 2018, 12:35:39 PM
are you Grant atomic dog

Nope. Just a space exploration fan and a Trekkie with a smart mouth.

I'm AtomicDog on Cosmoquest, too. I don't wear socks.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 27, 2018, 12:47:37 PM
Thank you for the vote of confidence. In the interests of transparency however, I should say that I am a biochemist and not a qualified expert on any matters of radiation, so my opinion in a court of law on a subject involving radiation really shouldn't hold too much sway.

I know that.  The point was trying to make was much broader and softer than that, and allows for some license.  Fringe claimants generally eschew the whole notion of formal knowledge and formal, adjudicated training.  My point was that there is such a thing as legitimate expertise and it does have legitimate value.  And the opinion of experts does matter over the opinions of laymen, at least in terms of which one is more likely to be true.

Quote
To the broader point, however, it does raise the question of where the line is between accepting the testimony of a professional expert and requiring them to provide corroboration.

In American courts the foundation that must be laid for expert testimony is quite stringent.  Not only do you have to establish your credentials, you have to be able to document that the work you did leading to your opinion was sound and performed according to accepted methods.  The presenting party has to establish that there is some reasonable agreement among similarly qualified experts that would make it a decidable question.  All my work would have to be turned over to the other party.  Everything relevant that I do from the moment the attorney says, "I'm engaging your service as an expert witness in this matter" is discoverable.

Quote
Someone asked to testify on a matter in their field in which their opinion is based on their accrued knowledge rather than ability to point to a specific reference would quite probably be unable to cite a specific publication or report simply because it would be lost in the pool of knowledge they have acquired.

That's subsumed in the c.v. you would present to the court as part of the court deciding whether you can testify as an expert.  It is presumed that academic preparation, granted degrees, published research, and professional practice accumulate to being able to speak knowledgeably about uncontested facts in the field without requiring specific citations.

Quote
As it was when I brought up the plan to orient the spacecraft to put the bulk of it between the crew and the sun. I know that was the plan, I've read it in many sources over the last few years, but I could not point anyone to the precise document from NASA that describes it, as some HBs would have me do.

That particular question would be subsumed in my c.v., including my work here and on my web site.  Someone who is called as an expert in space history would be given leave to recite facts that are common knowledge in the field, even if they are not generally known.  But that's a gray area.  Expert testimony is meant to interpret difficult facts for the jury.  It's up to the jury to determine, to the best of their knowledge, what is fact.  A conscientious lawyer would either ask you to research it or have it researched on his own so that it could be documented in a brief to the court.

Quote
...was insufficient because we could not provide a specific documented justification that it would work in this instance.

This is the lament of experts the world over.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 27, 2018, 01:02:10 PM
just on the subject of GCR does anybody know of a chart of diagram showing the GCR spectrum and possible frequency of each

I assume you mean flux versus energy.  Yes, they're all over the place.  There's no One True Reading, of course, because they all apply to specific circumstances and make different assumptions in the measurement and massaging of the phenomenon.

Here's a canned Google search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=hze+energy+flux&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij0_ql_YzaAhXG5p8KHQWzAGsQ_AUICygC&biw=1920&bih=937#imgrc=_
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 27, 2018, 01:15:08 PM
I was just trying to find out how frequent the high energy particles of the GCR are.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 27, 2018, 01:56:56 PM
I did a little study of my own for a change lol and found that 85 percent of GCR is hydrogen. I also read that we can shield against this quite well. is this basically why GCR isn't a show stopper for a short term mission
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 27, 2018, 02:41:43 PM
I was just trying to find out how frequent the high energy particles of the GCR are.

And as usual, the answer is, "It depends..."  You're not the first to ask this.  In fact, every damn time I'm on television or giving an interview or something, the host -- who honestly never has any ulterior motives -- wants a simple answer.  "So how much radiation is there in the Van Allen belts?"  Well, it depends...  But they want a number.  Their job is to commit the interviewee to some particulat thing, because wishy-washy answers lack punch.  It's also their job to interpret and simplify things for their readers, to cut through the tech-speke.  They aren't even usually interested in correctish sound-bites such as, "Well, it depends on your exact path, how fast you're going, and the construction of your space vehicle."

I picked this one at random.
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9331/how-do-the-effects-of-different-cosmic-rays-compare

It has the shape I'm familiar with, which is humpy at the low-energy side and sharply falling off on the high-energy side.  The first thing to notice is that they've broken out the data by particle species.  The letters up in the data field are the chemical symbols of the elements whose nucleii are plotted in that particular point shape.  You've got hydrogen, helium, carbon, and iron.  Someone else's graph might have different species.  These are just the nucleii of those elements; no electrons.  That's why the graph labels mention "nucleon".  They want you to remember that the data is categorized and plotted on the same scales.

The x-axis is energy in millions of electron-volts (MeV).  The scale is exponential, in case that's not obvious.  This happens all the time in astrophysics (well, physics in general).  You're often not interested in the changes in a phenomenon that amount to only marginal increases or decreases.  You're interested in order-of-magnitude changes.  It's how the Richter scale works in principle for earthquakes.

The y-axis is flux, which is what we term frequency when we're talking about particle flow.  That axis label looks like modem line noise, so I'll walk you through it.  It's all exponentiated to -1, which is shorthand for putting it all in a denominator.  So read all the elements of the label as "per this" or "per that."  The implied numerator is "number of particles."  The first element is "per square meter," which normalizes the area of the conceptual window through which the particles are flying.

Next is "per sr" or "per steradian."  That's a measurement of solid angles.  I'm going to assume you know or can figure out what a solid angle is.  GCR is istotropic, meaning it comes from all directions.  It doesn't matter which direction your window is facing; it will get the same flow.  SPEs, in contrast, are directional.  If you were drawing this graph for one of those, you wouldn't say "per [solid angle]" because the measurement would be different depending on which particular part of the sky you were facing.  In that case you'd specify the direction of measurement.

Then "per s" for "per second," since flux is, after all, a rate.  Then the "MeV/nucleon" to remind is that this is a categorized reading.  The scale of the y-axis graph is also exponential, but in the negative direction.  10-1 particles per second makes sense if you think about it as one particle every 100 seconds.  It's not like they're measuring fractional particles.

The highest reading on the graph is for hydrogen, at 2 particles per second, per solid angle, per square meter occurring at about 102.1 MeV -- about 126 MeV.  I've seen other graphs where the flux peak is closer to 30 MeV, but I don't remember what circumstances applied to it.  But the 2 particles per second figure is only for that one energy level.  If you want to know the flux for all energies, you need to integrate -- that is, use calculus.  If you're just out in space bare naked, you're exposed to all the energies.  So you'd need to integrate from the lowest energy to the highest, essentially adding up all the fluxes at each of the energies as you go.  More typically we want to estimate an exposure, which means you apply the effects of shielding, if any, and integrate only over those energies that are significant notwithstanding the shield.  That gives you the flux behind the shield, which is what some astronaut's dosimeter would be seeing.  Then you would integrate that over exposure time to get a new value called fluence.  If flux varies over time for any reason, the integral can get interesting.  Fluence is most directly connected to cumulative exposure, such as what a dosimeter would give you at the end of the day.

The dosimeter method just skips to the end.  It won't necessarily differentiate between kinds of radiation (although many do), or keep a detailed breakdown of whether it was a little bit over a long time, or a lot in a short time.  A health physicist's first question will be what the total absorbed dose is.  Imagine filling up a pitcher at the sink, where you vary the water flow by idly twisting the knob as it fills.  Sure, a physicist can get all over that and integrate the varying flow rate over time and predict with math how much water ended up in the pitcher.  But the quick and dirty method is just to measure the amount of water that got in there.  This is essentially what Tim's dosimeter data does.  It doesn't account for different sources of radiation.  It doesn't account for varying effects of shielding.  It doesn't account for natural fluctuations in the dose rate.  It just gives you total accumulated dose.  Of course in practice the Apollo crews read off their dosimeter readings at periodic intervals, so we at least have some time-varied data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 27, 2018, 03:04:03 PM
I did a little study of my own for a change lol and found that 85 percent of GCR is hydrogen.

Hydrogen nucleii, or simple protons.  And you'll find percentages varying around 90%.

Quote
I also read that we can shield against this quite well. is this basically why GCR isn't a show stopper for a short term mission.

It depends...  ;D

A proton can interact with an aluminum shield in a number of ways.  Those result in different species of secondary radiation, ranging from none to significant.  The trick is simply to provide enough thickness of aluminum that the secondary radiation can be absorbed in the inner portion of the shield and attenuated to a sustainable level.  The goal is almost never to get to zero.  In all the different collision modes, the primary proton is an ejectile, but it leaves with considerably less energy than it came in with.  If that proton should wind up hitting your liver, you hope that it does so at low energy and thereby deposits only a very small amount of energy.  That's sort of the thumbnail sketch of shielding theory.

If the shielding is composed principally of hydrogen, there is a limit to what the worst-case proton collision (direct elastic hit on the nucleus) can produce by way of secondary ejectiles.  In higher-Z materials, significantly massive chunks of shattered nucleus may be recoiled.  The problem is that ideal materials like water pose handling problems in space.  Wanting to shield with water complicates the other parts of the engineering.  Similarly with high-density polyethylene, another "ideal" absorber.  Stopping power is a function purely of a material's mass density for a given energy dissipation rate.  It's not a function of shield chemistry.  Therefore to get enough polyethylene thickness to stop very high energy protons, you need many centimeters of it since it's less dense than metals.  Again that complicates other aspects of spacecraft design.

Aluminum is the material of choice because it has excellent properties for other requirements in spacecraft engineering.  But in terms of radiation attenuation it's a semi-optimal compromise.  It's low enough Z that the secondary radiation it produces is reasonably tolerable.  And it's dense enough to provide reasonable stopping power in thicknesses that don't become onerous for the rest of the design.  It's a great example of typical engineering tradeoff.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on March 27, 2018, 04:10:27 PM
Is this an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

I'm reluctant to say because this isn't really my area of specialty.  Dunning and Kruger studied competence and its effect on subjects' ability to judge their own competence and that of others.  It also briefly studied the mutability of this phenomenon.  My feeling is -- and this goes beyond just Tim -- that many fringe claimants exhibit behavior that Dunning and Kruger didn't study, but which might be related to or involved in some way with what they did uncover.  If I second-guess how psychologists tend to think through these problems, I would say that they would see a difference between simply misjudging competence and responding to it with hostility.

Keep in mind also that fringe argumentation often wants to invoke different modes of thinking.  A person may recognize that others are, say, "book smart" about something while he has a certain intuition or insight that provides expertise in a different way or via different means.  I don't think any such effect was made visible in "Unskilled and unaware of it," Dunning and Kruger's seminal paper.  They made no distinctions in different constructions of competence.  To borrow an example from the paper, someone who has objectively poor grammar skills would be said to lack the metacognition necessary to recognize that he was unskilled.  And he would be similarly ill equipped to judge the grammar skills of another person.  But in the paper, that subject would believe he is competent in the normal way, not in some alternative way he invented to make up for an acknowledged deficiency in the standard mode of knowledge.  My impression is that psychologists would see that as a significant departure from Dunning and Kruger's conclusions.

Thank you, Jay.

I thought some might misunderstand me, as when I posted that, I wasn't being insulting.... I was wondering if this were a genuine, real-world example where we can see the effect. I thought that we had an area where some greater technical knowledge of the subject matter is required to really understand the subtleties and this person seemed to be becoming more entrenched in their belief every time their misunderstanding of a facet of the matter was pointed out.

I agree with you and I think it is more complex; for example does 'pride' factor into the Effect? Someone has been proven wrong on critical points in their cherished debate, and so their pride will not allow them to admit error, to rethink their assumptions, etc (I can't help but think of Jack White in this regard!).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on March 27, 2018, 04:14:14 PM
I read through this whole thread and feel exhausted by the repetition from TF. I know nothing about space radiation, but I do know that two different space craft decades apart, with different collection machines, different solar activity, different distant stellar activity and most importantly of all, different effectiveness against stopping the radiation from penetrating, well that is going to provide a whole heap of variables that are going to produce different results.

I didn't see anyone address this question about the transit of the 'deadly' Van Allen belts by Apollo. This great video shows how the trajectories all flew through the weaker areas of both belts:


Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 27, 2018, 04:29:14 PM
I read through this whole thread...
I didn't see anyone address this question about the transit of the 'deadly' Van Allen belts by Apollo. This great video shows how the trajectories all flew through the weaker areas of both belts:

*sigh* I posted that and two other videos in reply #327 on page 22 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1444.msg43741#msg43741).  That post was completely ignored by both sides in favor of continued discussion of that confusing and, IMO inferior pencil sketch.  Hell, Jay's photograph of a glazed doughnut with a card-stock parabola is more instructive to laymen than that damn sketch.   :(
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 27, 2018, 04:37:26 PM
I read through this whole thread...
I didn't see anyone address this question about the transit of the 'deadly' Van Allen belts by Apollo. This great video shows how the trajectories all flew through the weaker areas of both belts:

*sigh* I posted that and two other videos in reply #327 on page 22 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1444.msg43741#msg43741).  That post was completely ignored by both sides in favor of continued discussion of that confusing and, IMO inferior pencil sketch.  Hell, Jay's photograph of a glazed doughnut with a card-stock parabola is more instructive to laymen than that damn sketch.   :(

I only posted a 2-D image and didn't have a 3-D or video.  I didn't seem to overlook it, sorry if you felt I did.  BTW great video and visualization to you and Mag40, thanks. tf would have ignored it since it invalidated a portion of his belief., and he could not visualize the 2-D image for sure.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on March 27, 2018, 05:16:45 PM
Thanks again jay for those 2 answers
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 27, 2018, 06:15:00 PM
Thanks again jay for those 2 answers

Glad to be of help.  Although re-reading it leads me to an erratum:  A flux of 10-1 s-1 would be one particle every 10 seconds, not every 100 seconds.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 27, 2018, 08:31:37 PM
tim has tried on two different forums CosmoQuest and here to show his ineptitude and been handed his hat to him.

I've been looking for his thread and not finding it.  Link please?  T.I.A.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Nowhere Man on March 27, 2018, 08:41:44 PM
I've been looking for his thread and not finding it.  Link please?  T.I.A.
This looks like it.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question (https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question)

Fred
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 27, 2018, 08:48:02 PM
A proton can interact with an aluminum shield in a number of ways.  Those result in different species of secondary radiation, ranging from none to significant.  The trick is simply to provide enough thickness of aluminum that the secondary radiation can be absorbed in the inner portion of the shield and attenuated to a sustainable level.  The goal is almost never to get to zero.  In all the different collision modes, the primary proton is an ejectile, but it leaves with considerably less energy than it came in with.  If that proton should wind up hitting your liver, you hope that it does so at low energy and thereby deposits only a very small amount of energy.  That's sort of the thumbnail sketch of shielding theory.

If the shielding is composed principally of hydrogen, there is a limit to what the worst-case proton collision (direct elastic hit on the nucleus) can produce by way of secondary ejectiles.  In higher-Z materials, significantly massive chunks of shattered nucleus may be recoiled.  The problem is that ideal materials like water pose handling problems in space.  Wanting to shield with water complicates the other parts of the engineering.  Similarly with high-density polyethylene, another "ideal" absorber.  Stopping power is a function purely of a material's mass density for a given energy dissipation rate.  It's not a function of shield chemistry.  Therefore to get enough polyethylene thickness to stop very high energy protons, you need many centimeters of it since it's less dense than metals.  Again that complicates other aspects of spacecraft design.

Aluminum is the material of choice because it has excellent properties for other requirements in spacecraft engineering.  But in terms of radiation attenuation it's a semi-optimal compromise.  It's low enough Z that the secondary radiation it produces is reasonably tolerable.  And it's dense enough to provide reasonable stopping power in thicknesses that don't become onerous for the rest of the design.  It's a great example of typical engineering tradeoff.

Back in 1986/87, on the Giotto Spacecraft that rendezvoused with Comet Halley, the designers used a shield to protect the spacecraft (during its approach) from particles of matter being shed by the comet as its ices sublimated. IIRC, it was essentially a double layered shield, the idea being that the outer layer would stop most of the smaller particles, slightly larger particles that might penetrate outer layer would either vaporise, or lose most of their energy, and would then not penetrate the inner shield.

I wonder if a similar arrangement would help (or hinder) in the the case of GCR? Would multi-level thinner shielding be any more or less effective than a thicker shield? Could it help with mitigation of secondary radiation, or would it potentially make it worse? 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 27, 2018, 11:44:59 PM
I've been looking for his thread and not finding it.  Link please?  T.I.A.
This looks like it.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question (https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question)

Fred

Oh!  It was 5 months ago.  No wonder I couldn't find it.  I thought it was in the last week or two.  My bad.  Thanks Fred!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 28, 2018, 12:55:50 AM

The dosimeter method just skips to the end.  It won't necessarily differentiate between kinds of radiation (although many do), or keep a detailed breakdown of whether it was a little bit over a long time, or a lot in a short time.  A health physicist's first question will be what the total absorbed dose is.  Imagine filling up a pitcher at the sink, where you vary the water flow by idly twisting the knob as it fills.  Sure, a physicist can get all over that and integrate the varying flow rate over time and predict with math how much water ended up in the pitcher.  But the quick and dirty method is just to measure the amount of water that got in there.  This is essentially what Tim's dosimeter data does.  It doesn't account for different sources of radiation.  It doesn't account for varying effects of shielding.  It doesn't account for natural fluctuations in the dose rate.  It just gives you total accumulated dose.  Of course in practice the Apollo crews read off their dosimeter readings at periodic intervals, so we at least have some time-varied data.

Just a little adjustment/clarification for your dosimeter reading portion. 
From: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

"To allow accurate determination of overall radiation exposure of the crewmen, each carried a personal radiation dosimeter (PRD) (figure 4) and three passive dosimeters (figure 5). The PRD provided visual readout of accumulated radiation dose to each crewman as the mission progressed. It is approximately the size of a cigarette pack, and pockets were provided in the flight coveralls as well as in the space suit for storage. The passive dosimeters were placed in the garments worn throughout the mission. By placing these detectors at various locations (ankle, thigh, and chest) within the garments, accurate radiation doses for body portions were determined."

So, the PRD kept track of total dose (at the chest, where the pockets were) during the flight, as they provided a constant visible read-out.  However it was the passive dosimeters that were read out with separate machines on Earth (they heated the thermoluminescent materials in them and measured the amount of light they gave off which was proportional to the dose they received) that were used for the records, as they are far more accurate. 

So, probably way more than you all cared to know, but I am OCD that way.      :D

Note:  Edited to clarify the function of the PRD.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on March 28, 2018, 01:51:15 AM
One said volume might be a hardbound collection of papers from the late 50's that I happen to have in my bookshelf, where the neutron issue is theorized and calculated. You, like several hoax believers past, seem to want to characterize this as a surprising new fact NASA was too slow to cover up. It is not.




Quote
Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected


It is interesting to note that the article says "originally expected" and not measured.  I could read volumes into that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 28, 2018, 11:49:30 AM
Back in 1986/87, on the Giotto Spacecraft that rendezvoused with Comet Halley, the designers used a shield to protect the spacecraft (during its approach) from particles of matter being shed by the comet as its ices sublimated. IIRC, it was essentially a double layered shield, the idea being that the outer layer would stop most of the smaller particles, slightly larger particles that might penetrate outer layer would either vaporise, or lose most of their energy, and would then not penetrate the inner shield.

I wonder if a similar arrangement would help (or hinder) in the the case of GCR? Would multi-level thinner shielding be any more or less effective than a thicker shield? Could it help with mitigation of secondary radiation, or would it potentially make it worse?

It wouldn't help.  You're thinking of laminated armor that uses alternate layers of dense and sparse material.  It's actually how the micrometeoroid shield on the Apollo LM was designed, and to a lesser extent the space suits.  It works for ballistic particles where "particle" here means dust, not some exotic thing ending in -on.  The theory behind laminated armor is that the collisions with the hard outer layers fragment (in a mechanical, not subatomic, way) both the injectile and the armor.  The soft inner layers (if they aren't just empty space) attenuate the velocity, but what they really do is provide distance for the collision products to fan out and vent their energy on the next hard layer across a broader surface area.  You don't really need that allowance to shield against ions.  So you fall back to the general rule that density is king:  you want collision products from GCR to encounter another atom within the shielding as soon as possible.  I recall the ANR reference for the LM had a good drawing of how the micrometeoroid shield worked.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on March 28, 2018, 12:10:17 PM
Is this an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

Code: [Select]
#include <disclaimer.h>

In my (uneducated layman's) opinion, no.  Tim isn't simply overestimating his skills in a particular area - he's engaging in a pattern of thought (delusion of conspiracy) that's largely orthogonal to what D-K were studying. 

I mean, the nut of his argument was that because the dosimeter readings for Apollo were lower than those for MSL/RAD, then the Apollo numbers must be fake.  Or, if they're real, then no astronaut actually left LEO and the landings were faked. 

There was apparently no thought to investigate possible differences in the cislunar radiation environment between Apollo and MSL/RAD, or differences in equipment, procedures, or analysis, or any of a hundred other mundane scientific or engineering differences could account for the discrepancy.  For him, the immediate, obvious, go-to answer is fakery.

That's not D-K.  That's a different pathology. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on March 28, 2018, 12:27:37 PM
The CM hull had a dosimeter in it didn't it? Were the results from those ever published?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 28, 2018, 01:02:36 PM
If any of the group has a personal contact in NASA, It would be beneficial to have access to the MSL/RAD values, especially during time from launch to 238000 miles.

The report he reference an AVERAGE number and I don't know if there may be a difference as distance from the Earth/Moon vicinity--distance because I don't know if it traveled close to the Moon.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on March 28, 2018, 02:15:19 PM
Back in 1986/87, on the Giotto Spacecraft that rendezvoused with Comet Halley, the designers used a shield to protect the spacecraft (during its approach) from particles of matter being shed by the comet as its ices sublimated. IIRC, it was essentially a double layered shield, the idea being that the outer layer would stop most of the smaller particles, slightly larger particles that might penetrate outer layer would either vaporise, or lose most of their energy, and would then not penetrate the inner shield.

I wonder if a similar arrangement would help (or hinder) in the the case of GCR? Would multi-level thinner shielding be any more or less effective than a thicker shield? Could it help with mitigation of secondary radiation, or would it potentially make it worse?

It wouldn't help.  You're thinking of laminated armor that uses alternate layers of dense and sparse material.  It's actually how the micrometeoroid shield on the Apollo LM was designed, and to a lesser extent the space suits.  It works for ballistic particles where "particle" here means dust, not some exotic thing ending in -on.  The theory behind laminated armor is that the collisions with the hard outer layers fragment (in a mechanical, not subatomic, way) both the injectile and the armor.  The soft inner layers (if they aren't just empty space) attenuate the velocity, but what they really do is provide distance for the collision products to fan out and vent their energy on the next hard layer across a broader surface area.  You don't really need that allowance to shield against ions.  So you fall back to the general rule that density is king:  you want collision products from GCR to encounter another atom within the shielding as soon as possible.  I recall the ANR reference for the LM had a good drawing of how the micrometeoroid shield worked.

Ok, thanks Jay. I will keep in mind this phrase from your answer

"density is king:  you want collision products from GCR to encounter another atom within the shielding as soon as possible."


I guess all I can do is to quote Thomas Huxley

"The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact"
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on March 28, 2018, 03:41:55 PM
Sorry I'm late to the party. I'm working my way though this, and is currently on p.27. Eye-watering stuff from you-know-who.

I have a question: As I understand it, secondary radiation from particle impacts on the spacecraft (or any other matter) is usually photons (bremsstrahlung), but there can be created other particles also.

As I understand it, the energy of those photons are organized in discrete bands, depending on which orbitals the affected electron is excited from and falls back to. This energy is different for different materials. Heavier nuclei have more options for excited states - because they have more electrons and use more orbitals.

Is there a table which shows the energy of these x-rays organized by material/atomic number?

Would be very interesting to compare those energies to the energy of x-rays used in commercial/medical applications. Commercial x-ray machines produce photons with an energy insufficient to penetrate most metals - like iron/steel. If they did penetrate, they would be unable to detect metal objects in the body.

If a bremsstrahlung event involving aluminium had only 10% of the energy of medical x-rays, it would be totally unable to penetrate steel. Carbon, Oxygen and Hydrogen are even lighter, and should provide even less energetic x-rays.

Am I totally lost here or is there som validity to my idea?

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on March 28, 2018, 04:19:23 PM
The CM hull had a dosimeter in it didn't it? Were the results from those ever published?

I used the data from Apollo 12 some years back in an argument with your old friend Adrian, but I can’t remember on which forum it was on, or where I linked the data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on March 29, 2018, 03:52:45 AM
Sorry I'm late to the party. I'm working my way though this, and is currently on p.27. Eye-watering stuff from you-know-who.

I have a question: As I understand it, secondary radiation from particle impacts on the spacecraft (or any other matter) is usually photons (bremsstrahlung), but there can be created other particles also.

As I understand it, the energy of those photons are organized in discrete bands, depending on which orbitals the affected electron is excited from and falls back to. This energy is different for different materials. Heavier nuclei have more options for excited states - because they have more electrons and use more orbitals.

Is there a table which shows the energy of these x-rays organized by material/atomic number?

Would be very interesting to compare those energies to the energy of x-rays used in commercial/medical applications. Commercial x-ray machines produce photons with an energy insufficient to penetrate most metals - like iron/steel. If they did penetrate, they would be unable to detect metal objects in the body.

If a bremsstrahlung event involving aluminium had only 10% of the energy of medical x-rays, it would be totally unable to penetrate steel. Carbon, Oxygen and Hydrogen are even lighter, and should provide even less energetic x-rays.

Am I totally lost here or is there som validity to my idea?

The bremsstrahlung phenomenon occurs over a continuous distribution path as the electron is slowed as illustrated here for molybdenum (closer interaction to the nucleus results in higher x-ray energy):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

Each element will have its unique distribution spectrum.

It is the ejection of K-shell electrons that give rise to characteristic x-rays for which there is this graph (Moseley Plot):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/moseley.html

Here is a good description of how x-ray machines work (not all that much different, just more controllable regarding overall energy of produced x-rays):
http://www.austincc.edu/rudygarz/xRayMachine/xRayMachine.pdf

So, basically the bremsstrahlung radiation is dependent on two major factors -
1.  The energy of the ionizing photon/particle and its distance from the nucleus (wide range of x-ray energies).
2.  The composition of the affected material (characteristic x-rays).

I hope this helps somewhat.

Note:  Edited because I screwed up.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on March 29, 2018, 08:51:25 AM
As expected. The subject is much more complicated than I initially thought. Will take some time to read and digest.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on March 29, 2018, 10:33:21 AM
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?"  -- Hobbes (http://calvinandhobbes-daily.tumblr.com/image/35802637793)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on March 29, 2018, 04:39:12 PM
"Why work hard to succeed, when you can fail with no effort at all?" - Me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on March 29, 2018, 05:03:22 PM
"Anything above a pass is wasted effort"

"If you're not cheating, you're not trying"


Navy sayings
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on March 30, 2018, 09:06:07 AM
Dammit. In behind the flounce. Second time this guy has done that to me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on March 30, 2018, 03:30:03 PM
Dammit. In behind the flounce. Second time this guy has done that to me.
Ditto  ;D

I did want to ask him whether he though all spaceflight beyond LEO was faked, or if there's some secret cabal of spacecraft engineers who hold the secret truth about the radiation levels in space.

We've had spacecraft operating all the way from Mercury out to beyond Pluto, and currently have quite a number actively operating well outside the VAB region.  If the data used in designing these craft was drastically incorrect, there would be many more failures.  And despite the usual HB's focus on NASA, there are multiple countries launching missions, not to mention things like the Lunar X-Prize where independent groups were encouraged to get their own landers to the Moon.

It's just not possible that the radiation data we use for spacecraft design, or for manned mission planning, is wrong...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 30, 2018, 07:56:05 PM
Some GPS satellites are in the Van Allen belts and spend their entire operational lifetimes there.

Tim's claim is a twist on the "searing radiation hell" argument.  He seems to have arbitrarily considered one set of measurements to be an incontrovertible baseline against which all other measurements can be compared.  He then seems to have compared a set of Apollo measurements against it and concluded it could not be high enough to represent an interplanetary mission based solely on comparison to the arbitrary baseline.  He hasn't considered any reasonable sources of error.  It's not a matter, in his mind, of "standard" models of radiation being misleading or falsified.  In fact, he relies on the notion that all the data he's looking at are real.  The matter is, frankly, in his mind where he keeps a very simplified, very rudimentary model of the space radiation environment, and any departure from those expectations immediately raises the claim of hoax.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: inconceivable on March 30, 2018, 08:14:47 PM
The one thing that gets me about the radiation question is about the space suits.  They offered layers of protection for the body.  But the most critical part of a human is the brain and the helmet provided the least protection to the astronaut.  Lab tests on mice have concluded that mice lost cognitive skills with an equivalent of 10 day exposure to charged particles 16O, Ti48.  Is this why the astronauts stay in LEO?  LEO offers protection from alpha radiation, high speed protons, electrons, and high energy helium atoms.  How much protection can the glass in the helmet provide other than UV protection?  If Apollo missions helmets offered this much protection, shouldn't they make spacecrafts out of glass for deep space missions? er30.3
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 30, 2018, 10:12:44 PM
Lab tests on mice have concluded that mice lost cognitive skills with an equivalent of 10 day exposure to charged particles 16O, Ti48.

And the spectrum of these in space is ... ?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on March 31, 2018, 01:19:31 AM
The one thing that gets me about the radiation question is about the space suits.  They offered layers of protection for the body.  But the most critical part of a human is the brain and the helmet provided the least protection to the astronaut.  Lab tests on mice have concluded that mice lost cognitive skills with an equivalent of 10 day exposure to charged particles 16O, Ti48.  Is this why the astronauts stay in LEO?  LEO offers protection from alpha radiation, high speed protons, electrons, and high energy helium atoms.  How much protection can the glass in the helmet provide other than UV protection?  If Apollo missions helmets offered this much protection, shouldn't they make spacecrafts out of glass for deep space missions? er30.3

Glass?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 31, 2018, 09:02:33 AM
Well, with the usual lack of hope of a reply from inconceivable...

The one thing that gets me about the radiation question is about the space suits.  They offered layers of protection for the body.  But the most critical part of a human is the brain and the helmet provided the least protection to the astronaut.

Really? What data do you have regarding the shielding effectiveness of the polycarbonate (most definitely not glass) helmet plus the additional layers used during EVA with all the visors etc.?

Quote
Lab tests on mice have concluded that mice lost cognitive skills with an equivalent of 10 day exposure to charged particles 16O, Ti48.

1: Citation please.
2: How closely does this replicate the environment in space?
3: How many astronauts are outside the spacecraft for anything close to 10 days?
4: How does the effect on a mouse's brain compare to a human brain?

Quote
How much protection can the glass in the helmet provide other than UV protection?

It's not glass.

Quote
If Apollo missions helmets offered this much protection,


How much, against what? Your argument makes no logical sense in the absence of anyhting resembling data.

Quote
shouldn't they make spacecrafts out of glass for deep space missions?

Thank you for demonstrating once again you have little interest beyond yanking chains here. The necessity for tradeoffs based on mission requirements and the lack of an ideal material that meets all of them has been explained repeatedly on this thread.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on March 31, 2018, 11:01:32 AM
And of course all those materials that list or compute the effective dose for blood-forming organs.  Aren't they going to feel silly when inconceivable tells them that was the wrong set of organs and that they should have been looking at the brain all along.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on March 31, 2018, 04:30:41 PM
Yeah, I may not know too much about the A7L spacesuit helmets, but I know they're not made of freaking glass. Did a wild search engine kill your parents or something, inconceivable? :o
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on March 31, 2018, 06:35:32 PM
Yeah, I may not know too much about the A7L spacesuit helmets, but I know they're not made of freaking glass. Did a wild search engine kill your parents or something, inconceivable? :o

Polycarbonate

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/helmet-pressure-bubble-apollo-a7-l-experimental

Would that due for a low density hydrogen compound?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on March 31, 2018, 09:45:09 PM
The back of the helmet, apart from offering a padded surface for launch and re-entry, also provide some shielding IIRC.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on March 31, 2018, 10:25:30 PM
Yeah, I may not know too much about the A7L spacesuit helmets, but I know they're not made of freaking glass. Did a wild search engine kill your parents or something, inconceivable? :o

Polycarbonate

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/helmet-pressure-bubble-apollo-a7-l-experimental

Would that due for a low density hydrogen compound?
Heh, I'm sure some  conspiracy theorist somewhere is going bonkers about a spacesuit helmet with airholes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 01, 2018, 11:49:30 AM
Aluminum is useless in shielding GCR's and in fact increase biological dosing due to secondary emissions from the high energy protons.

You're cherry picking the same research that Jarrah White cherry picked. It is indeed true that aluminum alone creates secondary radiation from GCR to fragmentation of primary GCR radiation. This is due to aluminum having Z = 13. There is a much higher cross section of interaction between the aluminum nucleus and high energy protons, which results in greater fragmentation.

The research that you cite applies to the ISS, as ISS traverses the SAA and the issue of high energy protons is pertinent. The researchers addressed the issue of using polymer materials as these have a low Z compared to aluminum shielding. The researchers found that it was best to use polythene shielding in tandem with aluminum to reduce secondary radiation from high energy protons.

At least that is my understanding.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 01, 2018, 11:58:10 AM
I understand he has flounced, but there are several articles written about secondary radiation several years ago. These were reported in the popular science press. One such example:

https://www.seeker.com/moon-poses-radiation-risk-to-future-travelers-1764980915.html

The line of interest

...the levels [from secondary radiation] were about what an X-ray technician or uranium miner might normally experience in a year.

Although every article refers to the lunar surface as becoming radioactive, which is slightly annoying.  ???

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 01, 2018, 12:33:59 PM
I have fulfilled my quota for entertaining pompous, self-righteous know-it-alls for this quarter.  I'll check back sometime next quarter to see if the light of epiphany has shined on you guys.  Be well and be vigilant.
As usual, you dish out insults and run away in fear that your cherish delusion may not be assaulted. Grow a pair.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 12:38:19 PM
Well,  a new quarter has started and I have a fresh new quota for self-righteous, blow hards.  Let's do this!

I'll lead off with a few facts for your consideration.

The current solar cycle began on January 4, 2008, with minimal activity until early 2010. It is on track to have the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750. The cycle featured a "double-peaked" solar maximum. The first peak reached 99 in 2011 and the second in early 2014 at 101. It appears likely that Cycle 24 will end in mid-2018.
This is the graph of dose rate taken by the CraTer Satellite that has been monitoring lunar radiation since 2009.  It is obvious to the casual observer that the background radiation exposure was fairly flat throughout the solar cycle punctuated by SPE events.  It can be deduced by the by even the dullest of intellects that a lunar mission would have as a minimum this background radiation of approximately .3 mgy/day.  Apollo 11 had a .22 mgy/day dose rate.  This is only possible if it never left ELO.


http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&screenheight=&screenwidth=
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 12:50:17 PM
I understand he has flounced, but there are several articles written about secondary radiation several years ago. These were reported in the popular science press. One such example:

https://www.seeker.com/moon-poses-radiation-risk-to-future-travelers-1764980915.html

The line of interest

...the levels [from secondary radiation] were about what an X-ray technician or uranium miner might normally experience in a year.

Although every article refers to the lunar surface as becoming radioactive, which is slightly annoying.  ???

Why is it you find the truth annoying?  Is it because you realize if the surface of the moon is radioactive then it becomes obvious the astronauts never landed there?  They would have been contaminated and even ingested and breathed radioactive moon dust.  Is that why it is so annoying?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 01, 2018, 01:02:44 PM
Why is it you find the truth annoying?  Is it because you realize if the surface of the moon is radioactive then it becomes obvious the astronauts never landed there?  They would have been contaminated and even ingested and breathed radioactive moon dust.  Is that why it is so annoying?

Explain to me the mechanism by which bombardment of soils with high energy protons makes the soil radioactive. Do you understand the difference between radiation and radioactivity?

Spence [the scientist] is clearly referring secondary radiation due to GCR influx. The article has used poetic licence and uses the much misaligned word radioactive rather than radiation when discussing the hazard of ionising radiation in space.

It's not a case of truth, it's a case of understanding nuclear physics. There's a difference between a truth that fits your narrative and scientific understanding.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 01:04:44 PM
Aluminum is useless in shielding GCR's and in fact increase biological dosing due to secondary emissions from the high energy protons.

You're cherry picking the same research that Jarrah White cherry picked. It is indeed true that aluminum alone creates secondary radiation from GCR to fragmentation of primary GCR radiation. This is due to aluminum having Z = 13. There is a much higher cross section of interaction between the aluminum nucleus and high energy protons, which results in greater fragmentation.

The research that you cite applies to the ISS, as ISS traverses the SAA and the issue of high energy protons is pertinent. The researchers addressed the issue of using polymer materials as these have a low Z compared to aluminum shielding. The researchers found that it was best to use polythene shielding in tandem with aluminum to reduce secondary radiation from high energy protons.

At least that is my understanding.

You said a lot about nothing.  GCR is the background radiation of cislunar space and aluminum provides no shielding and the Apollo craft had no hydrogenous shielding capable of attenuating GCR's so it's mission dose should reflect as a minimum the background GCR + VAB transit + 30% to 40% greater lunar exposure.  It doesn't.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 01:10:19 PM
Why is it you find the truth annoying?  Is it because you realize if the surface of the moon is radioactive then it becomes obvious the astronauts never landed there?  They would have been contaminated and even ingested and breathed radioactive moon dust.  Is that why it is so annoying?

Explain to me the mechanism by which bombardment of soils with high energy protons makes the soil radioactive. Do you understand the difference between radiation and radioactivity?

Spence [the scientist] is clearly referring secondary radiation due to GCR influx. The article has used poetic licence and uses the much misaligned word radioactive rather than radiation when discussing the hazard of ionising radiation in space.

It's not a case of truth, it's a case of understanding nuclear physics. There's a difference between a truth that fits your narrative and scientific understanding.

Any high energy particle with the energy to split an atom can cause the creation of a radioactive isotope that in turn gives off a neuton that can cause an additional isotope formation.  GCR constantly bombard the surface of the moon creating radioactive isotopes that create a secondary neutron flux.  It would be absolutely amazing if the moon's surface was not radioactive.  We could build spaceships out of moon dust that would be impervious to GCR.  It is not my narrative.  I did not write the article claiming the moon is radioactive.  It is your narrative that is questioned by that article.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 01, 2018, 01:11:15 PM
I understand he has flounced, but there are several articles written about secondary radiation several years ago. These were reported in the popular science press. One such example:

https://www.seeker.com/moon-poses-radiation-risk-to-future-travelers-1764980915.html

The line of interest

...the levels [from secondary radiation] were about what an X-ray technician or uranium miner might normally experience in a year.

Although every article refers to the lunar surface as becoming radioactive, which is slightly annoying.  ???

Why is it you find the truth annoying?  Is it because you realize if the surface of the moon is radioactive then it becomes obvious the astronauts never landed there?  They would have been contaminated and even ingested and breathed radioactive moon dust.  Is that why it is so annoying?

And bananas are gamma emitters.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 01, 2018, 01:14:22 PM
You said a lot about nothing.  GCR is the background radiation of cislunar space and aluminum provides no shielding and the Apollo craft had no hydrogenous shielding capable of attenuating GCR's so it's mission dose should reflect as a minimum the background GCR + VAB transit + 30% to 40% greater lunar exposure.  It doesn't.

I said a lot about you cherry picking data pertaining to secondary fragmentation by aluminium, particularly when you are citing research that for missions with greater integrated fluxes of high energy protons than the Apollo missions. The problem of aluminium and secondary radiation was raised by you I believe, but I'm not sure why you want to apply that issue to Apollo with its mission times. The issue lends itself well to the ISS and the SAA, but not Apollo.

Jay has already questioned you on your knowledge of fluxes for GCR > 10 MeV. That's quite important to understand the issue of GCR dose and the lack of substantial shielding in cislunar space.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 01:34:07 PM
You guys keep bringing up comparison of astronauts exposure to various medical doses and or lethal comparisons.  I do not claim a lunar transit is necessarily lethal.  It can be if you are on the wrong side of a solar event.  What I do claim is there is a minimum exposure that you get during a lunar transit and Apollo 11 definitely did not get that minimum amount.  Their is no current testing that was done in the last 10 years that can support a lunar landing.  Everything that is available today says that it was not done 50 years ago.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 01:38:39 PM
You said a lot about nothing.  GCR is the background radiation of cislunar space and aluminum provides no shielding and the Apollo craft had no hydrogenous shielding capable of attenuating GCR's so it's mission dose should reflect as a minimum the background GCR + VAB transit + 30% to 40% greater lunar exposure.  It doesn't.

I said a lot about you cherry picking data pertaining to secondary fragmentation by aluminium, particularly when you are citing research that for missions with greater integrated fluxes of high energy protons than the Apollo missions. The problem of aluminium and secondary radiation was raised by you I believe, but I'm not sure why you want to apply that issue to Apollo with its mission times. The issue lends itself well to the ISS and the SAA, but not Apollo.

Jay has already questioned you on your knowledge of fluxes for GCR > 10 MeV. That's quite important to understand the issue of GCR dose and the lack of substantial shielding in cislunar space.

What is your point?  Are you implying that due to the length of the Apollo mission that they did not encounter GCR or that such a small window made any GCR inconsequential?  What ever you are claiming, how does it address the point that I espouse which is Apollo 11 mission dosage is not representative of a lunar transit?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 01:47:34 PM
I have a question for the collective.  Looking at the path the Apollo craft took through the VAB, is it safe to to assume that the lowest point of exposure was as it passed through the Southern Alantic Anomaly?  If we assumed that the background radiation of the SAA was present for the entire 2 hour transit each way, would that act as a minimum baseline in your opinion?  If not then why not?

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 01, 2018, 01:49:28 PM
Any high energy particle with the energy to split an atom can cause the creation of a radioactive isotope that in turn
gives off a neuton that can cause an additional isotope formation.

Now for that gotcha moment. So any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom undergoes this mechanism, every single one? You're telling me that every single GCR with the energy to split a nucleus, will induce fission and produce secondary neutrons and produce radioactive isotopes, or are you saying that any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom has the potential to undergo this mechanism. Be clear what I am asking you here, as I am looking for a clear distinction.

In any case, the primary point is that the secondary radiation created by GCR is no more than that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technician in a year. Your notion that the moon's surface is a barren radioactive wasteland that is not survivable is wrong. A point you seemed to wash over.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 01, 2018, 01:55:23 PM
What is your point?  Are you implying that due to the length of the Apollo mission that they did not encounter GCR or that such a small window made any GCR inconsequential?  What ever you are claiming, how does it address the point that I espouse which is Apollo 11 mission dosage is not representative of a lunar transit?

I'm asking you why you are cherry picking data that pertains to research conducted to address secondary radiation aboard the ISS, which undergoes transit through the SAA.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 01:56:50 PM
Any high energy particle with the energy to split an atom can cause the creation of a radioactive isotope that in turn
gives off a neuton that can cause an additional isotope formation.

Now for that gotcha moment. So any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom undergoes this mechanism, every single one? You're telling me that every single GCR with the energy to split a nucleus, will induce fission and produce secondary neutrons and produce radioactive isotopes, or are you saying that any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom has the potential to undergo this mechanism. Be clear what I am asking you here, as I am looking for a clear distinction.

In any case, the primary point is that the secondary radiation created by GCR is no more than that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technician in a year. Your notion that the moon's surface is a barren radioactive wasteland that is not survivable is wrong. A point you seemed to wash over.

I am not telling you every interaction produces the fission of an atom, What I am telling you is the possibility exist at the energy levels of protons of GCR to cause fission.  It does not matter if the resultant radiation is lethal to people in the short term or even the long term.  What is important is the fact that it is radioactive.  The implications are far reaching.  If moon dust is radioactive then the samples are forgeries.  If the samples are forgeries then the landing was faked.  Do I need to continue?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 01:58:44 PM
What is your point?  Are you implying that due to the length of the Apollo mission that they did not encounter GCR or that such a small window made any GCR inconsequential?  What ever you are claiming, how does it address the point that I espouse which is Apollo 11 mission dosage is not representative of a lunar transit?

I'm asking you why you are cherry picking data that pertains to research conducted to address secondary radiation aboard the ISS, which undergoes transit through the SAA.

What are you going on about?  The principles of nuclear reactions are applicable to all environments and conditions.  What is this ISS data set you are talking about?  I am at a loss to understand what you are rambling about.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 01, 2018, 02:26:46 PM
What I am telling you is the possibility exist at the energy levels of protons of GCR to cause fission.

Good, now we are getting to the vaguery of your argument regarding the radioactivity of the moon. You are using words like possibility. You cannot quantify the relative degree of nuclear transmutations that take place, whether they are fragmentation types, secondary radiation production or radiation from isotope production. What do you know of the half lives of these isotopes you claim are produced? What proportion of the secondary radiation are pions or neutrons? What proportion of the energy is simply deposited in the target material.

Quote
It does not matter if the resultant radiation is lethal to people in the short term or even the long term.

The radiation is no more that that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technicians. I have friends who are X-ray technicians, and they live happy and healthy lives.

Quote
What is important is the fact that it is radioactive.

Quantify the radioactivity. Don't bother as I know you won't do that. Despite me telling you several times, why are you washing over the fact that a scientist that works on CRaTER has reported the dangers are no more than the annual dose received by workers in the nuclear industry and certain mining industries? Why do you cite CRaTER to support your case, but ignore this fact? This reminds me of those that cite Mauldin to purport evidence against the veracity of Apollo, despite Mauldin clearly writing about the authenticity of the missions. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

Quote
The implications are far reaching.  If moon dust is radioactive then the samples are forgeries.  If the samples are forgeries then the landing was faked.

The samples actually show strong indication of interactions with GCR. You are aware that exposure to ionising radiation effects materials in other ways? You do know this, right?

How radioactive should the rocks be? Again consider the half life of the isotopes you claim are produced, how the radiation from the isotopes produced compares to the natural radiation of the rocks.

Quote
Do I need to continue?

No.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 01, 2018, 02:34:36 PM
Any high energy particle with the energy to split an atom can cause the creation of a radioactive isotope that in turn
gives off a neuton that can cause an additional isotope formation.

Now for that gotcha moment. So any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom undergoes this mechanism, every single one? You're telling me that every single GCR with the energy to split a nucleus, will induce fission and produce secondary neutrons and produce radioactive isotopes, or are you saying that any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom has the potential to undergo this mechanism. Be clear what I am asking you here, as I am looking for a clear distinction.

In any case, the primary point is that the secondary radiation created by GCR is no more than that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technician in a year. Your notion that the moon's surface is a barren radioactive wasteland that is not survivable is wrong. A point you seemed to wash over.

I am not telling you every interaction produces the fission of an atom, What I am telling you is the possibility exist at the energy levels of protons of GCR to cause fission.  It does not matter if the resultant radiation is lethal to people in the short term or even the long term.  What is important is the fact that it is radioactive.  The implications are far reaching.  If moon dust is radioactive then the samples are forgeries.  If the samples are forgeries then the landing was faked.  Do I need to continue?

What makes you think no radioactive material was recorded in Apollo samples?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 01, 2018, 02:37:03 PM
I have a question for the collective.  Looking at the path the Apollo craft took through the VAB, is it safe to to assume that the lowest point of exposure was as it passed through the Southern Alantic Anomaly?  If we assumed that the background radiation of the SAA was present for the entire 2 hour transit each way, would that act as a minimum baseline in your opinion?  If not then why not?

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts

What makes you think they passed through the SAA?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 01, 2018, 02:37:18 PM
What are you going on about?  The principles of nuclear reactions are applicable to all environments and conditions.  What is this ISS data set you are talking about?  I am at a loss to understand what you are rambling about.

You raised the issue of particle fragmentation in aluminium, and I'm asking you for context.

I'm not rambling, maybe making an assumption about your reference material as I know the work of the principal researchers in this field. So, to be fair let's start again.

What data or reference source are you using regarding particle fragmentation in aluminium? It's important when discussing Apollo.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 02:56:58 PM
I have a question for the collective.  Looking at the path the Apollo craft took through the VAB, is it safe to to assume that the lowest point of exposure was as it passed through the Southern Alantic Anomaly?  If we assumed that the background radiation of the SAA was present for the entire 2 hour transit each way, would that act as a minimum baseline in your opinion?  If not then why not?

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts

What makes you think they passed through the SAA?


The inclination of orbit for TLI?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 03:01:54 PM
What are you going on about?  The principles of nuclear reactions are applicable to all environments and conditions.  What is this ISS data set you are talking about?  I am at a loss to understand what you are rambling about.

You raised the issue of particle fragmentation in aluminium, and I'm asking you for context.

I'm not rambling, maybe making an assumption about your reference material as I know the work of the principal researchers in this field. So, to be fair let's start again.

What data or reference source are you using regarding particle fragmentation in aluminium? It's important when discussing Apollo.

Tis is just one of many but it is light reading so it should be easily digestible.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 03:06:29 PM
Any high energy particle with the energy to split an atom can cause the creation of a radioactive isotope that in turn
gives off a neuton that can cause an additional isotope formation.

Now for that gotcha moment. So any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom undergoes this mechanism, every single one? You're telling me that every single GCR with the energy to split a nucleus, will induce fission and produce secondary neutrons and produce radioactive isotopes, or are you saying that any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom has the potential to undergo this mechanism. Be clear what I am asking you here, as I am looking for a clear distinction.

In any case, the primary point is that the secondary radiation created by GCR is no more than that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technician in a year. Your notion that the moon's surface is a barren radioactive wasteland that is not survivable is wrong. A point you seemed to wash over.

I am not telling you every interaction produces the fission of an atom, What I am telling you is the possibility exist at the energy levels of protons of GCR to cause fission.  It does not matter if the resultant radiation is lethal to people in the short term or even the long term.  What is important is the fact that it is radioactive.  The implications are far reaching.  If moon dust is radioactive then the samples are forgeries.  If the samples are forgeries then the landing was faked.  Do I need to continue?

What makes you think no radioactive material was recorded in Apollo samples?

The Space Suit Neil Armstrong was on display in museums and schools for years.  It was heavily coated with dust which should have been radioactive.  If it had been then it would not have been on public display.  I have researched for months looking for any indication that lunar regolith is radioactive and have found nothing.  There is indications of low levels of radiation in moon rocks but nothing on lunar dust.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 01, 2018, 03:09:15 PM
Tis is just one of many but it is light reading so it should be easily digestible.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays

So to cite your own source:

Astronauts on Apollo and Skylab missions received on average 1.2 mSv/day and 1.4 mSv/day respectively.

So Apollo astronauts received a dose from GCR that is equivalent to a CT scan.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 01, 2018, 03:17:22 PM
Well,  a new quarter has started and I have a fresh new quota for self-righteous, blow hards.  Let's do this!

I'll lead off with a few facts for your consideration.

The current solar cycle began on January 4, 2008, with minimal activity until early 2010. It is on track to have the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750. The cycle featured a "double-peaked" solar maximum. The first peak reached 99 in 2011 and the second in early 2014 at 101. It appears likely that Cycle 24 will end in mid-2018.
This is the graph of dose rate taken by the CraTer Satellite that has been monitoring lunar radiation since 2009.  It is obvious to the casual observer that the background radiation exposure was fairly flat throughout the solar cycle punctuated by SPE events.  It can be deduced by the by even the dullest of intellects that a lunar mission would have as a minimum this background radiation of approximately .3 mgy/day.  Apollo 11 had a .22 mgy/day dose rate.  This is only possible if it never left ELO.


http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&screenheight=&screenwidth=

Let us look at that data, shall we?  Without the spikes for SPE, the lunar daily average measures less than .05 cGy, which is .5mGy/day.  Fair enough, BUT to be realistic, you can look at the specific data for 2013 which is within the peaks, and thus correlates to the same approximate Sun activity period during which Apollo 11 traveled.  Look at those non-SPR numbers,
(from http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/data/2017085/doserates_standard_2017085_alldays_allevents.txt) and you get data that is consistent from day to day:

"2456335.104166   2013   42   2013.1139840   1.333   0.734   1.000   1.8702e-02   1.7726e-02   1.8333e-02   1.0221e-02   1.5785e-02   9.0085e-03   1.5598e-02   9.2391e-03   1.6074e-02
2456335.145833   2013   42   2013.1140982   1.333   0.761   1.000   1.8404e-02   1.9054e-02   1.8450e-02   9.7684e-03   1.6187e-02   1.0216e-02   1.5965e-02   9.4166e-03   1.6368e-02
2456335.187500   2013   42   2013.1142123   1.333   0.738   1.000   1.7298e-02   1.7642e-02   1.9122e-02   8.9207e-03   1.5822e-02   8.9500e-03   1.5526e-02   1.0296e-02   1.6089e-02
2456335.229166   2013   42   2013.1143265   1.333   0.756   1.000   1.8975e-02   1.8092e-02   1.9896e-02   1.0249e-02   1.6089e-02   9.1526e-03   1.6310e-02   1.0720e-02   1.6458e-02
2456335.270833   2013   42   2013.1144406   1.333   0.742   1.000   1.8276e-02   1.7111e-02   1.8640e-02   9.6895e-03   1.5953e-02   8.3184e-03   1.5481e-02   9.7308e-03   1.6527e-02"

Now, that is a RANDOMLY picked 5 day window from 2013.  The HIGHEST dose rate recorded is .019896cGy/day, or .19896mGy/day, and the LOWEST is .0083184cGy/day, or .083184mGy/day.

Those numbers fit very neatly UNDER the Apollo 11 daily dose for their whole trip.  And just to put the slam dunk on your confusion, you STILL have failed to account for their time in LEO, which is part  of their mission exposure, and which also resulted in MUCH lower dose rates for the duration of that potion of the mission.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 01, 2018, 03:21:51 PM
It was heavily coated with dust which should have been radioactive.

Why should it be radioactive?


Quote
If it had been then it would not have been on public display.

The food you eat is radioactive. The rocks around you contribute significantly to background radiation. How radioactive was the suit compared to other sources of background radiation? Do you know the activity associated with the suit?

 
Quote
I have researched for months looking for any indication that lunar regolith is radioactive and have found nothing.

Maybe this answers your question.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 01, 2018, 03:41:38 PM
Why is it you find the truth annoying?  Is it because you realize if the surface of the moon is radioactive then it becomes obvious the astronauts never landed there?  They would have been contaminated and even ingested and breathed radioactive moon dust.  Is that why it is so annoying?

Explain to me the mechanism by which bombardment of soils with high energy protons makes the soil radioactive. Do you understand the difference between radiation and radioactivity?

Spence [the scientist] is clearly referring secondary radiation due to GCR influx. The article has used poetic licence and uses the much misaligned word radioactive rather than radiation when discussing the hazard of ionising radiation in space.

It's not a case of truth, it's a case of understanding nuclear physics. There's a difference between a truth that fits your narrative and scientific understanding.

Any high energy particle with the energy to split an atom can cause the creation of a radioactive isotope that in turn gives off a neuton that can cause an additional isotope formation.  GCR constantly bombard the surface of the moon creating radioactive isotopes that create a secondary neutron flux.  It would be absolutely amazing if the moon's surface was not radioactive.  We could build spaceships out of moon dust that would be impervious to GCR.  It is not my narrative.  I did not write the article claiming the moon is radioactive.  It is your narrative that is questioned by that article.

So now, you show you have no idea how atomic physics works regarding fission.  The nuclei of high energy particles bounce off each other like billiard balls.  It is the neutron capture by that nucleus which makes it radioactive, and that neutron must be SLOWED down to be captured.  There are only a few isotopes that can fission in such a manner as to provide a chain reaction and must be in sufficient numbers and densities for that to happen.  Other non-fissionable elements that become radioactive due to neutron bombardment are numerable, but also dependent on the element itself.  Some would, but most of the elements in the Lunar soil would not become radioactive if they were in the neutron flux of an operating reactor for decades.  Some of the elements that DID become radioactive would have half-lives that only last seconds, or less, so they would be non-detectable within a day or less.  So, your claim of radioactive Moon dust is as true as the radioactive Earth dust around us.  There is some, but of such small quantities (save a rare occasion of a collection of certain elements) the risk is insignificant.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 01, 2018, 04:04:00 PM
Any high energy particle with the energy to split an atom can cause the creation of a radioactive isotope that in turn
gives off a neuton that can cause an additional isotope formation.

Now for that gotcha moment. So any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom undergoes this mechanism, every single one? You're telling me that every single GCR with the energy to split a nucleus, will induce fission and produce secondary neutrons and produce radioactive isotopes, or are you saying that any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom has the potential to undergo this mechanism. Be clear what I am asking you here, as I am looking for a clear distinction.

In any case, the primary point is that the secondary radiation created by GCR is no more than that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technician in a year. Your notion that the moon's surface is a barren radioactive wasteland that is not survivable is wrong. A point you seemed to wash over.

I am not telling you every interaction produces the fission of an atom, What I am telling you is the possibility exist at the energy levels of protons of GCR to cause fission.  It does not matter if the resultant radiation is lethal to people in the short term or even the long term.  What is important is the fact that it is radioactive.  The implications are far reaching.  If moon dust is radioactive then the samples are forgeries.  If the samples are forgeries then the landing was faked.  Do I need to continue?

What makes you think no radioactive material was recorded in Apollo samples?

The Space Suit Neil Armstrong was on display in museums and schools for years.  It was heavily coated with dust which should have been radioactive.  If it had been then it would not have been on public display.  I have researched for months looking for any indication that lunar regolith is radioactive and have found nothing.  There is indications of low levels of radiation in moon rocks but nothing on lunar dust.

Really? That's your evidence?

A museum displays a suit without appropriate health and safety clearance?

You need to go to the Preliminary Science Reports and the Lunar Science Conference proceedings - you can buy the latter on the internet. They have lots of reports on fines in the Apollo sample record.

You seem to think that every molecule on the surface is radioactive. They may have the potential to become so, but it is not a given that they are all firing off particles left right and centre. They may have been radioactive at some point and the process of decay is over. That process can take millennia, it can take days - depending on the elements involved. It might not happen at all.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 01, 2018, 04:52:16 PM
I have researched for months looking for any indication that lunar regolith is radioactive and have found nothing.

And yet I found this in a 30 second Google search...

The radioactivity of the moon and planets was measured from orbiters and landers. The radioactivity of the returned lunar samples was studied with laboratory equipment. Analysis of the radioactivity data shows the bimodal structure of surfaces of the moon, Venus, Mars (ancient crust and young volcanic formations). Volcanic formations on all bodies, probably, consist of basaltic rocks. The compositions of ancient crusts are different (gabbro-anorthositic on the moon and maybe on Mars, granite-metamorphic on the earth and maybe on Venus).

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1982LPSC...12.1377S

The radioactive nature of the lunar surface has been known about since the mid 1960's

Here are a reports on the Apollo 16 site

www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/A16PP-F-Regolith.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1973LPSC....4.2115E

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 01, 2018, 04:57:15 PM
Ah, I wasn't expecting a return to the debate!!

I do have a question for Mr Finch, as regards the measured, or generally accepted figures for radiation levels in space beyond the VAB.  (I originally brought it up in post #550 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1444.msg43977#msg43977), but I'll summarise here as well.)

I work for a company which develops data handling technologies* for spacecraft.  I'm on the software side of things, but I know our chip design folks have to consider a lot of factors about the environment their designs will be used in.  Since the data they're using is based on the generally accepted measurements and models, why aren't there a lot more failures of missions operating in these regions?

As I also noted in my previous post, it's not just NASA that's involved in determining radiation risks, but private companies and other organisations in the US, and around the world, and even small independent groups like the Lunar X-Prize teams.

Either :
a) the failure rates are being covered up, or
b) all the engineers, all over the world, are in some great conspiracy to lie about the figures, or
c) all missions outside of LEO are fakes, or
d) the space radiation environment has been correctly measured and modelled, and allows for safe design of both manned and unmanned missions

Which, in your opinion, is the explanation?


[ * The same technology has been used on well over 100 missions, including LRO, MRO and Mars Express, and will launch on BepiColombo, JWST and several other upcoming spacecraft.]

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 01, 2018, 05:45:22 PM
Actually my post #586 showed him where his lunar surface data table actually fits in perfectly with the Apollo 11 mission doses, as it shows LOWER radiation levels than Apollo 11's .22mGy/day average (plotted for the entire mission).  So the data he provided destroyed his own theory.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 01, 2018, 06:31:50 PM
The 'ooh, scary radiation' completely ridiculous coming from someone who has purportedly worked with nuclear reactors. Just because something has a detectable level of radiation emitted from it does not mean it is actually a dangerous amount. You should know this! I'm a high school drop out, and I know this!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 08:59:11 PM
I will remind everyone that the CraTer data revealed that the orbital lunar radiation was higher than expected because the neutron flux coming from the moon elevated levels above background GCR levels 30 to 40 percent.  The depth of penetration of the incoming flux of GCR is such that that the surface has to be radioactive to generate the neutron flux that raised levels that high.  Explain how you think this flux is possible without the surface being radioactive.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 09:25:10 PM
Actually my post #586 showed him where his lunar surface data table actually fits in perfectly with the Apollo 11 mission doses, as it shows LOWER radiation levels than Apollo 11's .22mGy/day average (plotted for the entire mission).  So the data he provided destroyed his own theory.

The stated range for background GCR level from recorded data is 2 mgy/day at solar maximum to 2.5 times that at solar minimum.  This is last century data.  Current data indicates the range to be closer to 3+ mgy/day.  How to you account for the discrepancy?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 10:08:26 PM
Ah, I wasn't expecting a return to the debate!!

I do have a question for Mr Finch, as regards the measured, or generally accepted figures for radiation levels in space beyond the VAB.  (I originally brought it up in post #550 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1444.msg43977#msg43977), but I'll summarise here as well.)

I work for a company which develops data handling technologies* for spacecraft.  I'm on the software side of things, but I know our chip design folks have to consider a lot of factors about the environment their designs will be used in.  Since the data they're using is based on the generally accepted measurements and models, why aren't there a lot more failures of missions operating in these regions?

As I also noted in my previous post, it's not just NASA that's involved in determining radiation risks, but private companies and other organisations in the US, and around the world, and even small independent groups like the Lunar X-Prize teams.

Either :
a) the failure rates are being covered up, or
b) all the engineers, all over the world, are in some great conspiracy to lie about the figures, or
c) all missions outside of LEO are fakes, or
d) the space radiation environment has been correctly measured and modelled, and allows for safe design of both manned and unmanned missions

Which, in your opinion, is the explanation?


[ * The same technology has been used on well over 100 missions, including LRO, MRO and Mars Express, and will launch on BepiColombo, JWST and several other upcoming spacecraft.]
The technology obviously exist to operate electronic equipment in the SAA and passing through the VAB.  Missions in this high radiation background have shorter life expectancies than missions that remain in LEO.  I can't begin to answer your question without comparative data.  I am sure redundancy and hardened equipment was used in designing electronic equipment for the hazards of space.  What has any of this to do with my claim that Apollo 11's mission dose is unrealistic in light of recent empirical data?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 10:26:51 PM
There seems to be a concerted effort to distract the conversation away from the pertinent facts.  Data indicates orbit and lunar radiation levels are roughly 35% higher than background GCR levels.  CraTer data taken over the full span of a solar cycle show background radiation levels in excess of .3 mgy/day.  A transit through the VAB on any path is in excess of cislunar GCR levels.  How is it possible that Apollo 11 had a dose rate of .22 mgy/day.  This is complex math requiring and advanced degree in rocket science so I am going to need help on this one.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 01, 2018, 10:40:59 PM
Tim, you must have cherry picked CRaTER data, because according to this report from NASA states on page 8.
Hypothetical mission doses for solar min.
Apollo-like
1 week
.007 Sv
Manageable

Does seem that high to me and from the data recorded from the missions your estimate that it is too low seems to be incorrect.

https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/DataUsersWorkshop/CRaTER.pdf


Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 10:54:29 PM
Well,  a new quarter has started and I have a fresh new quota for self-righteous, blow hards.  Let's do this!

I'll lead off with a few facts for your consideration.

The current solar cycle began on January 4, 2008, with minimal activity until early 2010. It is on track to have the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750. The cycle featured a "double-peaked" solar maximum. The first peak reached 99 in 2011 and the second in early 2014 at 101. It appears likely that Cycle 24 will end in mid-2018.
This is the graph of dose rate taken by the CraTer Satellite that has been monitoring lunar radiation since 2009.  It is obvious to the casual observer that the background radiation exposure was fairly flat throughout the solar cycle punctuated by SPE events.  It can be deduced by the by even the dullest of intellects that a lunar mission would have as a minimum this background radiation of approximately .3 mgy/day.  Apollo 11 had a .22 mgy/day dose rate.  This is only possible if it never left ELO.


http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&screenheight=&screenwidth=

Let us look at that data, shall we?  Without the spikes for SPE, the lunar daily average measures less than .05 cGy, which is .5mGy/day.  Fair enough, BUT to be realistic, you can look at the specific data for 2013 which is within the peaks, and thus correlates to the same approximate Sun activity period during which Apollo 11 traveled.  Look at those non-SPR numbers,
(from http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/data/2017085/doserates_standard_2017085_alldays_allevents.txt) and you get data that is consistent from day to day:

"2456335.104166   2013   42   2013.1139840   1.333   0.734   1.000   1.8702e-02   1.7726e-02   1.8333e-02   1.0221e-02   1.5785e-02   9.0085e-03   1.5598e-02   9.2391e-03   1.6074e-02
2456335.145833   2013   42   2013.1140982   1.333   0.761   1.000   1.8404e-02   1.9054e-02   1.8450e-02   9.7684e-03   1.6187e-02   1.0216e-02   1.5965e-02   9.4166e-03   1.6368e-02
2456335.187500   2013   42   2013.1142123   1.333   0.738   1.000   1.7298e-02   1.7642e-02   1.9122e-02   8.9207e-03   1.5822e-02   8.9500e-03   1.5526e-02   1.0296e-02   1.6089e-02
2456335.229166   2013   42   2013.1143265   1.333   0.756   1.000   1.8975e-02   1.8092e-02   1.9896e-02   1.0249e-02   1.6089e-02   9.1526e-03   1.6310e-02   1.0720e-02   1.6458e-02
2456335.270833   2013   42   2013.1144406   1.333   0.742   1.000   1.8276e-02   1.7111e-02   1.8640e-02   9.6895e-03   1.5953e-02   8.3184e-03   1.5481e-02   9.7308e-03   1.6527e-02"

Now, that is a RANDOMLY picked 5 day window from 2013.  The HIGHEST dose rate recorded is .019896cGy/day, or .19896mGy/day, and the LOWEST is .0083184cGy/day, or .083184mGy/day.

Those numbers fit very neatly UNDER the Apollo 11 daily dose for their whole trip.  And just to put the slam dunk on your confusion, you STILL have failed to account for their time in LEO, which is part  of their mission exposure, and which also resulted in MUCH lower dose rates for the duration of that potion of the mission.
I am not sure you are looking at the units for the CraTer data correctly or maybe I am not.  I thought it was in cgy/day.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 10:58:58 PM
Tim, you must have cherry picked CRaTER data, because according to this report from NASA states on page 8.
Hypothetical mission doses for solar min.
Apollo-like
1 week
.007 Sv
Manageable

Does seem that high to me and from the data recorded from the missions your estimate that it is too low seems to be incorrect.


https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/DataUsersWorkshop/CRaTER.pdf



http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&s

This iis a plot of the CraTer Data from it's inception till 2017.  8 years worth.  Look at the curve and tell me I misread it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 01, 2018, 11:00:12 PM
Tell me if you opened the pdf?
Is this information incorrect?  Why or why not.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 11:02:36 PM
Tell me if you opened the pdf?
Is this information incorrect?  Why or why not.
I opened it and I find nothing wrong with the data.  Note the units of the plot.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 01, 2018, 11:06:58 PM
I will remind everyone that the CraTer data revealed that the orbital lunar radiation was higher than expected because the neutron flux coming from the moon elevated levels above background GCR levels 30 to 40 percent.  The depth of penetration of the incoming flux of GCR is such that that the surface has to be radioactive to generate the neutron flux that raised levels that high.  Explain how you think this flux is possible without the surface being radioactive.

Yet you disregard that very data when it conflicts with your ignorance? 

I have given you the data from your own reference that shows it is in complete harmony with the exposure the Apollo astronauts received.  The neutrons are a secondary radiation event from the GCR strikes.  They ARE radioactive particles, but rarely, if ever become does the collision result in a radioactive element.  So, the surface is radioactive in the sense that there are radioactive particles produced by the GCRs, but it is not radioactive in the sense that it is abundant with radioactive elements (which could be a concern if they had a long half-life).

Again, the CraTer data has given you the dose levels that are under the range of average daily dose rates for the Apollo 11 astronauts.  This was your original objection.  Now you are trying to move the goalposts?  Into territories you have already shown no competence in?  Is that REALLY the kind of argument you want to put forth?  And you STILL haven't addressed the LEO exposure and why you disregard it as it relates to their overall daily dose average.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 01, 2018, 11:09:46 PM
There seems to be a concerted effort to distract the conversation away from the pertinent facts.  Data indicates orbit and lunar radiation levels are roughly 35% higher than background GCR levels.  CraTer data taken over the full span of a solar cycle show background radiation levels in excess of .3 mgy/day.  A transit through the VAB on any path is in excess of cislunar GCR levels.  How is it possible that Apollo 11 had a dose rate of .22 mgy/day.  This is complex math requiring and advanced degree in rocket science so I am going to need help on this one.

That is a blatant lie.  I showed you where to look for the data, and you can see for yourself, that it encompasses looooooong swaths of the provided timeline.  Why are you ignoring facts?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 01, 2018, 11:11:07 PM
Well,  a new quarter has started and I have a fresh new quota for self-righteous, blow hards.  Let's do this!

I'll lead off with a few facts for your consideration.

The current solar cycle began on January 4, 2008, with minimal activity until early 2010. It is on track to have the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750. The cycle featured a "double-peaked" solar maximum. The first peak reached 99 in 2011 and the second in early 2014 at 101. It appears likely that Cycle 24 will end in mid-2018.
This is the graph of dose rate taken by the CraTer Satellite that has been monitoring lunar radiation since 2009.  It is obvious to the casual observer that the background radiation exposure was fairly flat throughout the solar cycle punctuated by SPE events.  It can be deduced by the by even the dullest of intellects that a lunar mission would have as a minimum this background radiation of approximately .3 mgy/day.  Apollo 11 had a .22 mgy/day dose rate.  This is only possible if it never left ELO.


http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&screenheight=&screenwidth=

Let us look at that data, shall we?  Without the spikes for SPE, the lunar daily average measures less than .05 cGy, which is .5mGy/day.  Fair enough, BUT to be realistic, you can look at the specific data for 2013 which is within the peaks, and thus correlates to the same approximate Sun activity period during which Apollo 11 traveled.  Look at those non-SPR numbers,
(from http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/data/2017085/doserates_standard_2017085_alldays_allevents.txt) and you get data that is consistent from day to day:

"2456335.104166   2013   42   2013.1139840   1.333   0.734   1.000   1.8702e-02   1.7726e-02   1.8333e-02   1.0221e-02   1.5785e-02   9.0085e-03   1.5598e-02   9.2391e-03   1.6074e-02
2456335.145833   2013   42   2013.1140982   1.333   0.761   1.000   1.8404e-02   1.9054e-02   1.8450e-02   9.7684e-03   1.6187e-02   1.0216e-02   1.5965e-02   9.4166e-03   1.6368e-02
2456335.187500   2013   42   2013.1142123   1.333   0.738   1.000   1.7298e-02   1.7642e-02   1.9122e-02   8.9207e-03   1.5822e-02   8.9500e-03   1.5526e-02   1.0296e-02   1.6089e-02
2456335.229166   2013   42   2013.1143265   1.333   0.756   1.000   1.8975e-02   1.8092e-02   1.9896e-02   1.0249e-02   1.6089e-02   9.1526e-03   1.6310e-02   1.0720e-02   1.6458e-02
2456335.270833   2013   42   2013.1144406   1.333   0.742   1.000   1.8276e-02   1.7111e-02   1.8640e-02   9.6895e-03   1.5953e-02   8.3184e-03   1.5481e-02   9.7308e-03   1.6527e-02"

Now, that is a RANDOMLY picked 5 day window from 2013.  The HIGHEST dose rate recorded is .019896cGy/day, or .19896mGy/day, and the LOWEST is .0083184cGy/day, or .083184mGy/day.

Those numbers fit very neatly UNDER the Apollo 11 daily dose for their whole trip.  And just to put the slam dunk on your confusion, you STILL have failed to account for their time in LEO, which is part  of their mission exposure, and which also resulted in MUCH lower dose rates for the duration of that potion of the mission.
I am not sure you are looking at the units for the CraTer data correctly or maybe I am not.  I thought it was in cgy/day.

YOU are not.  Look at the units to the left of the graph.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 11:11:32 PM
Well,  a new quarter has started and I have a fresh new quota for self-righteous, blow hards.  Let's do this!

I'll lead off with a few facts for your consideration.

The current solar cycle began on January 4, 2008, with minimal activity until early 2010. It is on track to have the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750. The cycle featured a "double-peaked" solar maximum. The first peak reached 99 in 2011 and the second in early 2014 at 101. It appears likely that Cycle 24 will end in mid-2018.
This is the graph of dose rate taken by the CraTer Satellite that has been monitoring lunar radiation since 2009.  It is obvious to the casual observer that the background radiation exposure was fairly flat throughout the solar cycle punctuated by SPE events.  It can be deduced by the by even the dullest of intellects that a lunar mission would have as a minimum this background radiation of approximately .3 mgy/day.  Apollo 11 had a .22 mgy/day dose rate.  This is only possible if it never left ELO.


http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&screenheight=&screenwidth=

Let us look at that data, shall we?  Without the spikes for SPE, the lunar daily average measures less than .05 cGy, which is .5mGy/day.  Fair enough, BUT to be realistic, you can look at the specific data for 2013 which is within the peaks, and thus correlates to the same approximate Sun activity period during which Apollo 11 traveled.  Look at those non-SPR numbers,
(from http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/data/2017085/doserates_standard_2017085_alldays_allevents.txt) and you get data that is consistent from day to day:

"2456335.104166   2013   42   2013.1139840   1.333   0.734   1.000   1.8702e-02   1.7726e-02   1.8333e-02   1.0221e-02   1.5785e-02   9.0085e-03   1.5598e-02   9.2391e-03   1.6074e-02
2456335.145833   2013   42   2013.1140982   1.333   0.761   1.000   1.8404e-02   1.9054e-02   1.8450e-02   9.7684e-03   1.6187e-02   1.0216e-02   1.5965e-02   9.4166e-03   1.6368e-02
2456335.187500   2013   42   2013.1142123   1.333   0.738   1.000   1.7298e-02   1.7642e-02   1.9122e-02   8.9207e-03   1.5822e-02   8.9500e-03   1.5526e-02   1.0296e-02   1.6089e-02
2456335.229166   2013   42   2013.1143265   1.333   0.756   1.000   1.8975e-02   1.8092e-02   1.9896e-02   1.0249e-02   1.6089e-02   9.1526e-03   1.6310e-02   1.0720e-02   1.6458e-02
2456335.270833   2013   42   2013.1144406   1.333   0.742   1.000   1.8276e-02   1.7111e-02   1.8640e-02   9.6895e-03   1.5953e-02   8.3184e-03   1.5481e-02   9.7308e-03   1.6527e-02"

Now, that is a RANDOMLY picked 5 day window from 2013.  The HIGHEST dose rate recorded is .019896cGy/day, or .19896mGy/day, and the LOWEST is .0083184cGy/day, or .083184mGy/day.

Those numbers fit very neatly UNDER the Apollo 11 daily dose for their whole trip.  And just to put the slam dunk on your confusion, you STILL have failed to account for their time in LEO, which is part  of their mission exposure, and which also resulted in MUCH lower dose rates for the duration of that potion of the mission.
Was it lost on you the fact that the graph I provide was an average of all the CraTer detectors?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 01, 2018, 11:13:39 PM
Tim, you must have cherry picked CRaTER data, because according to this report from NASA states on page 8.
Hypothetical mission doses for solar min.
Apollo-like
1 week
.007 Sv
Manageable

Does seem that high to me and from the data recorded from the missions your estimate that it is too low seems to be incorrect.


https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/DataUsersWorkshop/CRaTER.pdf



http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&s

This iis a plot of the CraTer Data from it's inception till 2017.  8 years worth.  Look at the curve and tell me I misread it.

You misread it where it counts the most.  Please re-read post #586, as it tells you exactly how far off you are in relation to Apollo 11.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 01, 2018, 11:17:05 PM
There seems to be a concerted effort to distract the conversation away from the pertinent facts.  Data indicates orbit and lunar radiation levels are roughly 35% higher than background GCR levels.  CraTer data taken over the full span of a solar cycle show background radiation levels in excess of .3 mgy/day.  A transit through the VAB on any path is in excess of cislunar GCR levels.  How is it possible that Apollo 11 had a dose rate of .22 mgy/day.  This is complex math requiring and advanced degree in rocket science so I am going to need help on this one.

No, there is no distraction. Your cherry picking and analysis of numbers have been answered in reply #586 and #598.

You have taken the full span of the solar cycle which is approximately 11 years long? Why would you do this when Apollo missions occurred during the peak of the solar cycle with a duration of a few days. If you take a window in the CRaTER data that is representative of the Apollo missions, the daily dose is representative of that recorded in the literature (reply #586).

By taking a complete solar cycle you are including GCR fluxes that are not representative of Apollo. You need to use data that is representative of a mission that lasts a few day at a point that is representative of the solar cycle for the Apollo missions. You do now the link between GCR flux and solar cycle I take it?

I've also answered this by explaining to you that CRaTER scientists have explained the radiation dose of the moon is not of concern to astronauts during an Apollo like mission, and have done so using scientific articles intended for the lay person; which make direct comparison to those that work in roles with increased levels of radiation.

As for the distraction, no I do not accept this. The answers given to you so far are also pertinent to your claim that the moon is made radioactive by irradiation from GCR. You have revealed that know little of the nuclear physics involved. You have to provide evidence for your claim that GCR exposure leads to 'dangerous radioactive' materials, which is also central to your claim. You made that argument, not us, so be ready to answer questions pertinent to that claim. Your tactic of claiming distraction is used frequently by conspiracy theorists when they cannot answer questions that relate to wider expertise that surrounds their claims.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 11:19:16 PM
Let us do a quick recap.  A lunar transit consist of a trip Trough the VAB plus a trip through cislunar space plus an orbit around the moon and finally a moon landing.  Then the return trip.  Cislunar space is the lowest radiation area in this trip.  It is unreasonable to think that Apollo 11 mission dose is above cislunar space levels let alone representative of a transit through the VAB and a lunar landing. It wouldn't work even if you took the VAB transit out of the picture.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 01, 2018, 11:21:06 PM
Well,  a new quarter has started and I have a fresh new quota for self-righteous, blow hards.  Let's do this!

I'll lead off with a few facts for your consideration.

The current solar cycle began on January 4, 2008, with minimal activity until early 2010. It is on track to have the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750. The cycle featured a "double-peaked" solar maximum. The first peak reached 99 in 2011 and the second in early 2014 at 101. It appears likely that Cycle 24 will end in mid-2018.
This is the graph of dose rate taken by the CraTer Satellite that has been monitoring lunar radiation since 2009.  It is obvious to the casual observer that the background radiation exposure was fairly flat throughout the solar cycle punctuated by SPE events.  It can be deduced by the by even the dullest of intellects that a lunar mission would have as a minimum this background radiation of approximately .3 mgy/day.  Apollo 11 had a .22 mgy/day dose rate.  This is only possible if it never left ELO.


http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&screenheight=&screenwidth=

Let us look at that data, shall we?  Without the spikes for SPE, the lunar daily average measures less than .05 cGy, which is .5mGy/day.  Fair enough, BUT to be realistic, you can look at the specific data for 2013 which is within the peaks, and thus correlates to the same approximate Sun activity period during which Apollo 11 traveled.  Look at those non-SPR numbers,
(from http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/data/2017085/doserates_standard_2017085_alldays_allevents.txt) and you get data that is consistent from day to day:

"2456335.104166   2013   42   2013.1139840   1.333   0.734   1.000   1.8702e-02   1.7726e-02   1.8333e-02   1.0221e-02   1.5785e-02   9.0085e-03   1.5598e-02   9.2391e-03   1.6074e-02
2456335.145833   2013   42   2013.1140982   1.333   0.761   1.000   1.8404e-02   1.9054e-02   1.8450e-02   9.7684e-03   1.6187e-02   1.0216e-02   1.5965e-02   9.4166e-03   1.6368e-02
2456335.187500   2013   42   2013.1142123   1.333   0.738   1.000   1.7298e-02   1.7642e-02   1.9122e-02   8.9207e-03   1.5822e-02   8.9500e-03   1.5526e-02   1.0296e-02   1.6089e-02
2456335.229166   2013   42   2013.1143265   1.333   0.756   1.000   1.8975e-02   1.8092e-02   1.9896e-02   1.0249e-02   1.6089e-02   9.1526e-03   1.6310e-02   1.0720e-02   1.6458e-02
2456335.270833   2013   42   2013.1144406   1.333   0.742   1.000   1.8276e-02   1.7111e-02   1.8640e-02   9.6895e-03   1.5953e-02   8.3184e-03   1.5481e-02   9.7308e-03   1.6527e-02"

Now, that is a RANDOMLY picked 5 day window from 2013.  The HIGHEST dose rate recorded is .019896cGy/day, or .19896mGy/day, and the LOWEST is .0083184cGy/day, or .083184mGy/day.

Those numbers fit very neatly UNDER the Apollo 11 daily dose for their whole trip.  And just to put the slam dunk on your confusion, you STILL have failed to account for their time in LEO, which is part  of their mission exposure, and which also resulted in MUCH lower dose rates for the duration of that potion of the mission.
Was it lost on you the fact that the graph I provide was an average of all the CraTer detectors?

No.  But you got lost in the fact that the data I retrieved is from the GCR portion of "For rates split by Solar Energetic Particle Events (SPE) and Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR):"  which is included in your reference just below the graph.  It is divided up into what each of the six detectors registered each day.  Why are you arguing when you cannot fathom the data within your own references?  And how about that LEO exposure?

And, since you can't seem to figure this out by yourself, I must repeat - the HIGHEST levels recorded during those time spans were below the Apollo 11 averages, so the averages of ALL the detectors would be even lower.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 01, 2018, 11:23:56 PM
Let us do a quick recap.  A lunar transit consist of a trip Trough the VAB plus a trip through cislunar space plus an orbit around the moon and finally a moon landing.  Then the return trip.  Cislunar space is the lowest radiation area in this trip.  It is unreasonable to think that Apollo 11 mission dose is above cislunar space levels let alone representative of a transit through the VAB and a lunar landing. It wouldn't work even if you took the VAB transit out of the picture.

And some time in LEO, which you conveniently omit.  And I have shown your own data refutes the levels in cislunar space as being higher than they were.  The only thing unreasonable is your obtuse logic.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 11:26:19 PM
The question that looms on the horizon is a simple one.  Is Apollo 11's mission dose commensurate with an 8 day LEO mission or is it way too high fto support that assertion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 01, 2018, 11:29:38 PM
The question that looms on the horizon is a simple one.  Is Apollo 11's mission dose commensurate with an 8 day LEO mission or is it way too high fto support that assertion.

And I have answered it.  There is no problem whatsoever.  What specifically (beyond your own hubris) causes you to ignore that?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 01, 2018, 11:31:27 PM
The question that looms on the horizon is a simple one.  Is Apollo 11's mission dose commensurate with an 8 day LEO mission or is it way too high fto support that assertion.

Let's deal with the other questions first. Do you now understand the data that you cited, which MBDK has kindly helped with, and do you know why you need to use GCR fluxes that are pertinent to a peak in the solar cycle, rather than over a complete cycle?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 11:32:37 PM
Apollo 9 had a daily dose of .20 and did not transit the vab or land on the moon.  Am I expected to believe there is no radiation on the moon or in the VAB.  How can the two missions have essentially the same dose rate?  How does that work in your mind?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 11:35:26 PM
The question that looms on the horizon is a simple one.  Is Apollo 11's mission dose commensurate with an 8 day LEO mission or is it way too high fto support that assertion.

Let's deal with the other questions first. Do you now understand the data that you cited, which MBDK has kindly helped with, and do you know why you need to use GCR fluxes that are pertinent to a peak in the solar cycle, rather than over a complete cycle?
When you average out the CraTer detector's readings, there is no point during the entire solar cycle less than the Apollo 11's daily dose.  How can you theorize that it should not be at least as high as cislunar background?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 01, 2018, 11:35:44 PM
Apollo 9 had a daily dose of .20 and did not transit the vab or land on the moon.  Am I expected to believe there is no radiation on the moon or in the VAB.  How can the two missions have essentially the same dose rate?  How does that work in your mind?

Again, that depends on their orbit (SAA transits?) and date of launch in regards to solar activity.  Why don't you answer my questions instead of trying to move the goalpost?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 01, 2018, 11:37:16 PM
The question that looms on the horizon is a simple one.  Is Apollo 11's mission dose commensurate with an 8 day LEO mission or is it way too high fto support that assertion.

Let's deal with the other questions first. Do you now understand the data that you cited, which MBDK has kindly helped with, and do you know why you need to use GCR fluxes that are pertinent to a peak in the solar cycle, rather than over a complete cycle?
When you average out the CraTer detector's readings, there is no point during the entire solar cycle less than the Apollo 11's daily dose.  How can you theorize that it should not be at least as high as cislunar background?

It is irrelevant as the data does not agree with your ignorant presumtion.  It REFUTES it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 11:40:28 PM
We are beating a dead horse and making no headway.  Let's try a different tactic.  Is it safe to assume the radiation levels for the majority of the transit through the VAB are at least as high as the SAA?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 01, 2018, 11:41:43 PM
Please answer my questions previously posed.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 11:43:42 PM
Ask the question again.  I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 01, 2018, 11:46:54 PM
We are beating a dead horse and making no headway.  Let's try a different tactic.  Is it safe to assume the radiation levels for the majority of the transit through the VAB are at least as high as the SAA?

Why did you take an average over an entire solar cycle when there is a clear link between GCR flux and solar cycle? Do you understand the link between the solar cycle and GCR flux and why this question is pertinent to making headway in context of the data that MBDK has presented? This question is central to your claim, so let us not change tactic to suit, then maybe we can make headway.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 11:50:17 PM
I did not take an average over the whole cycle.  I used the average of all the detectors.  The plot shows the average reading of all the detectors over the span of the entire solar cycle and not once did levels ever go below the Apollo's daily dose.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 01, 2018, 11:52:25 PM
Ask the question again.  I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.

Alright, I will rephrase the most important one.  I have given you in post #586, a RANDOM sampling of the data taken during the peak solar activities (remember Apollo 11 went to the Moon during the same phase of the Sun's activity) of your referenced graph (albeit in the separate GCR format provided below the graph), which is in the year 2013.  That RANDOM 5 days of data correlates to exposures easily below .22mGy/day.  A look at the dates well before and after the ones I provided are consistent with that data.  This directly contradicts your claim that the radiation levels were higher that .22mGy/day.  Do you now recognize the error in your assumtions?  If not, SPECIFICALLY why not?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 11:53:17 PM
The CraTer data is empirical proof that the Apollo's mission dose rate is to low to have made a lunar transit.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 01, 2018, 11:56:48 PM
I did not take an average over the whole cycle.

It is obvious to the casual observer that the background radiation exposure was fairly flat throughout the solar cycle punctuated by SPE events.  It can be deduced by the by even the dullest of intellects that a lunar mission would have as a minimum this background radiation of approximately .3 mgy/day.  Apollo 11 had a .22 mgy/day dose rate.  This is only possible if it never left ELO.

But you said it was fairly flat throughout the cycle, that's essentially taking an average by visual inspection of a graph. You made the assumption that you could simply read off a graph rather than interrogate the data in detail. That's the difference between your approach and the approach of MBDK.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 01, 2018, 11:57:19 PM
Ask the question again.  I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.

Alright, I will rephrase the most important one.  I have given you in post #586, a RANDOM sampling of the data taken during the peak solar activities (remember Apollo 11 went to the Moon during the same phase of the Sun's activity) of your referenced graph (albeit in the separate GCR format provided below the graph), which is in the year 2013.  That RANDOM 5 days of data correlates to exposures easily below .22mGy/day.  A look at the dates well before and after the ones I provided are consistent with that data.  This directly contradicts your claim that the radiation levels were higher that .22mGy/day.  Do you now recognize the error in your assumtions?  If not, SPECIFICALLY why not?
Look at the graph of the averaged detector's readings.  Is there any point on that graph that goes below .22?  If there is, I don't see it.  Now assuming there is such a point is it low enough to compensate for the higher lundar radiation and the transit through the VAB?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 01, 2018, 11:57:45 PM
The CraTer data is empirical proof that the Apollo's mission dose rate is to low to have made a lunar transit.

I have pointed out just the opposite.  You are now just trolling.  I will give you one last gasp, though.  What units are the graph in regarding radiation exposure?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 12:01:14 AM
I did not take an average over the whole cycle.

It is obvious to the casual observer that the background radiation exposure was fairly flat throughout the solar cycle punctuated by SPE events.  It can be deduced by the by even the dullest of intellects that a lunar mission would have as a minimum this background radiation of approximately .3 mgy/day.  Apollo 11 had a .22 mgy/day dose rate.  This is only possible if it never left ELO.



But you said it was fairly flat throughout the cycle, that's essentially taking an average by visual inspection of a graph. You made the assumption that you could simply read off a graph rather than interrogate the data in detail. That's the difference between your approach and the approach of MBDK.

Data from the Apollo era stated the range of GCR fluctuated from a low point at Solar maximum of .2 mgy/day to a maximum of 2.5 times that at solar minimum which is a considerable variation.  Comparatively speaking the CraTer data does show such a deviation and is relatively flat over the entire solar cycle.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 02, 2018, 12:02:02 AM
I did not take an average over the whole cycle.

It is obvious to the casual observer that the background radiation exposure was fairly flat throughout the solar cycle punctuated by SPE events.  It can be deduced by the by even the dullest of intellects that a lunar mission would have as a minimum this background radiation of approximately .3 mgy/day.  Apollo 11 had a .22 mgy/day dose rate.  This is only possible if it never left ELO.

But you said it was fairly flat throughout the cycle, that's essentially taking an average by visual inspection of a graph. You made the assumption that you could simply read off a graph rather than interrogate the data in detail. That's the difference between your approach and the approach of MBDK.

Oh no.  Now he has entered the "it just doesn't look right to me" realm, as the graph clearly corresponds with the specific data I retrieved, which just happens to be the very data the graph was drawn from.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 12:02:07 AM
Ask the question again.  I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.

Alright, I will rephrase the most important one.  I have given you in post #586, a RANDOM sampling of the data taken during the peak solar activities (remember Apollo 11 went to the Moon during the same phase of the Sun's activity) of your referenced graph (albeit in the separate GCR format provided below the graph), which is in the year 2013.  That RANDOM 5 days of data correlates to exposures easily below .22mGy/day.  A look at the dates well before and after the ones I provided are consistent with that data.  This directly contradicts your claim that the radiation levels were higher that .22mGy/day.  Do you now recognize the error in your assumtions?  If not, SPECIFICALLY why not?

Further, is it a fair assumption to use a recent cycle and extrapolate that data for a different solar cycle? One solar cycle is different to another solar cycle as there is an underlying periodic fluctuation in the solar cycle activity.

This question is are directed at timfinch, not you MBDK.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 12:03:33 AM
The CraTer data is empirical proof that the Apollo's mission dose rate is to low to have made a lunar transit.

I have pointed out just the opposite.  You are now just trolling.  I will give you one last gasp, though.  What units are the graph in regarding radiation exposure?
You first.  Answer my question.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 12:04:35 AM
Data from the Apollo era stated the range of GCR fluctuated from a low point at Solar maximum of .2 mgy/day to a maximum of 2.5 times that at solar minimum which is a considerable variation.  Comparatively speaking the CraTer data does show such a deviation and is relatively flat over the entire solar cycle.

Comparatively speaking. What does that mean?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 02, 2018, 12:05:32 AM
Ask the question again.  I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.

Alright, I will rephrase the most important one.  I have given you in post #586, a RANDOM sampling of the data taken during the peak solar activities (remember Apollo 11 went to the Moon during the same phase of the Sun's activity) of your referenced graph (albeit in the separate GCR format provided below the graph), which is in the year 2013.  That RANDOM 5 days of data correlates to exposures easily below .22mGy/day.  A look at the dates well before and after the ones I provided are consistent with that data.  This directly contradicts your claim that the radiation levels were higher that .22mGy/day.  Do you now recognize the error in your assumtions?  If not, SPECIFICALLY why not?

Further, is it a fair assumption to use a recent cycle and extrapolate that data for a different solar cycle? One solar cycle is different to another solar cycle as there is an underlying periodic fluctuation in the solar cycle activity.

This question is are directed at timfinch, not you MBDK.

I agree 100%, but since he provided the data, I just wanted to point out that even his own reference did not support his erroneous conclusion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 12:06:49 AM
I did not take an average over the whole cycle.

It is obvious to the casual observer that the background radiation exposure was fairly flat throughout the solar cycle punctuated by SPE events.  It can be deduced by the by even the dullest of intellects that a lunar mission would have as a minimum this background radiation of approximately .3 mgy/day.  Apollo 11 had a .22 mgy/day dose rate.  This is only possible if it never left ELO.

But you said it was fairly flat throughout the cycle, that's essentially taking an average by visual inspection of a graph. You made the assumption that you could simply read off a graph rather than interrogate the data in detail. That's the difference between your approach and the approach of MBDK.

Oh no.  Now he has entered the "it just doesn't look right to me" realm, as the graph clearly corresponds with the specific data I retrieved, which just happens to be the very data the graph was drawn from.

You mean that the data you cited was used to draw the graph, and detailed interrogation of that data shows that we cannot assume that the variation in GCR is flat?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 12:09:18 AM
I agree 100%, but since he provided the data, I just wanted to point out that even his own reference did not support his erroneous conclusion.

I understand your approach, there's nothing like using a person's own data to refute their own claims  ;)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 02, 2018, 12:10:42 AM
The CraTer data is empirical proof that the Apollo's mission dose rate is to low to have made a lunar transit.

I have pointed out just the opposite.  You are now just trolling.  I will give you one last gasp, though.  What units are the graph in regarding radiation exposure?
You first.  Answer my question.

Not playing games here.  Your own reference unquestionably (to a reasonable person) shows your .22mGy/day claim to be absolutely false.  Are you honorable enough to admit that, or are you just going to troll some more?  My point has been made.  Clearly.  Unless you want to continue in a logical manner, and are willing to confront the facts, I have better things to do.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 02, 2018, 12:11:29 AM
I did not take an average over the whole cycle.

It is obvious to the casual observer that the background radiation exposure was fairly flat throughout the solar cycle punctuated by SPE events.  It can be deduced by the by even the dullest of intellects that a lunar mission would have as a minimum this background radiation of approximately .3 mgy/day.  Apollo 11 had a .22 mgy/day dose rate.  This is only possible if it never left ELO.

But you said it was fairly flat throughout the cycle, that's essentially taking an average by visual inspection of a graph. You made the assumption that you could simply read off a graph rather than interrogate the data in detail. That's the difference between your approach and the approach of MBDK.

Oh no.  Now he has entered the "it just doesn't look right to me" realm, as the graph clearly corresponds with the specific data I retrieved, which just happens to be the very data the graph was drawn from.

You mean that the data you cited was used to draw the graph, and detailed interrogation of that data shows that we cannot assume that the variation in GCR is flat?

That sums it up quite well.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 12:15:00 AM
The CraTer data is empirical proof that the Apollo's mission dose rate is to low to have made a lunar transit.

I have pointed out just the opposite.  You are now just trolling.  I will give you one last gasp, though.  What units are the graph in regarding radiation exposure?
You first.  Answer my question.

Not playing games here.  Your own reference unquestionably (to a reasonable person) shows your .22mGy/day claim to be absolutely false.  Are you honorable enough to admit that, or are you just going to troll some more?  My point has been made.  Clearly.  Unless you want to continue in a logical manner, and are willing to confront the facts, I have better things to do.

.22 mgy/day is false?  What are you talking about.  That is the stated mission dose rate of Apollo 11.  How can you say that is false?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 02, 2018, 12:16:10 AM
More juvenile games.  Time to go.  I may check back in later.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 12:18:14 AM
I will concede this silly discussion if anyone can show me a reputable site that states a Cislunar GCR rating of less than .2 mgy/day at anytime in history.  If it has ever been lower than .2 then my argument falls as false.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 12:19:52 AM
More juvenile games.  Time to go.  I may check back in later.  Cheers!

You shouldn't have gone into the deep end of the pool.  There is danger in deep water.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 12:47:04 AM
No takers?  House of cards built on blind faith and nothing more.  When the truth finally comes out, and it will.  You guys are going to fell as gullible as I already think you are.  The energy you use to defend those that deceive you is admirable.  Remember what old Tim always says.  You cannot learn if you already know.  The only way you grasp something new is to let go of something old.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 12:58:03 AM
I will concede this silly discussion if anyone can show me a reputable site that states a Cislunar GCR rating of less than .2 mgy/day at anytime in history.  If it has ever been lower than .2 then my argument falls as false.

You've been shown from your own data that levels can fall below 0.2 mGy/day.

Further, if you look at the veracity of your own claims, Apollo 14 dose rates were 1.27 mGy/day. What does this tell you about the variation of radiation levels in cislunar space within a solar cycle?

Finally, surely you need data from solar cycle 20 and not solar cycle 24 if you want to test your 'anytime in history claim.' Your argument of extrapolation falls flat given the variations that exist in the background GCR.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 01:19:28 AM
I will concede this silly discussion if anyone can show me a reputable site that states a Cislunar GCR rating of less than .2 mgy/day at anytime in history.  If it has ever been lower than .2 then my argument falls as false.

You've been shown from your own data that levels can fall below 0.2 mGy/day.

Further, if you look at the veracity of your own claims, Apollo 14 dose rates were 1.27 mGy/day. What does this tell you about the variation of radiation levels in cislunar space within a solar cycle?

Finally, surely you need data from solar cycle 20 and not solar cycle 24 if you want to test your 'anytime in history claim.' Your argument of extrapolation falls flat given the variations that exist in the background GCR.

Luke, you are sadly mistaken.  There is not a single point in the CraTer data less than .20.  You only have to look at the LEO missions to see that all the apollo lunar missions are well within the range of LEO missions.  That single fact should raise the curiosity in a reasonable intelligent person.  NASA itself quotes the lowest GCR ever recorded is .2 mgy/day.  Search all you want but you will not find it.  But if you should then I will acknowledge defeat and leave this subject to you who are obviously more intelligent than myself.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 01:59:15 AM
Luke, you are sadly mistaken.  There is not a single point in the CraTer data less than .20.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 02:12:06 AM
.22 mgy/day is false?  What are you talking about.  That is the stated mission dose rate of Apollo 11.  How can you say that is false?

He's not saying the stated dose of 0.22 mGy/day for Apollo 11 is false, he's saying that your claim of radiation in cislunar space never being less that 0.22 mG/day is false.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 02, 2018, 02:18:21 AM
Any high energy particle with the energy to split an atom can cause the creation of a radioactive isotope that in turn
gives off a neuton that can cause an additional isotope formation.

Now for that gotcha moment. So any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom undergoes this mechanism, every single one? You're telling me that every single GCR with the energy to split a nucleus, will induce fission and produce secondary neutrons and produce radioactive isotopes, or are you saying that any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom has the potential to undergo this mechanism. Be clear what I am asking you here, as I am looking for a clear distinction.

In any case, the primary point is that the secondary radiation created by GCR is no more than that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technician in a year. Your notion that the moon's surface is a barren radioactive wasteland that is not survivable is wrong. A point you seemed to wash over.

I am not telling you every interaction produces the fission of an atom, What I am telling you is the possibility exist at the energy levels of protons of GCR to cause fission.  It does not matter if the resultant radiation is lethal to people in the short term or even the long term.  What is important is the fact that it is radioactive.  The implications are far reaching.  If moon dust is radioactive then the samples are forgeries.  If the samples are forgeries then the landing was faked.  Do I need to continue?

What makes you think no radioactive material was recorded in Apollo samples?

The Space Suit Neil Armstrong was on display in museums and schools for years.  It was heavily coated with dust which should have been radioactive.  If it had been then it would not have been on public display.  I have researched for months looking for any indication that lunar regolith is radioactive and have found nothing.  There is indications of low levels of radiation in moon rocks but nothing on lunar dust.

Oh, come now. As was pointed out upthread, bananas are technically radioactive; they have measurable activity of about 1 microsievert, mostly beta decay of k40. So is a granite countertop. Neither are labeled or controlled or considered hazardous. There is nothing that prevents an Apollo sample from both having activity and being on display in a museum.

Nor is radioactivity a singular measure for any sample. Half-life, you know. The significance of the level of activated lunar soil is that most of the isotopes are short-lived. There's some nice prompt neutron emission but that doesn't mean the stuff continues at that level for the next thousand years.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 04:03:09 AM
Luke, you are sadly mistaken.  There is not a single point in the CraTer data less than .20. 

Yes there is. You've been given it, and you can see it in the actual data. Your inability to read a graph with a logarithmic axis, and refusal to look at the actual numbers the grapha is based on, is the problem here.

Quote
NASA itself quotes the lowest GCR ever recorded is .2 mgy/day.

No it doesn't. Your own data that you used to try and support your argument diagrees with this. Look at the actual numbers. Why are you so insistent in your refusal to do it?

Furthermore, as has been pointed out already multiple times, solar cycle 24 was noted as being unusually low in terms of activity even in solar maximum. Solar cycle 20, the one that actualy is relevant to Apollo, was a more active cycle, which would push the GRC level down still lower than the data you present for cycle 24.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 02, 2018, 06:06:59 AM
Why are you so insistent in your refusal to do it?

Because he'd have to admit that he's not the holder of some special arcane knowledge that lifts the curtain on the wizard, and would have to acknowledge that he's just a (retired) ordinary Joe with an ordinary life like the rest of us schmucks. No, it's far better to maintain a delusion that you are somehow cleverer than all those smart people that worked out how to actually put people on the Moon.

Conspiracism is the ultimate intellectual fallacy.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 11:44:24 AM
What do you guys make of the NASA radiation model compared to empirical data from the MSL/Rad mission?  Now remember this is the model NASA uses to plan space missions.



https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/5_Slaba_NAC_042015_v6_TAGGED.pdf
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 11:51:34 AM
Now remember this is the model NASA uses to plan space missions.

Very interesting, as it clearly shows cycle 20 was clearly a more active time for the sun, which would have reduced the dose values described in the CRaTER data further.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 12:01:20 PM
What do you guys make of the NASA radiation model compared to empirical data from the MSL/Rad mission?  Now remember this is the model NASA uses to plan space missions.

It's a model used in risk assessment of ISS missions and the design of space vehicles that enter deep space.

How does it apply to a short duration manned mission, such as Apollo?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 02, 2018, 12:01:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 12:07:54 PM
Easter isn't even a holiday in my religion, and I had plans yesterday.


.... with men and other women  :-X
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 12:12:51 PM
What do you guys make of the NASA radiation model compared to empirical data from the MSL/Rad mission?  Now remember this is the model NASA uses to plan space missions.

It's a model used in risk assessment of ISS missions and the design of space vehicles that enter deep space.

How does it apply to a short duration manned mission, such as Apollo?
The path to the moon is through deep space?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 12:15:27 PM
The path to the moon is through deep space?

No it's not. It's through cislunar space. The Earth's magnetosphere has influence on the radiation environment on the far side of the Moon and beyond.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 12:18:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 12:23:19 PM
The path to the moon is through deep space?

No it's not. It's through cislunar space. The Earth's magnetosphere has influence on the radiation environment on the far side of the Moon and beyond.

I just read that scientist originally thought the tail of earth's magnetosphere should partially shield the moon from GCR flux but it turns out it provides no shielding to the high energy flux of GCR whatsoever and this is born out by the CraTer data.  Cislunar space is deep space.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 02, 2018, 12:32:16 PM
I am not a Conspiracy Theorist.

erm...... Yes you are.
You are suggesting that the Apollo missions did not happen as described in the historical canon. Your "evidence" for that claim is a single thread. You have been shown where your errors lie in your analysis, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. You engage in childish name-calling. You flounced when the debate became a little too much. You are trying to base ideas in an area where you have admitted no professional capacity in and refuse to accept the view of those that have operated in that area. All these are par for the course for conspiracy theorist.
You might not consider yourself to be a believer in conspiracism, but you are only kidding yourself. You are passing the Duck Test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test) with flying colours...you might think that you are making sense, but where most people are standing all they are hearing is a lot of quacking.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 12:34:46 PM
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.

You didn't interpret the CRaTER graph properly (for whatever reason); that's one reason in a multitude of reasons why you can't make the numbers work. As pointed out by Jason and eluded to by others, it's a logarithmic scale so you can't judge the graph as being essentially flat. You've been pointed to the data, shown the data and had the data analysed for you. You've been asked to make links with the solar cycle and GCR, and how you can extrapolate data from cycle 24 to 20, and you've not answered that question. There are no shields raised, there is no defensive posture. You've shown a complete lack of understanding for nuclear physics.

What you need to understand about this forum is that you will be questioned in a Socrastic manner by some members to determine your level of expertise.

There are people here who are qualified aerospace engineers, biologists, chemists, geologists, photographers, electrical engineers, programmers, communication engineers. We have other long standing valued members such as Gillianren who has no formal background in science, but her degree(s) and background brings different skills and expertise to the forum. We have members without degrees who have encyclopedic knowledge of Apollo and how the various engineering systems worked. You even have humble physicists like me, how have studied space radiation. Expect a hard time if you can't get the numbers to work, particularly when you have been shown and cattle-prodded in the right direction.

If you have no level of expertise then you can 'follow the truth' all you like, but you won't get to the truth as you need that expertise. If you can't make the numbers work, does that mean the numbers must be false or is it possible that you simply have the wrong answer? Has the latter thought entered your mind?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 12:39:59 PM
I just read that scientist originally thought the tail of earth's magnetosphere should partially shield the moon from GCR flux but it turns out it provides no shielding to the high energy flux of GCR whatsoever.

So it partially shields the moon from low energy GCR then?  :o

Quote
... and this is born out by the CraTer data.

Argument by fallacy of strawman. No one has said that there is no GCR on lunar transit, and I did no imply this with my cislunar versus deep space point. I accept that there is a GCR flux on a trans lunar mission. I do not accept your interpretation of the CRaTER data, nor your crude extrapolation to cycle 20.


Quote
Cislunar space is deep space.

I beg to differ.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 02, 2018, 12:41:40 PM
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.

No, you are trolling.  The data YOU provided has been shown to directly contradict your position.  The numbers are still there to be seen, and the graph MATCHES that data.  And despite repeated requests for SPECIFIC explanations as to why you would disregard them, you claim, with nothing but a hand wave, that the facts I just mentioned do not exist.  It has also been explained why your data can be considered abnormally high, when compared to solar cycle 20, and again, you ignore that.  Earlier you tried to move the goal posts.  NOW you are trying to change the subject.  These are well-known all troll tactics.  Please just return to your bridge.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2018, 12:48:39 PM
I simply can't make the numbers work and I was hoping you guys might provide some insight.

The insight you were given was that your interpretation of the numbers was based on a flawed and incomplete understanding of how radiation works, how it's measured, how spacecraft work, and how radiation hazards are managed by those who do it for a living.  You chose to disregard that insight because it wasn't what you wanted to hear.  You wanted to hear that you were onto something big.  You wanted to hear only the rebuttals you insisted your critics provide.

Quote
Rather than consider the data on its merit, you guys raise shields and establish a defensive posture.

The data are being considered on their merits.  You are being shown how the data do not fit your simplistic model.  Your model has been also considered on its merits and you have been shown where it fails on the merits.  You are being asked to revise your model to account for the data, but you won't because you can't accept the premise that your model can be wrong, and this is where you find yourself.  As for defensiveness, given the number of times you've had to apologize for being too rancorous or for making personal attacks, I think you're being treated appropriately.  Whether you embrace the label, you are a conspiracy theorist in that you are proposing that there is a conspiracy to keep secret the "truth" of where Apollo spacecraft really were.  You've gone so far as to claim my whole profession is part of that conspiracy.  When you can start being honest with yourself, then you can expect to be treated more graciously.

Quote
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.

Nonsense.  You show an utter disregard for truth and the means by which it is sought.  Instead you're shopping your crackpot idea -- and the barely-concealed notion that you personally are so much better at "discernment" than the sheeple -- all over the internet to whomever will listen, groveling for the attention that you soon lose when people see that you are consummately arrogant and unteachable.  Until you show that you are no better than the common troll, I will pay you no further attention.  That will require you to admit that you do not understand how to interpret radiation data properly.  Then you can ask for, and receive, the insight that will help you most.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 12:48:45 PM
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.

You didn't interpret the CRaTER graph properly (for whatever reason); that's one reason in a multitude of reasons why you can't make the numbers work. As pointed out by Jason and eluded to by others, it's a logarithmic scale so you can't judge the graph as being essentially flat. You've been pointed to the data, shown the data and had the data analysed for you. You've been asked to make links with the solar cycle and GCR, and how you can extrapolate data from cycle 24 to 20, and you've not answered that question. There are no shields raised, there is no defensive posture. You've shown a complete lack of understanding for nuclear physics.

What you need to understand about this forum is that you will be questioned in a Socrastic manner by some members to determine your level of expertise.

There are people here who are qualified aerospace engineers, biologists, chemists, geologists, photographers, electrical engineers, programmers, communication engineers. We have other long standing valued members such as Gillianren who has no formal background in science, but her degree(s) and background brings different skills and expertise to the forum. We have members without degrees who have encyclopedic knowledge of Apollo and how the various engineering systems worked. You even have humble physicists like me, how have studied space radiation. Expect a hard time if you can't get the numbers to work, particularly when you have been shown and cattle-prodded in the right direction.

If you have no level of expertise then you can 'follow the truth' all you like, but you won't get to the truth as you need that expertise. If you can't make the numbers work, does that mean the numbers must be false or is it possible that you simply have the wrong answer? Has the latter thought entered your mind?

This is a log scale.  Note the difference between this and the CraTer data scale.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 12:53:43 PM
This is a log scale.  Note the difference between this and the CraTer data scale.

The CRaTER scale is logarithmic on the ordinate, as the major unit is scaled in powers of 10 according to 10n. Just because the minor units are not included, it's still a log scale as the major unit increases by an order of magnitude (on the ordinate).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 12:58:45 PM
This is a log scale.  Note the difference between this and the CraTer data scale.

The CRaTER scale is logarithmic on the ordinate, as the major unit is scaled in powers of 10 according to 10n. Just because the minor units are not included, it's still a log scale as the major unit increases by an order of magnitude (on the ordinate).
I could argue the point and explain to you the difference between a linear scale with an exponential axis and a logarithmic scale which is not linear rather it is exponential but I am sure you won't understand the difference so I will let you have it anyway you want to look at it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 01:05:27 PM
... but I am sure you won't understand the difference so I will let you have it anyway you want to look at it.

I'm sure that I wouldn't, but then I understand the difference between using a graph to determine trend and interrogating data to perform analysis.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 02, 2018, 01:07:53 PM
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.

And when those numbers don't turn out to be what you want them to be you start throwing insults around.

Asking questions requires listening to answers.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 01:12:20 PM
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.

And when those numbers don't turn out to be what you want them to be you start throwing insults around.

Asking questions requires listening to answers.

If I insulted you are anyone else then I apologize.  It is a product of frustration and an eternal struggle I am committed to.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 01:15:32 PM
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 01:31:36 PM
Secondary Flux on the Moon
Energetic particles and neutrons from cosmic rays induce nuclear reactions with target nuclei in the lunar regolith. Solar cosmic ray-produced secondaries are much less abundant than galactic cosmic ray-produced secondaries and occur primarily in the upper decimeter of the regolith. Since it is the energy of the incident particle that determines what reactions will occur, the GCR particles are of most concern. Typical particles with energies at MeV levels will induce reactions with an interaction mean free path of about 100 g cm-2. Thus, even GCR particles will interact with lunar surface materials at depths <5 m.

During the nuclear reactions (E >10 MeV) secondary particles are emitted; the original particle may emerge at a lower energy. Secondary neutrons and high energy particles can cause additional reactions. It is the secondary particles, especially the neutrons caused by GCR, that are relevant.

Solar wind particles are typically of such low energy that they penetrate no more than a micrometer. They can produce sputtered particles and can induce crystal damage. Most solar cosmic rays are stopped by ionization within the upper few cm of the regolith. The associated heavy nuclei are stopped in the outer millimeter. The main reactions produced by solar cosmic ray particles occur in the upper cm of the regolith, and few secondary particles are released.

Heavy nuclei in GCR radiation are usually stopped at depths <10 cm due to ionization energy loss, with most radiation damage occurring in the upper few cm. Shielding at a few g cm-2 is typically sufficient to remove most of the highly ionized heavy GCR nuclei. The lighter primary nuclei are more penetrating than heavier nuclei. Secondaries may be ionizing particles or uncharged, e.g. neutrons. The cascade that results from interaction depends on the energy of the incident particle and the nature (average atomic number) of the interacting material but can extend to depths of meters. Neutrons produced on the Moon typically have energies of a few MeV and travel until they interact or escape. Neutron interaction is most efficient with elements whose mass is lower than oxygen. Because such elements have relatively low concentrations (Table II), neutrons lose energy slowly and require many collisions to reach thermal energies (<0.1 eV).

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/wiki/lunaref/index.php/Lunar_Ionizing_Radiation_Environment


Moon dust is radioactive and this article is the definitive proof.  The  radiation reflected from the Moon raise the Background radiation in orbit around the Moon 30 to 40 percent.  Think about that for a minute.  The surface of the moon is so radioactive that it increases the radiation in the lunar orbit by 30 to 40 percent.  That is staggering.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 01:34:10 PM
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf

...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 01:50:40 PM
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf

...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:

  • Have you interrogated the CRaTER data?
YES

  • How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?

The post clearly states solar cycle 20 was not as active as later cycles.
  • How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?
GCR flux varies inversely with solar activity.
[/list]
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 02, 2018, 01:56:15 PM
Secondary Flux on the Moon
Energetic particles and neutrons from cosmic rays induce nuclear reactions with target nuclei in the lunar regolith. Solar cosmic ray-produced secondaries are much less abundant than galactic cosmic ray-produced secondaries and occur primarily in the upper decimeter of the regolith. Since it is the energy of the incident particle that determines what reactions will occur, the GCR particles are of most concern. Typical particles with energies at MeV levels will induce reactions with an interaction mean free path of about 100 g cm-2. Thus, even GCR particles will interact with lunar surface materials at depths <5 m.

During the nuclear reactions (E >10 MeV) secondary particles are emitted; the original particle may emerge at a lower energy. Secondary neutrons and high energy particles can cause additional reactions. It is the secondary particles, especially the neutrons caused by GCR, that are relevant.

Solar wind particles are typically of such low energy that they penetrate no more than a micrometer. They can produce sputtered particles and can induce crystal damage. Most solar cosmic rays are stopped by ionization within the upper few cm of the regolith. The associated heavy nuclei are stopped in the outer millimeter. The main reactions produced by solar cosmic ray particles occur in the upper cm of the regolith, and few secondary particles are released.

Heavy nuclei in GCR radiation are usually stopped at depths <10 cm due to ionization energy loss, with most radiation damage occurring in the upper few cm. Shielding at a few g cm-2 is typically sufficient to remove most of the highly ionized heavy GCR nuclei. The lighter primary nuclei are more penetrating than heavier nuclei. Secondaries may be ionizing particles or uncharged, e.g. neutrons. The cascade that results from interaction depends on the energy of the incident particle and the nature (average atomic number) of the interacting material but can extend to depths of meters. Neutrons produced on the Moon typically have energies of a few MeV and travel until they interact or escape. Neutron interaction is most efficient with elements whose mass is lower than oxygen. Because such elements have relatively low concentrations (Table II), neutrons lose energy slowly and require many collisions to reach thermal energies (<0.1 eV).

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/wiki/lunaref/index.php/Lunar_Ionizing_Radiation_Environment


Moon dust is radioactive and this article is the definitive proof.  The  radiation reflected from the Moon raise the Background radiation in orbit around the Moon 30 to 40 percent.  Think about that for a minute.  The surface of the moon is so radioactive that it increases the radiation in the lunar orbit by 30 to 40 percent.  That is staggering.

Once again, his own source refutes him.  From the above reference:
"The ionizing radiation environment at the Moon, both in orbit and on the surface, consists of the solar wind, solar particle events (SPE, also referred to as solar cosmic rays) and galactic cosmic radiation."

Please note the absence of "radioactive Moon dust" as being included as part of the Moon's radiation environment.  This is because that dust's temporary radioactivity is caused by the GCR's secondary events - NOT neutron capture that makes the elements unstable, and thus causes them to be considered radioactive.  This has been previously explained, but like any good troll, he ignores that fact.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 01:56:32 PM
During the nuclear reactions (E >10 MeV) secondary particles are emitted; the original particle may emerge at a lower energy. Secondary neutrons and high energy particles can cause additional reactions. It is the secondary particles, especially the neutrons caused by GCR, that are relevant.

So the secondary particles are relevant, not ionising radiation from radioactive isotopes.

Quote
Moon dust is radioactive and this article is the definitive proof.

Radioactivity and radiation are two different things. Yes, the outcomes are the same, in that ionising radiation offers biological damage due to deposition of energy. Radioactivity pertains to the activity of the nucleus. Ionising radiation has many guises. This cut and past from Wikipedia mentions nothing about radioactive dust.

The article even states that secondary neutrons are relevant. These result from strong force interactions between protons and the nucleus of the target material.


Quote
The radiation reflected from the Moon raise the Background radiation in orbit around the Moon 30 to 40 percent.

Radiation is not reflected in that sense. Please used words that pertain to relevant expertise in this subject.

The 30-40% figure is not refuted. In the abscence of this mechanism, say I have a baseline radiation of 0.1 mGy/day. What do I have if the figure is elevated by 30-40%. It's not the increase, but the outcome of the increase that is relevant. It's in the CRaTER data if you care to look.

Quote
Think about that for a minute.  The surface of the moon is so radioactive that it increases the radiation in the lunar orbit by 30 to 40 percent.  That is staggering.

If I have £1 in my bank account and deposit 40 p, that's not staggering. If I have £1000 000, and deposit £400 000, then that is a bonus. If I have £1 000 000 000 and deposit £400 000 000, then that is staggering. It's only staggering if what you start with is significant.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 01:59:26 PM
So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive.  Let's consider the implications of that finding.  There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface.  The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters.  The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing.   Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive?  Why wouldn't that be public knowledge?  Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 02, 2018, 01:59:47 PM
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf

...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:

  • Have you interrogated the CRaTER data?
  • How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?
  • How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?

Nice graph.  Although the next few solar cycles WERE more active than 24, cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20.  But trolls don't swallow facts, so I predict no admission of this simple truth from him.

Edited for this Note:  Post #688 admits the mistake in my second sentence and corrects it to what should have been posted.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2018, 02:02:21 PM
Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive?  Why wouldn't that be public knowledge?  Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?

Have you considered the possibility that you are interpreting this information incorrectly?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 02:02:38 PM
YES

At what Julian dates?

Quote
The post clearly states solar cycle 20 was not as active as later cycles.

...except in the case of cycle 20. Cycle 20 is more active than cycle 24, my graphic shows that, and so do many other graphics from the literature. What cycle is the CRaTER data taken from and what effect would the higher activity of cycle 20 on the GCR influx. Assuming we can extrapolate of course.

Quote
GCR flux varies inversely with solar activity.

Good, so if cycle 20 is more active than 24, what do you think happens to the CRaTER data?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 02:03:36 PM
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf

...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:

  • Have you interrogated the CRaTER data?
  • How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?
  • How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?

Nice graph.  Although the next few solar cycles WERE more active than 24, cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20.  But trolls don't swallow facts, so I predict no admission of this simple truth from him.

cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20"?????????????????
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 02, 2018, 02:04:08 PM
I'll try and simplify even further:

Some GCR might hit molecules on the lunar surface with enough impact to cause fission in some elements.

Some of those fission products might be directed upward.

Some of those fission products directed upwards might be long lived.

Some of those fission products directed upwards might have a half life long enough to possibly hit an astronaut's suit.

Some of the fission products that made it as far as the suit might possibly have the capability to go through the suit's protective layers.

As a non-physicist how am I doing? Anyone care to calculate probabilities?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 02:04:58 PM
YES

At what Julian dates?

Quote
The post clearly states solar cycle 20 was not as active as later cycles.

...except in the case of cycle 20. Cycle 20 is more active than cycle 24, my graphic shows that, and so do many other graphics from the literature. What cycle is the CRaTER data taken from and what effect would the higher activity of cycle 20 on the GCR influx. Assuming we can extrapolate of course.

Quote
GCR flux varies inversely with solar activity.

Good, so if cycle 20 is more active than 24, what do you think happens to the CRaTER data?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 02:05:23 PM
cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20"?????????????????

It's a typo. Cycle 20 is clearly more active than 24, and the CRaTER data was taken in cycle 24. So answer my question. What effect would this have on the CRaTER data, assuming we can extrapolate?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 02, 2018, 02:06:17 PM
So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive.  Let's consider the implications of that finding.  There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface.  The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters.  The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing.   Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive?  Why wouldn't that be public knowledge?  Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?

It's not, as previously noted.  Do you KNOW the difference between secondary radiation and a radioactive element?  It has been previously explained, and you have used the terms, but your post indicates you don't, however, that is also indicative of troll behavior.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 02:07:15 PM
I'll try and simplify even further:

Some GCR might hit molecules on the lunar surface with enough impact to cause fission in some elements.

Some of those fission products might be directed upward.

Some of those fission products directed upwards might be long lived.

Some of those fission products directed upwards might have a half life long enough to possibly hit an astronaut's suit.

Some of the fission products that made it as far as the suit might possibly have the capability to go through the suit's protective layers.

As a non-physicist how am I doing? Anyone care to calculate probabilities?

I think they already did.  The article provides expected resultant dose rates.  I did the hard part, you need only read the fruits of my labor.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 02:09:08 PM
So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive.  Let's consider the implications of that finding.  There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface.  The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters.  The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing.   Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive?  Why wouldn't that be public knowledge?  Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?

It's not, as previously noted.  Do you KNOW the difference between secondary radiation and a radioactive element?  It has been previously explained, and you have used the terms, but your post indicates you don't, however, that is also indicative of troll behavior.


These are not my words.  I posted the article but I did not write it.  Other people, professional people are telling you moon dust and the surface of the moon are radioactive.  I'm just the messenger.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 02, 2018, 02:09:26 PM
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf

...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:

  • Have you interrogated the CRaTER data?
  • How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?
  • How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?

Nice graph.  Although the next few solar cycles WERE more active than 24, cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20.  But trolls don't swallow facts, so I predict no admission of this simple truth from him.

cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20"?????????????????

Yep.  I made a mistake.  I should have said "cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 24".

See how easy that is?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 02, 2018, 02:16:02 PM
So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive.  Let's consider the implications of that finding.  There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface.  The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters.  The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing.   Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive?  Why wouldn't that be public knowledge?  Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?

It's not, as previously noted.  Do you KNOW the difference between secondary radiation and a radioactive element?  It has been previously explained, and you have used the terms, but your post indicates you don't, however, that is also indicative of troll behavior.


These are not my words.  I posted the article but I did not write it.  Other people, professional people are telling you moon dust and the surface of the moon are radioactive.  I'm just the messenger.

Wow.  Now you include a quote of your own words, and say they AREN'T your own words.  No expert is telling me the Moon dust is radioactive enough to be considered a significant source.  Thanks for the laugh.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 02:17:55 PM
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf

...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:

  • Have you interrogated the CRaTER data?
  • How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?
  • How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?

Nice graph.  Although the next few solar cycles WERE more active than 24, cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20.  But trolls don't swallow facts, so I predict no admission of this simple truth from him.

cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20"?????????????????

Yep.  I made a mistake.  I should have said "cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 24".

See how easy that is?

So the article stating that cycle 20 was not as active as later cycles is wrong also?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 02:18:51 PM
As a non-physicist how am I doing? Anyone care to calculate probabilities?

The main mechanism at GCR energies spallation bye protons. The proton will interact with the nuclei of atoms and produce a shower of pions and a neutron. The pions will quickly decay in leptons and muons, with gamma being produced. There will also be bremstrahlung. It really is very complicated, but the main result is a a neutron, a lot neutrinos, some muons and then electrons/positrons are produced. The latter can are normally produced through pair production.

There's no NASA cabal as our friend suggests. In fact there are several NASA article that discuss the primary shower of proton fragmentation and the production of pions. There is also fragmentation of heavier nuclei in the GCR.

The whole idea of the GCR being captured by nuclei to synthesise radio isotopes is a little barking. Neutron capture is a possibility, but with light elements found in rocks, the cross sections are very low, and you have to get right down to thermal energies for it to occur. At the relativistic energies we are discussing the cross section for neutron capture fall by several orders of magnitude for light elements. For most elements it is practically zero.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 02:21:11 PM
Secondary Flux on the Moon
Energetic particles and neutrons from cosmic rays induce nuclear reactions with target nuclei in the lunar regolith. Solar cosmic ray-produced secondaries are much less abundant than galactic cosmic ray-produced secondaries and occur primarily in the upper decimeter of the regolith. Since it is the energy of the incident particle that determines what reactions will occur, the GCR particles are of most concern. Typical particles with energies at MeV levels will induce reactions with an interaction mean free path of about 100 g cm-2. Thus, even GCR particles will interact with lunar surface materials at depths <5 m.

During the nuclear reactions (E >10 MeV) secondary particles are emitted; the original particle may emerge at a lower energy. Secondary neutrons and high energy particles can cause additional reactions. It is the secondary particles, especially the neutrons caused by GCR, that are relevant.

Solar wind particles are typically of such low energy that they penetrate no more than a micrometer. They can produce sputtered particles and can induce crystal damage. Most solar cosmic rays are stopped by ionization within the upper few cm of the regolith. The associated heavy nuclei are stopped in the outer millimeter. The main reactions produced by solar cosmic ray particles occur in the upper cm of the regolith, and few secondary particles are released.

Heavy nuclei in GCR radiation are usually stopped at depths <10 cm due to ionization energy loss, with most radiation damage occurring in the upper few cm. Shielding at a few g cm-2 is typically sufficient to remove most of the highly ionized heavy GCR nuclei. The lighter primary nuclei are more penetrating than heavier nuclei. Secondaries may be ionizing particles or uncharged, e.g. neutrons. The cascade that results from interaction depends on the energy of the incident particle and the nature (average atomic number) of the interacting material but can extend to depths of meters. Neutrons produced on the Moon typically have energies of a few MeV and travel until they interact or escape. Neutron interaction is most efficient with elements whose mass is lower than oxygen. Because such elements have relatively low concentrations (Table II), neutrons lose energy slowly and require many collisions to reach thermal energies (<0.1 eV).

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/wiki/lunaref/index.php/Lunar_Ionizing_Radiation_Environment


Moon dust is radioactive and this article is the definitive proof.  The  radiation reflected from the Moon raise the Background radiation in orbit around the Moon 30 to 40 percent.  Think about that for a minute.  The surface of the moon is so radioactive that it increases the radiation in the lunar orbit by 30 to 40 percent.  That is staggering.

Once again, his own source refutes him.  From the above reference:
"The ionizing radiation environment at the Moon, both in orbit and on the surface, consists of the solar wind, solar particle events (SPE, also referred to as solar cosmic rays) and galactic cosmic radiation."

Please note the absence of "radioactive Moon dust" as being included as part of the Moon's radiation environment.  This is because that dust's temporary radioactivity is caused by the GCR's secondary events - NOT neutron capture that makes the elements unstable, and thus causes them to be considered radioactive.  This has been previously explained, but like any good troll, he ignores that fact.

Am I to believe that you think only neutron capture is responsible for nuclear instability?  So you don't believe High energy particles and rays can cause fission?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 02, 2018, 02:24:14 PM
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf

...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:

  • Have you interrogated the CRaTER data?
  • How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?
  • How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?

Nice graph.  Although the next few solar cycles WERE more active than 24, cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20.  But trolls don't swallow facts, so I predict no admission of this simple truth from him.

cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20"?????????????????

Yep.  I made a mistake.  I should have said "cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 24".

See how easy that is?

So the article stating that cycle 20 was not as active as later cycles is wrong also?

Of course not, as I NOWHERE made any inference to such a thing.  And regardless, due to the fact that cycle 20 WAS more active than cycle 24, the cycles in-between were irrelevant.  It seems you are now trying to fork along the troll path to argue semantics rather than logic.  Soon you are going to demand a toll.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 02:24:57 PM
As a non-physicist how am I doing? Anyone care to calculate probabilities?

The main mechanism at GCR energies is fragmentation of the proton. The proton will interact with the nuclei of atoms and produce a shower of pions and a neutron. The pions will quickly decay in leptons and muons, with gamma being produced. There will also be bremstrahlung. It really is very complicated, but the main result is a a neutron, a lot neutrinos, some muons and then electrons/positrons are produced. The latter can are normally produced through pair production.

There's no NASA cabal as our friend suggests. In fact there are several NASA article that discuss the primary shower of proton fragmentation and the production of pions. There is also fragmentation of heavier nuclei in the GCR.

The whole idea of the GCR being captured by nuclei to synthesise radio isotopes is a little barking. neutron capture is a possibility, but with light elements found in rocks, the cross sections are very low, and you have to get right down to thermal energies for it to occur. A the relativistic energies we are discussing the cross sections fall by several orders of magnitude for light elements. For most elements it is zero.

That is some mighty fine horse defecation you spouted there, sir.  If I had no interest in the subject matter I might have been impressed.  I am impressed with the size of your pile.  It is impressive.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 02:26:46 PM
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf

...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:

  • Have you interrogated the CRaTER data?
  • How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?
  • How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?

Nice graph.  Although the next few solar cycles WERE more active than 24, cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20.  But trolls don't swallow facts, so I predict no admission of this simple truth from him.

cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20"?????????????????

Yep.  I made a mistake.  I should have said "cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 24".

See how easy that is?

So the article stating that cycle 20 was not as active as later cycles is wrong also?

Of course not, as I NOWHERE made any inference to such a thing.  And regardless, due to the fact that cycle 20 WAS more active than cycle 24, the cycles in-between were irrelevant.  It seems you are now trying to fork along the troll path to argue semantics rather than logic.  Soon you are going to demand a toll.
Cycle 24 is after cycle 20.  If it is less active than cycle 20 then the statement cannot be correct.  So what is it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 02, 2018, 02:30:17 PM
Secondary Flux on the Moon
Energetic particles and neutrons from cosmic rays induce nuclear reactions with target nuclei in the lunar regolith. Solar cosmic ray-produced secondaries are much less abundant than galactic cosmic ray-produced secondaries and occur primarily in the upper decimeter of the regolith. Since it is the energy of the incident particle that determines what reactions will occur, the GCR particles are of most concern. Typical particles with energies at MeV levels will induce reactions with an interaction mean free path of about 100 g cm-2. Thus, even GCR particles will interact with lunar surface materials at depths <5 m.

During the nuclear reactions (E >10 MeV) secondary particles are emitted; the original particle may emerge at a lower energy. Secondary neutrons and high energy particles can cause additional reactions. It is the secondary particles, especially the neutrons caused by GCR, that are relevant.

Solar wind particles are typically of such low energy that they penetrate no more than a micrometer. They can produce sputtered particles and can induce crystal damage. Most solar cosmic rays are stopped by ionization within the upper few cm of the regolith. The associated heavy nuclei are stopped in the outer millimeter. The main reactions produced by solar cosmic ray particles occur in the upper cm of the regolith, and few secondary particles are released.

Heavy nuclei in GCR radiation are usually stopped at depths <10 cm due to ionization energy loss, with most radiation damage occurring in the upper few cm. Shielding at a few g cm-2 is typically sufficient to remove most of the highly ionized heavy GCR nuclei. The lighter primary nuclei are more penetrating than heavier nuclei. Secondaries may be ionizing particles or uncharged, e.g. neutrons. The cascade that results from interaction depends on the energy of the incident particle and the nature (average atomic number) of the interacting material but can extend to depths of meters. Neutrons produced on the Moon typically have energies of a few MeV and travel until they interact or escape. Neutron interaction is most efficient with elements whose mass is lower than oxygen. Because such elements have relatively low concentrations (Table II), neutrons lose energy slowly and require many collisions to reach thermal energies (<0.1 eV).

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/wiki/lunaref/index.php/Lunar_Ionizing_Radiation_Environment


Moon dust is radioactive and this article is the definitive proof.  The  radiation reflected from the Moon raise the Background radiation in orbit around the Moon 30 to 40 percent.  Think about that for a minute.  The surface of the moon is so radioactive that it increases the radiation in the lunar orbit by 30 to 40 percent.  That is staggering.

Once again, his own source refutes him.  From the above reference:
"The ionizing radiation environment at the Moon, both in orbit and on the surface, consists of the solar wind, solar particle events (SPE, also referred to as solar cosmic rays) and galactic cosmic radiation."

Please note the absence of "radioactive Moon dust" as being included as part of the Moon's radiation environment.  This is because that dust's temporary radioactivity is caused by the GCR's secondary events - NOT neutron capture that makes the elements unstable, and thus causes them to be considered radioactive.  This has been previously explained, but like any good troll, he ignores that fact.

Am I to believe that you think only neutron capture is responsible for nuclear instability?  So you don't believe High energy particles and rays can cause fission?

As per my statement that you just quoted - not in any significant number so as to be considered a significant source.  Now quit trying to obfuscate the subject and explain what part of the CRaTER data I highlighted is above .2mGy/day.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 02, 2018, 02:34:31 PM
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf

...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:

  • Have you interrogated the CRaTER data?
  • How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?
  • How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?

Nice graph.  Although the next few solar cycles WERE more active than 24, cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20.  But trolls don't swallow facts, so I predict no admission of this simple truth from him.

cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20"?????????????????

Yep.  I made a mistake.  I should have said "cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 24".

See how easy that is?

So the article stating that cycle 20 was not as active as later cycles is wrong also?

Of course not, as I NOWHERE made any inference to such a thing.  And regardless, due to the fact that cycle 20 WAS more active than cycle 24, the cycles in-between were irrelevant.  It seems you are now trying to fork along the troll path to argue semantics rather than logic.  Soon you are going to demand a toll.
Cycle 24 is after cycle 20.  If it is less active than cycle 20 then the statement cannot be correct.  So what is it?

Yep, the monster's on to semantics now.  Gives a reference written prior to cycle 24 and expects it to remain true unto eternity. 

Time to do something productive again.  Tim is just having a laugh in his own warped mind.  Cheers.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 02:36:23 PM
Am I to believe that you think only neutron capture is responsible for nuclear instability?

From high energy GCR, no. The primary mechanism is nuclear spallation, not fission. Fission has a very specific mechanism in physics, and pertains to capture of a slow neutron in certain heavy elements.

As your article informs you, secondary neutrons are the most relevant secondary radiation. If you research the literature further, you'll find pions and nuclear fragments are produced, but the relevant secondary radiation to this discussion is spallalted neutrons.

Why do you think that pre-space age we measured solar storm activity using ground based neutron monitors? What causes an influx of neutrons in abundance to measure solar storm activity.

Quote
So you don't believe High energy particles and rays can cause fission?

Less likely owning to the cross section decreasing considerably at relativistic energies associated with GCR. There's a small issue of quantum mechanics to consider to being with, as the interactions are taking place at the nuclear level, so via the strong force. Your idea that these interactions/processes occur equally at all energies across all isotopes is very wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 02, 2018, 02:36:49 PM
Ah, I wasn't expecting a return to the debate!!

I do have a question for Mr Finch, as regards the measured, or generally accepted figures for radiation levels in space beyond the VAB.  (I originally brought it up in post #550 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1444.msg43977#msg43977), but I'll summarise here as well.)

I work for a company which develops data handling technologies* for spacecraft.  I'm on the software side of things, but I know our chip design folks have to consider a lot of factors about the environment their designs will be used in.  Since the data they're using is based on the generally accepted measurements and models, why aren't there a lot more failures of missions operating in these regions?

As I also noted in my previous post, it's not just NASA that's involved in determining radiation risks, but private companies and other organisations in the US, and around the world, and even small independent groups like the Lunar X-Prize teams.

Either :
a) the failure rates are being covered up, or
b) all the engineers, all over the world, are in some great conspiracy to lie about the figures, or
c) all missions outside of LEO are fakes, or
d) the space radiation environment has been correctly measured and modelled, and allows for safe design of both manned and unmanned missions

Which, in your opinion, is the explanation?


[ * The same technology has been used on well over 100 missions, including LRO, MRO and Mars Express, and will launch on BepiColombo, JWST and several other upcoming spacecraft.]
The technology obviously exist to operate electronic equipment in the SAA and passing through the VAB.  Missions in this high radiation background have shorter life expectancies than missions that remain in LEO.  I can't begin to answer your question without comparative data.  I am sure redundancy and hardened equipment was used in designing electronic equipment for the hazards of space.  What has any of this to do with my claim that Apollo 11's mission dose is unrealistic in light of recent empirical data?
Ah, the joys of being in a different time zone...  ;D

The relevance to the Apollo missions is that the data used for shielding, design of rad-hard electronics etc. is based on the measurements over many years, starting pre-Apollo.  The published, currently available data, which has been used for many, many missions, shows that the environment outside LEO and the VAB is not as hostile as you claim, and certainly not enough to prevent manned lunar missions.

You're claiming that this data, used by engineers in many countries, is incorrect, and misrepresents the actual environment, but the success and reliability of missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond, to Lagrange points etc. says otherwise.

Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with spacecraft reliability and failure data, because radiation damage is not the primary cause of mission failures (even ignoring launch failure and human errors).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 02:39:58 PM
MBDK,  You have what we used to call in the Nuclear Navy, "A gross conceptual error" or "GCE".  98% of GCR is comprised of heavy ions and 85% which are protons.  If protons are not capable of causing fission then where are all the neutrons coming from?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 02:41:38 PM
If protons are not capable of causing fission then where are all the neutrons coming from?

Nuclear spallation. Fission is something entirely different.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 02:43:28 PM
Ah, I wasn't expecting a return to the debate!!

I do have a question for Mr Finch, as regards the measured, or generally accepted figures for radiation levels in space beyond the VAB.  (I originally brought it up in post #550 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1444.msg43977#msg43977), but I'll summarise here as well.)

I work for a company which develops data handling technologies* for spacecraft.  I'm on the software side of things, but I know our chip design folks have to consider a lot of factors about the environment their designs will be used in.  Since the data they're using is based on the generally accepted measurements and models, why aren't there a lot more failures of missions operating in these regions?

As I also noted in my previous post, it's not just NASA that's involved in determining radiation risks, but private companies and other organisations in the US, and around the world, and even small independent groups like the Lunar X-Prize teams.

Either :
a) the failure rates are being covered up, or
b) all the engineers, all over the world, are in some great conspiracy to lie about the figures, or
c) all missions outside of LEO are fakes, or
d) the space radiation environment has been correctly measured and modelled, and allows for safe design of both manned and unmanned missions

Which, in your opinion, is the explanation?


[ * The same technology has been used on well over 100 missions, including LRO, MRO and Mars Express, and will launch on BepiColombo, JWST and several other upcoming spacecraft.]
The technology obviously exist to operate electronic equipment in the SAA and passing through the VAB.  Missions in this high radiation background have shorter life expectancies than missions that remain in LEO.  I can't begin to answer your question without comparative data.  I am sure redundancy and hardened equipment was used in designing electronic equipment for the hazards of space.  What has any of this to do with my claim that Apollo 11's mission dose is unrealistic in light of recent empirical data?
Ah, the joys of being in a different time zone...  ;D

The relevance to the Apollo missions is that the data used for shielding, design of rad-hard electronics etc. is based on the measurements over many years, starting pre-Apollo.  The published, currently available data, which has been used for many, many missions, shows that the environment outside LEO and the VAB is not as hostile as you claim, and certainly not enough to prevent manned lunar missions.

You're claiming that this data, used by engineers in many countries, is incorrect, and misrepresents the actual environment, but the success and reliability of missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond, to Lagrange points etc. says otherwise.

Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with spacecraft reliability and failure data, because radiation damage is not the primary cause of missions failures (even ignoring launch failure and human errors).

Why would I.  I have made no claims about mission survivability.  I don't even claim that the radiation hazards are insurmountable.  The only claim I make and am willing to defend is the mission doses of Apollo 11 do not represent realistic values in light of current data.  Anything else is yours.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 02:51:52 PM
98% of GCR is comprised of heavy ions and 85% which are protons.

What is the other -83% made from?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 02:52:09 PM
If protons are not capable of causing fission then where are all the neutrons coming from?

Nuclear spallation. Fission is something entirely different.

Technically you would be correct.  Different bullet same gun, same result.  How does Spallation reduce the neutron radiation on the surface of the moon?  GCR's are the source of the neutrons and the radioactivity of the moon's surface.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 02:52:54 PM
98% of GCR is comprised of heavy ions and 85% which are protons.

What is the other -83% made from?

Don't you mean 2%?

Particles in Cosmic Rays. Almost 90% of the cosmic rays which strike the Earth's atmosphere are protons (hydrogen nuclei) and about 9% are alpha particles. Electrons amount to about 1% according to Chaisson & McMillan.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 03:20:18 PM
Technically you would be correct.

Technically I am correct, there's no would be about this.


Quote
Different bullet same gun, same result.

It's really unfortunate that you have started comparing nuclear physics with guns, as guns are the domain of Newtonian physics, whereas nuclear and particle physics are the domain of quantum mechanics. So different bullet, different physics, different result.

Quote
How does Spallation reduce the neutron radiation on the surface of the moon?

Didn't say it did. The post you referred to as my pile tells you that I agree with you that the relevant radiation is indeed secondary neutrons. I don't agree with you on the radioactive element.

Bombardment from GCR does not necessary make for swathes of radioisotopes, and if it did, you would need to compute the half life of those isotopes. If the GCR reactions do indeed create radioisotopes in abundance does it necessarily mean these isotopes are radioactive for centuries or millennia?

The scientists in particle accelerators work and maintain equipment that use particles with GCR energies, and that equipment has been exposed to proton beams with far greater fluxes than GCR. Do their detectors become radioactive to the degree where they cannot work on them?

The issue you have is that you do have a different bullet, and while nuclear fragmentation does occur, the main issue with GCR bombardment is the neutron and pion radiation. The interactions that occur between GCR and the target material are known as electromagnetic, mesonic and nucleonic. In nucleonic interactions secondary neutrons are produced as the target nuclei recoil.

What you don't have a grasp on is the way in which particles and nuclei interact at very high energies. Not every interaction is like a billiard ball where the nuclei break up. There are issues that relate to areas of cross section. These cross sections are defined by the Coulomb fields, the energy of bosons and coupling constants rather than geometrical areas.

A proton in the GCR may pass near the nucleus, and quantum interactions take place through bosons. The bosons are force carriers in physics. This could involve a recoil event through the electromagnetic force, or involve spallation, energy loss through bremstrahlung. There are a multitude of events that potentially take place, but these depend very highly on probability density functions that are determined by cross sections of interaction. The latter depends very much on particle energy.

We discussed this way back, but your ideas that every interaction between a proton and a nucleus involve the production of radio isotopes is very far from the real physics

In the case of fission, that is more the domain of heavier elements and thermal; neutron capture, where the fission products are varied and generally associated with heavy elements that have a broad range of radio isotopes.

Quote
GCR's are the source of the neutrons and the radioactivity of the moon's surface.

I agree with the part in bold.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 03:23:14 PM
98% of GCR is comprised of heavy ions and 85% which are protons.
What is the other -83% made from?

Don't you mean 2%?


No I was pointing out that your 98% heavy ions and 85% protons adds up to 183%. 98% of GCR is not made up of heavy ions, so I am glad you corrected that to make it more clear what you meant.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 03:24:35 PM
I could argue the point and explain to you the difference between a linear scale with an exponential axis and a logarithmic scale which is not linear rather it is exponential but I am sure you won't understand the difference so I will let you have it anyway you want to look at it.

Please do explain it. I'd be interested to learn. ANd I certainly would understand the difference thank you.

However, it doesn't make much difference because the actual numbers have been given to you and are there for you to look at, yet you ignore them. Why?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 03:33:57 PM
98% of GCR is comprised of heavy ions and 85% which are protons.
What is the other -83% made from?

Don't you mean 2%?


No I was pointing out that your 98% heavy ions and 85% protons adds up to 183%. 98% of GCR is not made up of heavy ions, so I am glad you corrected that to make it more clear what you meant.

You misunderstood.  85%of the ninety eight percent is what they are saying.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 03:36:27 PM
I could argue the point and explain to you the difference between a linear scale with an exponential axis and a logarithmic scale which is not linear rather it is exponential but I am sure you won't understand the difference so I will let you have it anyway you want to look at it.

Please do explain it. I'd be interested to learn. ANd I certainly would understand the difference thank you.

However, it doesn't make much difference because the actual numbers have been given to you and are there for you to look at, yet you ignore them. Why?

The difference is one is a linear scale meaning the divisions are equally spaced and the other the division are spaced as a logarithmic function.  The CraTer graph is linear with an exponential axis.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 03:37:45 PM
I could argue the point and explain to you the difference between a linear scale with an exponential axis and a logarithmic scale which is not linear rather it is exponential but I am sure you won't understand the difference so I will let you have it anyway you want to look at it.

Please do explain it. I'd be interested to learn. ANd I certainly would understand the difference thank you.

However, it doesn't make much difference because the actual numbers have been given to you and are there for you to look at, yet you ignore them. Why?

The difference is one is a linear scale meaning the divisions are equally spaced and the other the division are spaced as a logarithmic function.  The CraTer graph is linear with an exponential axis.

Thank you. And the answer to my question about the actual numbers being shown to you is...?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 03:42:15 PM
You misunderstood.  85%of the ninety eight percent is what they are saying.

Can you begin to see why this is becoming a can of worms for you, as your original post suggested that 98% of GCR are heavy ions?

Protons are not classed as heavy ions. To your merit, you are taking information and putting this into your own words, but your expertise in this field lacks sufficient clarity.

No one here would diminish your service to your country, or your skills as an electrician; but you really need to give this up. You lack the comprehension of the things you read at the moment. I'm not trying to insult you, but genuinely, I have studied this area for over 3 decades. I see so many glaring errors and misinterpretations in your analysis.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 03:48:02 PM
So it is recap time once again.

1.  I am wrong in believing Apollo 11"s reported mission daily dose does not represent of an actual lunar transit.
2.  I am wrong in believing the lunar surface is radioactive.
3.  I am wrong in believing that GCR levels have never been recorded lower than .2mgy/day
4.  I am wrong in believing that a transit of 4 hours through the VAB following any path will add a significant radiation dose.
5.  I am wrong in believing that a lunar orbit is a higher exposure rate than travel in deep space and cislunar space.
6.  Finally, I am wrong in believing no lunar mission can have a dose rate less than background radiation of cislunar space.

Did I cover everything?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 03:53:46 PM
I could argue the point and explain to you the difference between a linear scale with an exponential axis and a logarithmic scale which is not linear rather it is exponential but I am sure you won't understand the difference so I will let you have it anyway you want to look at it.

Please do explain it. I'd be interested to learn. ANd I certainly would understand the difference thank you.

However, it doesn't make much difference because the actual numbers have been given to you and are there for you to look at, yet you ignore them. Why?

The difference is one is a linear scale meaning the divisions are equally spaced and the other the division are spaced as a logarithmic function.  The CraTer graph is linear with an exponential axis.

Thank you. And the answer to my question about the actual numbers being shown to you is...?

I have looked at the numbers and I cannot begin to imagine how you believe Apollo 11 could have operated in cislunar space, transited the VAB and landed on the moon and have received only .22 mgy/day.  Each one of those components should have accounted for .22/day.  Consider the Mission dose of Apollo 14.  Now that is a realistic value of a transit to the moon.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 03:55:47 PM
So it is recap time once again.

1.  I am wrong in believing Apollo 11"s reported mission daily dose does not represent of an actual lunar transit.

Yes.

Quote
2.  I am wrong in believing the lunar surface is radioactive.

Yes, because you are oversimiplifying it to 'radioactive = dangerous' but have yet to show any quantitative backing up of that claim. Even the sources you use in your arguments state clearly it is not a problem.

Quote
3.  I am wrong in believing that GCR levels have never been recorded lower than .2mgy/day

Dear lord, for the fourth time of asking just by me, why do you keep ignoring the data doing exatly that that you have been shown and which is easily found on the data you brought to the discussion?

Quote
4.  I am wrong in believing that a transit of 4 hours through the VAB following any path will add a significant radiation dose.

Yes, because you continue to ignore the fact that the transit skirted the edge of the belt and did not pass right through te most intense regions.

Quote
5.  I am wrong in believing that a lunar orbit is a higher exposure rate than travel in deep space and cislunar space.

Yes.

Quote
6.  Finally, I am wrong in believing no lunar mission can have a dose rate less than background radiation of cislunar space.

For heaven's sake stop misrepresenting your position. The statement is not wrong, your quantification of the background radiation is wrong. This has been said to you over and over and over again, so why the hell are you constantly falling back on this ridiculous and dishonest statement?

Now, will you PLEASE explain why you are ignoring the numbers that quite clearly ARE showing you CGR rates less than 0.2mGy/day during a solar cycle that was less active than the one during which the Apollo missions flew?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 03:56:45 PM
I have looked at the numbers and I cannot begin to imagine how you believe Apollo 11 could have operated in cislunar space, transited the VAB and landed on the moon and have received only .22 mgy/day.

Thag is NOT what I asked. Do you acknowledge that GCR rates less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded in the data you presented to us or not?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 04:17:44 PM
I have looked at the numbers and I cannot begin to imagine how you believe Apollo 11 could have operated in cislunar space, transited the VAB and landed on the moon and have received only .22 mgy/day.

Thag is NOT what I asked. Do you acknowledge that GCR rates less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded in the data you presented to us or not?

Show me on this graph where you see a dose rate of less than .2 mgy/day.  I blew it up and still don't see it.  I would have used the graph from 1969 but it was expended when the astronauts ran out of toilet paper.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 04:23:03 PM
I am sure I don't understand this but detectors 5 & 6 face the moon and the other 4 detectors face away from the moon.  It is interesting that their levels correspond so closely as if moon radiation doubles lunar orbit radiation and not increases it by 30 to 40 percent.  What do I know?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 04:24:07 PM
I have looked at the numbers and I cannot begin to imagine how you believe Apollo 11 could have operated in cislunar space, transited the VAB and landed on the moon and have received only .22 mgy/day.

Thag is NOT what I asked. Do you acknowledge that GCR rates less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded in the data you presented to us or not?

Show me on this graph where you see a dose rate of less than .2 mgy/day.  I blew it up and still don't see it.  I would have used the graph from 1969 but it was expended when the astronauts ran out of toilet paper.

I have attached a section of data used to plot the graph. I ran the whole set of data through a spreadsheet - in excess of 64000 days worth of data. Not quite the computations that require a computer the size of tennis court, but nonetheless I hope this helps.

There are 6 detectors abroad CRaTER. The green cells highlight those detectors that meet your requirement, the green cells where the dose is greater 0.22 mGy/day. The red cells where the dose is greater 0.22 mGy/day.

On a particular day, the percentage of times when all detectors were below your requirement was 64%. Now remember, this data is taken in cycle 24. Apollo occurred in cycle 20 where solar activity was greater.

The values in the cells are in cGy/day.


Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 04:26:46 PM
Show me on this graph...

NO, for the love of god, the actual NUMBERS!

How difficult is this for you to understand? Earlier in the thread you were shown a set of numbers copied and pasted from the data that graph is based on. You have those numbers at your disposal via the link on the graph for the GCR rate. You can look at the DATA. Why will you not do it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 04:30:39 PM
Show me on this graph...

NO, for the love of god, the actual NUMBERS!

How difficult is this for you to understand? Earlier in the thread you were shown a set of numbers copied and pasted from the data that graph is based on. You have those numbers at your disposal via the link on the graph for the GCR rate. You can look at the DATA. Why will you not do it?

I've produced a screenshot that illustrates example numbers. It was not difficult to pop into a spreadsheet and put in a conditional format.

I understand the CAPS LOCKS frustration, but once more this leads to me the usual conclusion of this is (a) wilful ignorance or (b) inability to grasp the underlying information.

I'm going with (b) and the I've quickly scanned this on the internet... therefore it means lions are herbivores that eat pink penguins.

I'm still deciding whether it's I realise I am wrong, but I will carry on regardless now.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 04:31:13 PM
Also, you are not interpreting the y-axis correctly. Most of those dotted lines correspond to the x-axis divisions. This is a logarithmic y-axis. There are no subdivisions marked between the major graduations. This matches with the numbers.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 04:32:24 PM
I've produced a screenshot that illustrates the numbers. It was not difficult to pop into a spreadsheet and put in a conditional format.

And very nice it is too, thank you.

Tim, for reference, this is how actual science works. When we have a graph and the data at our disposal, actual analysis is done on the data, not by blowing up the graph and trying to figure out where a line falls.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 04:33:33 PM
I have looked at the numbers and I cannot begin to imagine how you believe Apollo 11 could have operated in cislunar space, transited the VAB and landed on the moon and have received only .22 mgy/day.

Thag is NOT what I asked. Do you acknowledge that GCR rates less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded in the data you presented to us or not?


Show me on this graph where you see a dose rate of less than .2 mgy/day.  I blew it up and still don't see it.  I would have used the graph from 1969 but it was expended when the astronauts ran out of toilet paper.

I have attached a section of data used to plot the graph. I ran the whole set of data through a spreadsheet - in excess of 64000 days worth of data. Not quite the computations that require a computer the size of tennis court, but nonetheless I hope this helps.

There are 6 detectors abroad CRaTER. The green cells highlight those detectors that meet your requirement, the green cells where the dose is greater 0.22 mGy/day. The red cells where the dose is greater 0.22 mGy/day.

On a particular day, the percentage of times when all detectors were below your requirement was 64%. Now remember, this data is taken in cycle 24. Apollo occurred in cycle 20 where solar activity was greater.

The values in the cells are in cGy/day.

That is quite impressive but I was of the opinion that to obtain an accurate indication of exposure because each of the detectors are different that you had to average the values.  I could be wrong in this matter but it seems plausible on the surface.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 04:35:23 PM
Also, you are not interpreting the y-axis correctly. Most of those dotted lines correspond to the x-axis divisions. This is a logarithmic y-axis. There are no subdivisions marked between the major graduations. This matches with the numbers.

Phew... for a minute. I was of course being flippant when I said 'I probably won't understand his explanation.' given the patronising tone. Honest  :-\
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 04:37:10 PM
Phew... for a minute. I was of course being flippant when I said 'I probably won't understand his explanation.' given the patronising tone. Honest  :-\

Sorry, that was addressed to Tim. I know you can interpret a log graph correctly. :)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 04:37:24 PM
That is quite impressive but I was of the opinion that to obtain an accurate indication of exposure because each of the detectors are different that you had to average the values.  I could be wrong in this matte but it seems plausible on the surface.

It's not impressive really.

If all the numbers are less than 0.22 mGr/day and you take an average, will your average be:

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 04:37:32 PM
Also, you are not interpreting the y-axis correctly. Most of those dotted lines correspond to the x-axis divisions. This is a logarithmic y-axis. There are no subdivisions marked between the major graduations. This matches with the numbers.

If you chose to interpret as logarithmic that is your prerogative.  Just because the axis is exponential does not make the graph logarithmic.    We must agree to disagree but I think the graph would work against you if it was logarithmic. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 04:38:32 PM
That is quite impressive but I was of the opinion that to obtain an accurate indication of exposure because each of the detectors are different that you had to average the values.

And what average do you expect when you take a bunch of values for a given day that are all below 0.22?

Now do you, or do you not, acknowledge that the data does show that GCR rates of less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded in that data set?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 04:39:31 PM
Phew... for a minute. I was of course being flippant when I said 'I probably won't understand his explanation.' given the patronising tone. Honest  :-\

Sorry, that was addressed to Tim. I know you can interpret a log graph correctly. :)

I know, but when you joined the fray tonight, I thought for a minute you accepted Tim's point of the ordinate being exponential. It's only now you came back to that issue.

It's the weight you carry on this forum. I walked off for a minute muttering to myself when you first posted... 'I'm sure it's logarithmic, but I'll take Jason's word here.'
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 04:40:00 PM
That is quite impressive but I was of the opinion that to obtain an accurate indication of exposure because each of the detectors are different that you had to average the values.  I could be wrong in this matte but it seems plausible on the surface.

it's not impressive really.

If all the numbers are less than 0.22 mg/day and you take an average, will your average be:

greater than 0.22?
less than 0.22?

What are you saying?  The graph doesn't represent the actual data?  Tell me it isn't so.  How can we trust scientist if they can used a spreadsheet to reproduce a graph.  Preposterous!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 04:40:55 PM
We must agree to disagree but I think the graph would work against you if it was logarithmic.

How, exactly? SHow me, precisely, how that y-axis is anyhting but logarithmic. Considering that there are two sets of dotted lines, one corresponding to x-axis divisions and one to y-axis. Especially note the posiition of the horizontal line where the 10^0 y-axis value is.

Now tell me why I should interpret that graph as anything other than an industry standard logaithmic scale, and the answer the question I have asked you half a dozen times now. WHy will you not look at the numbers?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 02, 2018, 04:41:16 PM
So it is recap time once again.

1.  I am wrong in believing Apollo 11"s reported mission daily dose does not represent of an actual lunar transit.
2.  I am wrong in believing the lunar surface is radioactive.
3.  I am wrong in believing that GCR levels have never been recorded lower than .2mgy/day
4.  I am wrong in believing that a transit of 4 hours through the VAB following any path will add a significant radiation dose.
5.  I am wrong in believing that a lunar orbit is a higher exposure rate than travel in deep space and cislunar space.
6.  Finally, I am wrong in believing no lunar mission can have a dose rate less than background radiation of cislunar space.

Did I cover everything?
If this set of statements is your admission that yes Apollo missions occurred as recorded. Further you participated in two forums and have had you head handed to you and finally an admission of error is really good.
If you mean it welcome back to the real world.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 04:41:31 PM
We must agree to disagree but I think the graph would work against you if it was logarithmic.

The ordinate is logarithmic as it goes up in powers of 10. The graph cannot work against us, because as we've pointed out the graph shows the trends, but the numbers support the analysis. That's how science is done.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 04:43:25 PM
What are you saying?  The graph doesn't represent the actual data?  Tell me it isn't so.

It isn't so.

Tim, you have a data set and a graph from the same source that YOU provided to this discussion. Do you believe the data supplied on that website is fake or the graph is fake? If you believe one or other is wrong why do you think it can support your argument at all?

Once again, you will not consider that it is YOU that is wrong about your interpretation of the graph, will you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 02, 2018, 04:43:34 PM
I have looked at the numbers and I cannot begin to imagine how you believe Apollo 11 could have operated in cislunar space, transited the VAB and landed on the moon and have received only .22 mgy/day.

Thag is NOT what I asked. Do you acknowledge that GCR rates less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded in the data you presented to us or not?

Show me on this graph where you see a dose rate of less than .2 mgy/day.  I blew it up and still don't see it.  I would have used the graph from 1969 but it was expended when the astronauts ran out of toilet paper.
This graph is clearly logarithmic.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 04:44:22 PM
What are you saying?  The graph doesn't represent the actual data?  Tell me it isn't so.  How can we trust scientist if they can used a spreadsheet to reproduce a graph.  Preposterous!

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bobdude11 on April 02, 2018, 04:50:46 PM
...
What you need to understand about this forum is that you will be questioned in a Socrastic manner by some members to determine your level of expertise.

...

Ahh ... the rare sarcastic, Socratic method ... :)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 04:52:59 PM
...
What you need to understand about this forum is that you will be questioned in a Socrastic manner by some members to determine your level of expertise.

...

Ahh ... the rare sarcastic, Socratic method ... :)

Thanks... he was mate of Plateo and Hippopotamuscrates  :-[
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: theteacher on April 02, 2018, 04:54:42 PM
I have looked at the numbers and I cannot begin to imagine how you believe Apollo 11 could have operated in cislunar space, transited the VAB and landed on the moon and have received only .22 mgy/day.

Thag is NOT what I asked. Do you acknowledge that GCR rates less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded in the data you presented to us or not?

Show me on this graph where you see a dose rate of less than .2 mgy/day.  I blew it up and still don't see it.  I would have used the graph from 1969 but it was expended when the astronauts ran out of toilet paper.
This graph is clearly logarithmic.

- by definition, one might add.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 04:55:01 PM
We must agree to disagree but I think the graph would work against you if it was logarithmic.

How, exactly? SHow me, precisely, how that y-axis is anyhting but logarithmic. Considering that there are two sets of dotted lines, one corresponding to x-axis divisions and one to y-axis. Especially note the posiition of the horizontal line where the 10^0 y-axis value is.

Now tell me why I should interpret that graph as anything other than an industry standard logaithmic scale, and the answer the question I have asked you half a dozen times now. WHy will you not look at the numbers?
The simple test is to check for linearity.  If the data is linear then it is not a logarithmic graph.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 04:58:06 PM
The simple test is to check for linearity.  If the data is linear then it is not a logarithmic graph.

Tim, do you or do you not acknowledge that data is recorded in that set that clearly shows levels of less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded?

Secondly, here's a simple test for you. Download that data into Excel and plot the graph. It just took me all of five minutes to do that, and when I put the y-axis to a log scale lo and behold it looks just like that graph.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on April 02, 2018, 05:00:53 PM
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3682b3245e3515ae6d5ec10ef357c2b1-c)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 05:02:26 PM
The simple test is to check for linearity.  If the data is linear then it is not a logarithmic graph.

No, that's not how it works.  ???
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 05:04:39 PM
The simple test is to check for linearity.  If the data is linear then it is not a logarithmic graph.

Tim, do you or do you not acknowledge that data is recorded in that set that clearly shows levels of less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded?

Secondly, here's a simple test for you. Download that data into Excel and plot the graph. It just took me all of five minutes to do that, and when I put the y-axis to a log scale lo and behold it looks just like that graph.
I do but it is important to note that the graph we speak of is summation graph where the detector outputs were added and averaged.  The graph is derived from the very data that you laud before me.  How can you doubt the authenticity of the graph.  I didn't make it, they did.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bobdude11 on April 02, 2018, 05:06:22 PM
Ah, I wasn't expecting a return to the debate!!

I do have a question for Mr Finch, as regards the measured, or generally accepted figures for radiation levels in space beyond the VAB.  (I originally brought it up in post #550 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1444.msg43977#msg43977), but I'll summarise here as well.)

I work for a company which develops data handling technologies* for spacecraft.  I'm on the software side of things, but I know our chip design folks have to consider a lot of factors about the environment their designs will be used in.  Since the data they're using is based on the generally accepted measurements and models, why aren't there a lot more failures of missions operating in these regions?

As I also noted in my previous post, it's not just NASA that's involved in determining radiation risks, but private companies and other organisations in the US, and around the world, and even small independent groups like the Lunar X-Prize teams.

Either :
a) the failure rates are being covered up, or
b) all the engineers, all over the world, are in some great conspiracy to lie about the figures, or
c) all missions outside of LEO are fakes, or
d) the space radiation environment has been correctly measured and modelled, and allows for safe design of both manned and unmanned missions

Which, in your opinion, is the explanation?


[ * The same technology has been used on well over 100 missions, including LRO, MRO and Mars Express, and will launch on BepiColombo, JWST and several other upcoming spacecraft.]
The technology obviously exist to operate electronic equipment in the SAA and passing through the VAB.  Missions in this high radiation background have shorter life expectancies than missions that remain in LEO.  I can't begin to answer your question without comparative data.  I am sure redundancy and hardened equipment was used in designing electronic equipment for the hazards of space.  What has any of this to do with my claim that Apollo 11's mission dose is unrealistic in light of recent empirical data?
Ah, the joys of being in a different time zone...  ;D

The relevance to the Apollo missions is that the data used for shielding, design of rad-hard electronics etc. is based on the measurements over many years, starting pre-Apollo.  The published, currently available data, which has been used for many, many missions, shows that the environment outside LEO and the VAB is not as hostile as you claim, and certainly not enough to prevent manned lunar missions.

You're claiming that this data, used by engineers in many countries, is incorrect, and misrepresents the actual environment, but the success and reliability of missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond, to Lagrange points etc. says otherwise.

Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with spacecraft reliability and failure data, because radiation damage is not the primary cause of missions failures (even ignoring launch failure and human errors).

Why would I.  I have made no claims about mission survivability.  I don't even claim that the radiation hazards are insurmountable.  The only claim I make and am willing to defend is the mission doses of Apollo 11 do not represent realistic values in light of current data.  Anything else is yours.

Speaking from a non-expert in this field, no, no you are not willing to defend. Hand-waving, deflection, insults, those are your 'debate' method of choice. You have not made any argument that I find remotely convincing. On the other hand, I have read about all of the missions around: Apollo, Gemini, Mercury, Space-X, the Space Shuttle, and even what I can about various Russian (pre- and post- Cold War), and Chinese space missions. What I can say is this (obviously from a very layman's' perspective):
All these missions all occurred as recorded and the data around them is irrefutable. The experts on this forum have bent over backwards to steer you in the direction of a correct diagnosis of the data.
Instead you choose to ignore the information presented, instead you repeat your incorrect assumptions, demand they offer something (I am not sure what) to refute you (which they have repeatedly done. You then, when you don't get the answer you demand, begin insulting them. You have proven post after post that you do not understand what you are reading, bluster about your military experience (which sounds to me like a standard certificate course the military provides - I have one for my Security Police training, that doesn't make me a lawyer), and refusal to admit that your initial diagnoses and determinations were simply wrong.
Please stop being obtuse and either admit your are wrong or just go back to your sycophantic forums.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 05:06:44 PM
The simple test is to check for linearity.  If the data is linear then it is not a logarithmic graph.

No, that's not how it works.  ???
Sure it is, a logarithmic graph is plotted using the log of the data points and not the data points themselves
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 05:09:18 PM
I do but it is important to note that the graph we speak of is summation graph where the detector outputs were added and averaged.

...and if you take the average of 2 points whose values are both less than 0.22 mGr/day, will your average be:



Quote
The graph is derived from the very data that you laud before me.  How can you doubt the authenticity of the graph.  I didn't make it, they did.

You brought the data here, and we don't doubt the authenticity of the graph. You did not read the scale correctly.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 05:12:17 PM
Ah, I wasn't expecting a return to the debate!!

I do have a question for Mr Finch, as regards the measured, or generally accepted figures for radiation levels in space beyond the VAB.  (I originally brought it up in post #550 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1444.msg43977#msg43977), but I'll summarise here as well.)

I work for a company which develops data handling technologies* for spacecraft.  I'm on the software side of things, but I know our chip design folks have to consider a lot of factors about the environment their designs will be used in.  Since the data they're using is based on the generally accepted measurements and models, why aren't there a lot more failures of missions operating in these regions?

As I also noted in my previous post, it's not just NASA that's involved in determining radiation risks, but private companies and other organisations in the US, and around the world, and even small independent groups like the Lunar X-Prize teams.

Either :
a) the failure rates are being covered up, or
b) all the engineers, all over the world, are in some great conspiracy to lie about the figures, or
c) all missions outside of LEO are fakes, or
d) the space radiation environment has been correctly measured and modelled, and allows for safe design of both manned and unmanned missions

Which, in your opinion, is the explanation?


[ * The same technology has been used on well over 100 missions, including LRO, MRO and Mars Express, and will launch on BepiColombo, JWST and several other upcoming spacecraft.]
The technology obviously exist to operate electronic equipment in the SAA and passing through the VAB.  Missions in this high radiation background have shorter life expectancies than missions that remain in LEO.  I can't begin to answer your question without comparative data.  I am sure redundancy and hardened equipment was used in designing electronic equipment for the hazards of space.  What has any of this to do with my claim that Apollo 11's mission dose is unrealistic in light of recent empirical data?
Ah, the joys of being in a different time zone...  ;D

The relevance to the Apollo missions is that the data used for shielding, design of rad-hard electronics etc. is based on the measurements over many years, starting pre-Apollo.  The published, currently available data, which has been used for many, many missions, shows that the environment outside LEO and the VAB is not as hostile as you claim, and certainly not enough to prevent manned lunar missions.

You're claiming that this data, used by engineers in many countries, is incorrect, and misrepresents the actual environment, but the success and reliability of missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond, to Lagrange points etc. says otherwise.

Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with spacecraft reliability and failure data, because radiation damage is not the primary cause of missions failures (even ignoring launch failure and human errors).

Why would I.  I have made no claims about mission survivability.  I don't even claim that the radiation hazards are insurmountable.  The only claim I make and am willing to defend is the mission doses of Apollo 11 do not represent realistic values in light of current data.  Anything else is yours.

Speaking from a non-expert in this field, no, no you are not willing to defend. Hand-waving, deflection, insults, those are your 'debate' method of choice. You have not made any argument that I find remotely convincing. On the other hand, I have read about all of the missions around: Apollo, Gemini, Mercury, Space-X, the Space Shuttle, and even what I can about various Russian (pre- and post- Cold War), and Chinese space missions. What I can say is this (obviously from a very layman's' perspective):
All these missions all occurred as recorded and the data around them is irrefutable. The experts on this forum have bent over backwards to steer you in the direction of a correct diagnosis of the data.
Instead you choose to ignore the information presented, instead you repeat your incorrect assumptions, demand they offer something (I am not sure what) to refute you (which they have repeatedly done. You then, when you don't get the answer you demand, begin insulting them. You have proven post after post that you do not understand what you are reading, bluster about your military experience (which sounds to me like a standard certificate course the military provides - I have one for my Security Police training, that doesn't make me a lawyer), and refusal to admit that your initial diagnoses and determinations were simply wrong.
Please stop being obtuse and either admit your are wrong or just go back to your sycophantic forums.

Sycophantic?  I am an island in a sea of like minded people and you speak to me of sycophants.  There is as much separation in the collective thought pattern of this forum as there is space between the protons and neutrons of a helium atom.  Not an original thought exist in the lot of you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 05:14:16 PM
I do but it is important to note that the graph we speak of is summation graph where the detector outputs were added and averaged.

...and if you take the average of 2 points whose values are both less than 0.22 mGr/day, will your average be:

  • less than 0.22 mGr/day
  • greater than 0.22 mGr/day


Quote
The graph is derived from the very data that you laud before me.  How can you doubt the authenticity of the graph.  I didn't make it, they did.

You brought the data here, and we don't doubt the authenticity of the graph. You did not read the scale correctly.
Let us assume you are correct.  The graph is logarithmic and it shows what a minimum GCR background level of what?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 05:15:48 PM
I do but it is important to note that the graph we speak of is summation graph where the detector outputs were added and averaged.

Yes, and when you add and average a bunch of data points less than 0.2 you get an everage less than 0.2

Quote
How can you doubt the authenticity of the graph.

I don't, and I never have. As I said, I just put the data into excel and plotted the graph myself. It is only your interpretation of the graph that I doubt.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 05:17:29 PM
Sure it is, a logarithmic graph is plotted using the log of the data points and not the data points themselves

You have GOT to be kidding?

A logarithmic scale is used to plot data points with a wide dynamic range on a single scale. It is absolutely NOT done by changing the data points, only by changing how the scale is presented. In this case it allows the fluctuation in the baseline levels to be seen even when all the SPE spikes are plotted on the same graph.

Incidentally, I do this kind of data plotting, manipulation and interpetation for a living.

Like I said earlier, download the data and plot the graph yourself.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 05:18:26 PM
Let us assume you are correct.  The graph is logarithmic and it shows what a minimum GCR background level of what?

Read the numbers Tim. For the love of god look at the actual data and find the minimum yourself.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 05:22:01 PM
Sure it is, a logarithmic graph is plotted using the log of the data points and not the data points themselves

I think I see the confusion. Your confusing two things here. A log scale and a log graph related to monomials. If I have data that I think has the form y = axk, I will take a log of the data. If the data has this form then

log y = log a + k.log x

will fit to a straight line.

If I have data that changes by orders of magnitudes, I plot that data on a log scale, so the variation of the small numbers show up as well as the large number. I don't take the logs of my data when I choose a log scale.

The data on your graph is represented by a log scale as the data changes by orders of magnitude for the SPE events.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 05:23:46 PM
Consider this article from a Nasa web site.

Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface. These values are expected to double at the low point in the 11-year cycle of solar-flare activity (solar minimum) because of decreased solar magnetic shielding of the central planets. The effect of high-energy cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years. Experimental evidence of the effects of these radiations is dependent on the development of highly advanced particle accelerators or the advent of long-term manned missions outside the Earth's geomagnetic influence.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

I am not sure but I think 1 millirad/hour is equal to .24 mgy/day.  Correct me if I am wrong.  This article was written back in the seventies.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bobdude11 on April 02, 2018, 05:24:38 PM
The simple test is to check for linearity.  If the data is linear then it is not a logarithmic graph.

Tim, do you or do you not acknowledge that data is recorded in that set that clearly shows levels of less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded?

Secondly, here's a simple test for you. Download that data into Excel and plot the graph. It just took me all of five minutes to do that, and when I put the y-axis to a log scale lo and behold it looks just like that graph.
I do but it is important to note that the graph we speak of is summation graph where the detector outputs were added and averaged.  The graph is derived from the very data that you laud before me.  How can you doubt the authenticity of the graph.  I didn't make it, they did.

I think my brain just committed suicide on this one.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 05:25:49 PM
Consider this article from a Nasa web site.

No, do not shift to something else once you run out of ways to weasel out of admitting your interpretation of the data you so adamantly insisted supported your point was wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 05:26:50 PM
Consider this article from a Nasa web site.

No, let's establish your understanding of log scales and log graphs, and whether you can now concede that the data you brought here actually fulfils the criteria set out in your initial premise of <0.22 mGr/day.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 05:29:20 PM
Sure it is, a logarithmic graph is plotted using the log of the data points and not the data points themselves

I think I see the confusion. Your confusing two things here. A log scale and a log graph related to monomials. If I have data that I think has the form y = axk, I will take a log of the data. If the data has this form then

log y = log a + k.log x

will fit to a straight line.

If I have data that changes by orders of magnitudes, I plot that data on a log scale, so the variation of the small numbers show up as well as the large number. I don't take the logs of my data when I choose a log scale.

The data on your graph is represented by a log scale as the data changes by orders of magnitude for the SPE events.
I recognize that I can't change your mind and I will leave you with your interpretation.  I am moving on.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 05:30:55 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_scale
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 05:32:33 PM
I recognize that I can't change your mind and I will leave you with your interpretation.  I am moving on.

Tim, this is not interpretation, this is standard mathematical practice. You are moving on because you won't actually do the simple thing that has been suggested and look at the data yourself. As I said, it took me all of five minutes to download the data into Excel and plot the exact same graph using that data on a logarithmic scale. Why exactly are you so unwilling to take five minutes of your time to do the same thing and tell us how it went?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 05:33:46 PM
I recognize that I can't change your mind and I will leave you with your interpretation.  I am moving on.

It's not a case of changing my mind. It's a case that you thought the data was converted with logarithmic functions first when actually it is the scale that is chosen to be logarithmic. There's a difference.

Now you've seen the data, that you brought here, do you agree that the levels can be less than 0.22 mGr/day. If not, why not?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 05:34:06 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_scale

Nothing  in there contradicts what we have been saying about that graph, Tim.... The y-axis is logarithmic, the x is linear. As I have said before, you can actually do this yourself with that exact data set. Why will you not?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 02, 2018, 05:37:10 PM
Ah, I wasn't expecting a return to the debate!!

I do have a question for Mr Finch, as regards the measured, or generally accepted figures for radiation levels in space beyond the VAB.  (I originally brought it up in post #550 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1444.msg43977#msg43977), but I'll summarise here as well.)

I work for a company which develops data handling technologies* for spacecraft.  I'm on the software side of things, but I know our chip design folks have to consider a lot of factors about the environment their designs will be used in.  Since the data they're using is based on the generally accepted measurements and models, why aren't there a lot more failures of missions operating in these regions?

As I also noted in my previous post, it's not just NASA that's involved in determining radiation risks, but private companies and other organisations in the US, and around the world, and even small independent groups like the Lunar X-Prize teams.

Either :
a) the failure rates are being covered up, or
b) all the engineers, all over the world, are in some great conspiracy to lie about the figures, or
c) all missions outside of LEO are fakes, or
d) the space radiation environment has been correctly measured and modelled, and allows for safe design of both manned and unmanned missions

Which, in your opinion, is the explanation?


[ * The same technology has been used on well over 100 missions, including LRO, MRO and Mars Express, and will launch on BepiColombo, JWST and several other upcoming spacecraft.]
The technology obviously exist to operate electronic equipment in the SAA and passing through the VAB.  Missions in this high radiation background have shorter life expectancies than missions that remain in LEO.  I can't begin to answer your question without comparative data.  I am sure redundancy and hardened equipment was used in designing electronic equipment for the hazards of space.  What has any of this to do with my claim that Apollo 11's mission dose is unrealistic in light of recent empirical data?
Ah, the joys of being in a different time zone...  ;D

The relevance to the Apollo missions is that the data used for shielding, design of rad-hard electronics etc. is based on the measurements over many years, starting pre-Apollo.  The published, currently available data, which has been used for many, many missions, shows that the environment outside LEO and the VAB is not as hostile as you claim, and certainly not enough to prevent manned lunar missions.

You're claiming that this data, used by engineers in many countries, is incorrect, and misrepresents the actual environment, but the success and reliability of missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond, to Lagrange points etc. says otherwise.

Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with spacecraft reliability and failure data, because radiation damage is not the primary cause of missions failures (even ignoring launch failure and human errors).

Why would I.  I have made no claims about mission survivability.  I don't even claim that the radiation hazards are insurmountable.  The only claim I make and am willing to defend is the mission doses of Apollo 11 do not represent realistic values in light of current data.  Anything else is yours.

Speaking from a non-expert in this field, no, no you are not willing to defend. Hand-waving, deflection, insults, those are your 'debate' method of choice. You have not made any argument that I find remotely convincing. On the other hand, I have read about all of the missions around: Apollo, Gemini, Mercury, Space-X, the Space Shuttle, and even what I can about various Russian (pre- and post- Cold War), and Chinese space missions. What I can say is this (obviously from a very layman's' perspective):
All these missions all occurred as recorded and the data around them is irrefutable. The experts on this forum have bent over backwards to steer you in the direction of a correct diagnosis of the data.
Instead you choose to ignore the information presented, instead you repeat your incorrect assumptions, demand they offer something (I am not sure what) to refute you (which they have repeatedly done. You then, when you don't get the answer you demand, begin insulting them. You have proven post after post that you do not understand what you are reading, bluster about your military experience (which sounds to me like a standard certificate course the military provides - I have one for my Security Police training, that doesn't make me a lawyer), and refusal to admit that your initial diagnoses and determinations were simply wrong.
Please stop being obtuse and either admit your are wrong or just go back to your sycophantic forums.

Sycophantic?  I am an island in a sea of like minded people and you speak to me of sycophants.  There is as much separation in the collective thought pattern of this forum as there is space between the protons and neutrons of a helium atom.  Not an original thought exist in the lot of you.

and we're back on the insults. You want original thought I have a whole website that is no-ones work but my own. Proves you wrong every which way you look at it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 05:44:44 PM

A log scale makes it easy to compare values that cover a large range, such as in this map
A logarithmic scale is a nonlinear scale used when there is a large range of quantities. Common uses include earthquake strength, sound loudness, light intensity, and pH of solutions.

It is based on orders of magnitude, rather than a standard linear scale, so the value represented by each equidistant mark on the scale is the value at the previous mark multiplied by a constant.

Logarithmic scales are also used in slide rules for multiplying or dividing numbers by adding or subtracting lengths on the scales.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 05:47:25 PM

A log scale makes it easy to compare values that cover a large range, such as in this map
A logarithmic scale is a nonlinear scale used when there is a large range of quantities. Common uses include earthquake strength, sound loudness, light intensity, and pH of solutions.

It is based on orders of magnitude, rather than a standard linear scale, so the value represented by each equidistant mark on the scale is the value at the previous mark multiplied by a constant.

Logarithmic scales are also used in slide rules for multiplying or dividing numbers by adding or subtracting lengths on the scales.

Yes, we know all that. It doesn't actually disgree with what we have been saying. It does not say anything about changing the data, only how the y-axis is divided and marked out.

I will repeat: you can download this data set and plot the graph yourself in less time than you've spect arguing about the scale. Why will you not do it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 05:47:46 PM
Consider this article from a Nasa web site.

Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface. These values are expected to double at the low point in the 11-year cycle of solar-flare activity (solar minimum) because of decreased solar magnetic shielding of the central planets. The effect of high-energy cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years. Experimental evidence of the effects of these radiations is dependent on the development of highly advanced particle accelerators or the advent of long-term manned missions outside the Earth's geomagnetic influence.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

I am not sure but I think 1 millirad/hour is equal to .24 mgy/day.  Correct me if I am wrong.  This article was written back in the seventies.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 05:50:26 PM
At first you didn't want to use CraTer data and now you don't want to use Apollo era data?  You wanted to compare apples to apples.  Well eat you apple my hearty.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2018, 05:54:35 PM
At first you didn't want to use CraTer data and now you don't want to use Apollo era data?

We'll quite happily use Apollo data. The issue here is your refusal to actually address the issues in your interpretation of the CraTer data, and the obvious tactic of throwing something else at the wall in the hope it will stick.

You do not understand the data you are presenting. That much is clear.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 05:58:53 PM
A log scale makes it easy to compare values that cover a large range, such as in this map
A logarithmic scale is a nonlinear scale used when there is a large range of quantities. Common uses include earthquake strength, sound loudness, light intensity, and pH of solutions.

All you are doing here is confusing the issue between a graph axis that is scaled using a log scale and measurements that are based on converting known quantities to a logarithm to make orders of magnitude estimate comparisons. For example, the pH of a solution is given by:

pH = -log10[H+]

Where [H+] is the concentration of hydrated hydrogen ions. This is useful in chemistry as we can quickly compute differences in hydrogen ion concentration. An acid with a pH of 1 has a hydrogen ion concentration 1000 time greater than an acid with a pH of 4.

A more familiar example. An earthquake of magnitude 8 releases 100 times more energy than an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.

A log scale on a graph has major units that change by a single power of 10, and the data is plotted without conversion to logs (unless relationships to monomials is desired).

There really is no more than to it than this. Now go look at the data and find where the minima meet your criteria and plot the data using a log scale. You'll find that there is nothing nefarious about the data or the graph.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 06:07:29 PM
At first you didn't want to use CraTer data and now you don't want to use Apollo era data?  You wanted to compare apples to apples.  Well eat you apple my hearty.


... but we did use the CRaTER data, it was you that did not look at it, so that's rather an hollow accusation to make.. You brought it here, you made the premise, then it was pointed out that data did not support your premise by us. We used the data.

We've now got to the crux of the problem: You interpreted the graph incorrectly, you won't actually look at the data to perform a rudimentary analysis to support your hypothesis, you think a quick inspection of graphs is sufficient to carry out science, once that data was finally presented to you on a plate, you do not understand averages and representing data in graphs.

You are dealing with engineers and scientists at this forum. Your assertion did not stand scrutiny as you hand waved and dodged. So why should we dance around again with new data?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 06:13:23 PM
At first you didn't want to use CraTer data and now you don't want to use Apollo era data?  You wanted to compare apples to apples.  Well eat you apple my hearty.


... but we did use the CRaTER data, it was you that did not look at it, so that's rather an hollow accusation to make.. You brought it here, you made the premise, then it was pointed out that data did not support your premise by us. We used the data.

We've now got to the crux of the problem: You interpreted the graph incorrectly, you won't actually look at the data to perform a rudimentary analysis to support your hypothesis, you think a quick inspection of graphs is sufficient to carry out science, once that data was finally presented to you on a plate, you do not understand averages and representing data in graphs.

You are dealing with engineers and scientists at this forum. Your assertion did not stand scrutiny as you hand waved and dodged. So why should we dance around again with new data?
But you claimed it was not valid because it was a different solar cycle but now it is valid?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 06:14:28 PM
If the Axis looks like this then it is logarithmic
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 06:23:48 PM
But you claimed it was not valid because it was a different solar cycle but now it is valid?

You are confounding to points:

First point, and the most important was your premise: the CRaTER data does not fall below the figure of 0.22 mG/day. We've now shown you that is incorrect. We wanted to examine your initial premise, so were prepared to use the CRaTER data which you would no interrogate. We have used the CRaTER data, which your brought here, you have not. We were asking about the validity of your claims based on the data, not the validity of the data

Second point: The CRaTER data was taken in cycle 24, which is a less active cycle than 20. This would suggest that the CRaTER data would have been lower in cycle 20 as the GCR flux would be higher. Therefor using the CRaTER data would not be valid for an event in 1969.

The logic is one of inductive proof. The first is whether your claim is valid, the second if your assumption of using the data for Apollo is valid. Two different things.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 06:30:18 PM
I am comfortable using CraTer Data.  The only sticking point is whether the CraTer graph is linear or logarithmic.  If each of the divisions in a grid represent the an equal amount and they are evenly spaced then the graph is linear.  If the divisions are offset by the logarithm then it is logarithmic.  Are the ticks evenly spaced?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 06:33:08 PM
I presented you with Apollo GCR data.  It is stated cislunar space was at 1 millirad/hr or .24 mgy/day.  Let's compare apples to apples.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 06:35:16 PM
Now if we used 1969 data it is plain to see that Apollo 11's daily dose is less than cislunar space background radiation.  I believe it is your move.


Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface. These values are expected to double at the low point in the 11-year cycle of solar-flare activity (solar minimum) because of decreased solar magnetic shielding of the central planets. The effect of high-energy cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years. Experimental evidence of the effects of these radiations is dependent on the development of highly advanced particle accelerators or the advent of long-term manned missions outside the Earth's geomagnetic influence.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 06:39:25 PM
Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface.

Interesting. It would appear that the dose is less on your highly radioactive surface than in cisluanr space. Any comments?

Now let's take a key point about this data and the CRaTER data. See that word in bold - average. Let's investigate the idea of an average and actual dosimeter readings. Let's say that we measure the dose each day with a detector in space, this gives us a sequence in arbitrary units.

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

What is the average daily dose for the 15 days?

What would you average dose read for a mission that occurred during the first 5 days?

Now compare your received dose for the mission with the average daily dose recorded by the detector in space. What can you say about the notion of average dose and actual measured dose over a mission?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 06:45:25 PM
Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface.

Interesting. It would appear that the dose is less on your highly radioactive surface than in cisluanr space. Any comments?

Now let's take a key point about this data and the CRaTER data. See that word in bold - average. Let's investigate the idea of an average and actual dosimeter readings. Let's say that we have 15 days in a row and the dose rate in millirads measured by a detector in space each day follows the sequence.

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

What is the average daily dose for the 15 days?

What would you average dose read for a mission that occurred during the first 5 days?

Now compare your received dose for the mission with the average daily dose recorded by the detector in space. What can you say about the notion of average dose and actual measured dose over a mission?

Accumulated total dose divided by mission duration is the way to go. I see nothing wrong.  Stay with me.  How can Apollo 11 have less dosage than cislunar background radiation?  How does that work?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 06:46:32 PM
The effect of high-energy cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years.

Care to comment on your this point, that you brought to the forum. It's your information.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 06:51:14 PM
Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface.

Interesting. It would appear that the dose is less on your highly radioactive surface than in cisluanr space. Any comments?

Now let's take a key point about this data and the CRaTER data. See that word in bold - average. Let's investigate the idea of an average and actual dosimeter readings. Let's say that we have 15 days in a row and the dose rate in millirads measured by a detector in space each day follows the sequence.

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

What is the average daily dose for the 15 days?

What would you average dose read for a mission that occurred during the first 5 days?

Now compare your received dose for the mission with the average daily dose recorded by the detector in space. What can you say about the notion of average dose and actual measured dose over a mission?

Accumulated total dose divided by mission duration is the way to go. I see nothing wrong.  Stay with me.  How can Apollo 11 have less dosage than cislunar background radiation?  How does that work?

I'll do the sums for you then, using your own assumptions of accumulated dose/duration:

The accumulated dose for 15 days would be 30 units, the average dose would be 2 units/day.

If I were to go on a mission in the first five days, my accumulated dose would be 5 units, my average daily dose would be 1 unit/day.

Over to you: Can a mission dose be less than the average dose recorded over a longer time period?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 06:55:24 PM
Why are we considering variation in mission duration or even daily radiation dose?  The mission was eight days and that is a given and it matters not what the daily dose was.  It is the accumulated dose that is biologically important.  I am missing your point.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 06:57:12 PM
Do you have reason to disbelieve NASA's statement that cislunar space had a level of 1 millirad/hr?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 07:06:42 PM
Why are we considering variation in mission duration or even daily radiation dose?  The mission was eight days and that is a given and it matter not wath the daily dose was.  It is the accumulated dose that is biologically important.  I am missing your point.

I agree with you, that accumulated dose is important, but as we are dealing with mission doses that are no more than a chest x-ray or CT scan; we can work within acceptable parameters of accumulated dose. Now, let me remind you:

You introduced the notion of daily dose of <0.22 mGr/day and then comparing this to cislunar daily levels.

You told me mission accumulated dose / mission duration was the way to go. I'm using your assumptions.

You now want to move on to data that is representative of 1969 and you cited an average dose of 1 mrad/day. I can only deal with your assumptions of dose / day and the data you present.

So let's go through this again. I have a satellite in space that records the daily dose thus:

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

What is the average daily dose? Please answer.

What is the average daily dose for an astronaut of they fly a mission on the first five days of the profile above.

What's the problem with using your new data of average dose without understanding fluctuation in the background GCR.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 07:07:55 PM
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?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 07:11:26 PM
Something has to be wrong.

You have 15 coins of value 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

What is the average value of the 15 coins?

What is the average value of the first five coins in the sequence?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 07:12:25 PM
Why are we considering variation in mission duration or even daily radiation dose?  The mission was eight days and that is a given and it matter not wath the daily dose was.  It is the accumulated dose that is biologically important.  I am missing your point.

I agree with you, that accumulated dose is important, but as we are dealing with mission doses that are no more than a chest x-ray or CT scan; we can work within acceptable parameters of accumulated dose. Now, let me remind you:

You introduced the notion of daily dose of <0.22 mGr/day and then comparing this to cislunar daily levels.

You told me mission accumulated dose / mission duration was the way to go. I'm using your assumptions.

You now want to move on to data that is representative of 1969 and you cited an average dose of 1 mrad/day. I can only deal with your assumptions of dose / day and the data you present.

So let's go through this again. I have a satellite in space that records the daily dose thus:

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

What is the average daily dose? Please answer.

What is the average daily dose for an astronaut of they fly a mission on the first five days of the profile above.

What's the problem with using your new data of average dose without understanding fluctuation in the background GCR.

Ok, I'll play along.  Accumulated dose = 30 over 15 days the average dose is 2 units/day.  So is that the tactic?  You want to pretend daily fluctuation occured and sometimes they got less and other times they got more?  Does it matter.  Dosimeters measure accumulated dose.  Where are we going with this?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 07:13:08 PM
Something has to be wrong.

You have 15 coins of value 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

What is the average value of the 15 coins?

What is the average value of the first five coins in the sequence?
one.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 07:19:52 PM
So when are we going to talk about the elephant in the room?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 07:20:40 PM
Say it with me.  Checkmate!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 07:29:07 PM
You want to pretend daily fluctuation occured and sometimes they got less and other times they got more?  Does it matter.  Dosimeters measure accumulated dose.  Where are we going with this?

I'm not pretending anything, and of course it matters. On one mission your dosimetry will be above the average and on another mission your dosimetry will be below the average. That's the problem with your argument of citing an average dose taken with one detector over many months or years, and then trying to compare dosimetry that is taken over a few days with a completely different detection technique or placement of a detector. It's apple and pears whatever you do.

If you look at the CRaTER data, or even your precious graph, you'd find that fluctuations occur on a daily basis. See those big spikes, that correspond to the SPEs. They might tell you that there are variations. If you understood ExCel, you'd see the thickness of the line is an artefact of plotting over 60 000 varying data points. So yes, the GCR data does vary on a daily basis.

The GCR flux is not constant. It varies slightly daily within a cycle, and is strongly modulated over a single cycle, with further modulation over numerous cycles.

Do you understand the term integrated flux? That was the purpose of the 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 example.

I defer this to Jay, if he wishes to enter the fray again, and he can offer you the same insight that he offered Jarrah White. He's better at explaining it than I.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 07:32:55 PM
Show me some love and concede.  Nothing wrong with being on the wrong side of the truth as long as you learn from the experience.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 07:33:36 PM
Show me some love and concede.

Jimmy Anderson has just taken England's 4th wicket. They're rampant.

Quote
Nothing wrong with being on the wrong side of the truth as long as you learn from the experience.

I agree, and where I have been leading you since you introduced your 'new data' with the average is the idea of flux. So learn from experience - do you understand the term integrated flux?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 07:34:54 PM
Show me some love and concede.  Nothing wrong with being on the wrong side of the truth as long as you learn from the experience.

Do you understand what the term integrated flux?
Sure I do and trust me, you don't want to integrate SPE's into your equation.  It is better to pretend there were none.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 07:39:57 PM
Sure I do and trust me, you don't want to integrate SPE's into your equation.

What equation? Explain, I'm interested. How would you integrate SPEs into my equation?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 07:43:46 PM
Sure I do and trust me, you don't want to integrate SPE's into your equation.

What equation? Explain, I'm interested. How would you integrate SPEs into my equation?
I wouldn't because including SPE flux would certainly yield a much higher mission dose rate proving beyond doubt that Apollo 11 was an LEO mission.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2018, 07:44:55 PM
He doesn't know calculus, Luke.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 07:45:45 PM
I wouldn't because including SPE flux would certainly yield a much higher mission dose rate proving beyond doubt that Apollo 11 was an LEO mission.

Please define how an SPE event is characterised and how many SPEs occurred in each Apollo mission.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 07:50:02 PM
He doesn't know calculus, Luke.

No, he does not. Nor log scales and links to monomials, nor averages (I still cannot quite get over that we had to explain that if you have m numbers that are all less then n, the the average must be less than n), nor variations in observed data... in fact there's a lot of maths Tim does not understand.

I'll get back to the cricket now. I quite liked the 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 example. Quite intuitive really.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2018, 07:51:40 PM
Right, so when you say "integrate" he thinks you mean to incorporate or include.  He doesn't know the concept of a time-integrated flux.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 07:53:00 PM
It is time for another recap.

1.  NASA states that the cislunar radiation during Solar cycle 20 was a minimum of 1 millirad/hr (.24 mgy/day) and as much as twice that at solar minimum.
2.  Apollo 11's .22 mgy/day is less than cislunar background radiation.
3.  Lunar orbit is 30 to 40% higher than cislunar space background radiation
4.  The lunar surface emits neutrons that increase lunar orbit radiation
5.  The flight path of the Apollo was through a path that was higher in radiation than the SAA.

These are the indisputable facts.  Make of them what you will.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 07:53:56 PM
Right, so when you say "integrate" he thinks you mean to incorporate or include.  He doesn't know the concept of a time-integrated flux.

I captured that interpretation, hence why I asked how he 'would integrate' SPEs into my sampling example.  ;)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 07:57:17 PM
Right, so when you say "integrate" he thinks you mean to incorporate or include.  He doesn't know the concept of a time-integrated flux.

I captured that interpretation, hence why I asked how he 'would integrate' SPEs into my sampling example.  ;)

Integration can be a way to sum things up over a time, space, or some other factor. Time integration is a way of summing the effects of a function over time
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 07:58:41 PM
So is there no one willing to embrace the possibility that they have been deceived?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 02, 2018, 08:00:12 PM
I'll be back tomorrow to check for concession speeches.  Be vigilant and seek truth no matter the cost.  Live long and prosper.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 02, 2018, 08:04:49 PM
The effect of high-energy cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years.

Care to comment on your this point, that you brought to the forum. It's your information.

In all fairness, GCRs HAVE become a serious concern for LONG-TERM exposures (months and years) due to the scientific measurements/analysis performed since that report (note how your quote says the effect is unknown).  This still doesn't affect the short-term risks of missions such as Apollo 11.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 08:06:55 PM
I'll be back tomorrow to check for concession speeches.  Be vigilant and seek truth no matter the cost.  Live long and prosper.

I'll be back tomorrow to see if you understand a log scale, you've interrogated the CRaTER data and shown that the graph is represented by the data.

Oh... if I have the following numbers: 5 4 3 4 1 2, will the average be less than 5 and greater than 1?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2018, 08:09:26 PM
In all fairness, GCRs HAVE become a serious concern for LONG-TERM exposures (months and years) due to the scientific measurements/analysis performed since that report (note how your quote says the effect is unknown).  This still doesn't affect the short-term risks of missions such as Apollo 11.

I went fishing, I was being a bit naughty. Good work with the CRaTER data, you cast that line. It was clear he had not looked at the data, and then what followed with log scales and averages was an utter car crash.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 02, 2018, 08:15:24 PM
I predict he will continue along in the same vein (or should I say "vain") and re-arrange his verbage just to say the same things over and over all the while ignoring all the facts and reasoning that disprove his assertions.  He is just trying to yank our chains, but I am sure everyone realizes that.  One thing he doesn't understand is that we (if I am not being too presumptuous) find his antics amusing once he has shown himself to be deliberately unreasonable.

Note:  Edited to correct "to" into "too".
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2018, 08:31:32 PM
So is there no one willing to embrace the possibility that they have been deceived?

Are you willing to embrace the possibility that you're wrong?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 02, 2018, 09:03:44 PM
Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface.

Interesting. It would appear that the dose is less on your highly radioactive surface than in cisluanr space. Any comments?

Now let's take a key point about this data and the CRaTER data. See that word in bold - average. Let's investigate the idea of an average and actual dosimeter readings. Let's say that we have 15 days in a row and the dose rate in millirads measured by a detector in space each day follows the sequence.

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

What is the average daily dose for the 15 days?

What would you average dose read for a mission that occurred during the first 5 days?

Now compare your received dose for the mission with the average daily dose recorded by the detector in space. What can you say about the notion of average dose and actual measured dose over a mission?

Accumulated total dose divided by mission duration is the way to go. I see nothing wrong.  Stay with me.  How can Apollo 11 have less dosage than cislunar background radiation?  How does that work?

Do you believe the cislunar background radiation is constant and unchanging? 

If not, do you believe that the readings taken during solar cycle 24 should apply without any adjustment to solar cycle 20, which was a more active cycle (with a correspondingly lower GCR flux)? 

You're basically asking how it could have gotten below 50 degrees F in March of 1970 when it didn't get below 68 degrees F in March of 1995.  Why would you expect measurements taken a several decades after the Apollo missions to apply, unless you believed that cislunar background radiation must remain constant? 

Why are dosimeter readings taken decades after the fact relevant to the Apollo missions? 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 02, 2018, 11:25:38 PM
So is there no one willing to embrace the possibility that they have been deceived?

Are you willing to embrace the possibility that you're wrong?

I believe he has demonstrated that fact to everyone but himself.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 02, 2018, 11:28:00 PM
So is there no one willing to embrace the possibility that they have been deceived?

I'm not even willing to embrace the slightest possibility that we were all deceived? Why? Because we weren't. I know this becasue there are hundreds of indicators that it was a real event... just a few of these are

1. The evidence for the reality of Apollo is so vast and so widespread that it simply could not have been faked.

2. All of the technical drawings, schematics, design diagrams, and written documentation from all the organizations involved including, the subcontractors, are 100% self consistent.

3. Engineers are not stupid. Any engineer working on faked up technology would know that what he was working on would not function. Engineering is a RIGOROUS speciality where it is simply impossible to compartmentalise in such a way that even the low man on the totem pole won't spot a fake immediately. (take your trade...I'll bet you could spot a fake nuclear reactor on a submarine in a heartbeat)

4. The returned samples could only have been formed on the moon... they were simply impossible to fake.

5. The US Government could not keep Watergate or the fact that POTUS was porking a White House usher a secret when only a couple of people know about it, so how on earth do you expect them to keep an Apollo Hoax a secret when almost half a million people were involved. NOT ONE OF THOSE HALF-MILLION HAS BLOWN THE WHISTLE.

6. Filmmaker SG Collins proved that the film broadcasts could not have been faked because the video technology required for such a feat simply did not exist at the time.

7. The Apollo hardware has been photographed on the surface of the moon by lunar orbiting satellites of other countries.

8. Even if we hand wave away all of the above, the cost of maintaining the hoax would not end at the end of the Apollo Programme. It would be an ongoing cost... maintaining the hoax for over 50 years would run into trillions upon trillions of dollars. That money would have to be in someone's budget and questions would be asked.   
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 02:06:56 AM
So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive.  Let's consider the implications of that finding.  There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface.  The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters.  The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing.   Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive?  Why wouldn't that be public knowledge?  Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?

Again, my printed book, printed and publicly available to a world-wide audience, refutes you.

Conspiracy believers ALWAYS think that because information is new to them, it must be new to everyone else as well.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 02:09:29 AM
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....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 02:10:56 AM
So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive.  Let's consider the implications of that finding.  There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface.  The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters.  The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing.   Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive?  Why wouldn't that be public knowledge?  Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?

Again, my printed book, printed and publicly available to a world-wide audience, refutes you.

Conspiracy believers ALWAYS think that because information is new to them, it must be new to everyone else as well.

Your book points out moon dust is radioactive?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 02:27:17 AM

A log scale makes it easy to compare values that cover a large range, such as in this map
A logarithmic scale is a nonlinear scale used when there is a large range of quantities. Common uses include earthquake strength, sound loudness, light intensity, and pH of solutions.

It is based on orders of magnitude, rather than a standard linear scale, so the value represented by each equidistant mark on the scale is the value at the previous mark multiplied by a constant.

Logarithmic scales are also used in slide rules for multiplying or dividing numbers by adding or subtracting lengths on the scales.

...such as plotting the positions of solar-system bodies on a single sheet (which I was doing back in high school, for our Traveller games), and for damn near everything involving sound levels -- dB matches pretty closely the perception of sound -- which I've been working with over the 30-odd something years since.

Again typical. Assume you are the only smart person in the room -- it is sure to make conversation go so much slower as you insist on lecturing on the basics while others are trying to move on to step #2 -- you know, the step where you started making errors.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 02:41:03 AM
So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive.  Let's consider the implications of that finding.  There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface.  The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters.  The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing.   Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive?  Why wouldn't that be public knowledge?  Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?

Again, my printed book, printed and publicly available to a world-wide audience, refutes you.

Conspiracy believers ALWAYS think that because information is new to them, it must be new to everyone else as well.

Your book points out moon dust is radioactive?

That's your gloss. Not anyone else's.

I've never heard this effect described as high-energy cosmic rays creating unstable isotopes which then sit around being "radioactive" for years. That's just a really weird way of looking at it. Better to think of it as analogous to bremsstrahlung. Or the shower of pions that occurs high in our atmosphere when primary cosmic rays arrive there. There's a better explanation upthread (sorry, too tired to scroll back up and credit it properly).

But then, you are the guy who insists on lumping all ionizing radiation under the name "GCR" for ease of calculation. It really grates when you take something like this secondary neutron radiation and lump it in as a bigger number for GCR. Even I know better than that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 02:43:46 AM

A log scale makes it easy to compare values that cover a large range, such as in this map
A logarithmic scale is a nonlinear scale used when there is a large range of quantities. Common uses include earthquake strength, sound loudness, light intensity, and pH of solutions.

It is based on orders of magnitude, rather than a standard linear scale, so the value represented by each equidistant mark on the scale is the value at the previous mark multiplied by a constant.

Logarithmic scales are also used in slide rules for multiplying or dividing numbers by adding or subtracting lengths on the scales.

...such as plotting the positions of solar-system bodies on a single sheet (which I was doing back in high school, for our Traveller games), and for damn near everything involving sound levels -- dB matches pretty closely the perception of sound -- which I've been working with over the 30-odd something years since.

Again typical. Assume you are the only smart person in the room -- it is sure to make conversation go so much slower as you insist on lecturing on the basics while others are trying to move on to step #2 -- you know, the step where you started making errors.
You can't blame me if people don't know the difference between an exponential graph and a logarithmic graph.  I am forced to work with what I am presented.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 02:49:07 AM
So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive.  Let's consider the implications of that finding.  There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface.  The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters.  The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing.   Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive?  Why wouldn't that be public knowledge?  Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?

Again, my printed book, printed and publicly available to a world-wide audience, refutes you.

Conspiracy believers ALWAYS think that because information is new to them, it must be new to everyone else as well.

Your book points out moon dust is radioactive?

That's your gloss. Not anyone else's.

I've never heard this effect described as high-energy cosmic rays creating unstable isotopes which then sit around being "radioactive" for years. That's just a really weird way of looking at it. Better to think of it as analogous to bremsstrahlung. Or the shower of pions that occurs high in our atmosphere when primary cosmic rays arrive there. There's a better explanation upthread (sorry, too tired to scroll back up and credit it properly).

But then, you are the guy who insists on lumping all ionizing radiation under the name "GCR" for ease of calculation. It really grates when you take something like this secondary neutron radiation and lump it in as a bigger number for GCR. Even I know better than that.
Bremsstrahlung is the release of electromagnetic energy (i.e. photons) while radioactivity is the decay of an unstable isotope into a stable one.  So your book doesn't claim moon dust is radioactive?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 03, 2018, 02:53:42 AM
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.

If it was as simple as you claim, why didn't the Soviets fake themselves with a hoax and "get there" first. They actually had a huge advantage, given their space program was run in secret, while the US space program was in the full glare of publicity; failures and all?

The only thing that is important is the fact that there is an incongruency in the data.

No, the only thing that is important is that YOU don't have the necessary expertise to understand that the incongruities you claim are there simply do not exist. FFS, you don't even understand how a logarithmic scale works (oh yes, you can parrot the words you found in Wikipedia, but it is clear that you have no understanding of what they mean).

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.
Quote


And yet, the answer is right there in front of you, in the data YOU linked!

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 03, 2018, 02:56:40 AM
timfinch clearly does not understand that "radiation" and "radioactivity" are not the same thing.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 02:59:18 AM
This is a logarithmic scale.  Notice how the scale is not linear.  Let that sink in for a moment.  It is logarithmic.  Go figure.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 03:02:10 AM
Radiation is the transfer of energy by particle are photons and radioactive is the decay of unstable isotopes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 03:03:23 AM
Do you understand the difference between a linear scale with an exponential axis and a logarithmic scale?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 03:04:48 AM
Probably not or you wouldn't have made that asinine remark.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 03:10:03 AM
Time for another recap:



Sorry to use the royal 'we.'

Edit: Made a clarification of one bullet, and added more faces for effect.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 03:13:24 AM
On a logarithmic scale a third is slightly more than half (.522). Why?  because the log of 3.3333 is .523.  It is basic stuff but it must be said.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 03:16:54 AM
On a logarithmic scale a third is slightly more than half (.522). Why?  because the log of 3.3333 is .523.  It is basic stuff but it must be said.

This has been repeatedly explained to you. The scale on the graph is log, the data is not turned into logs and then plotted relative to the scale. That's the really basic part about it all.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 03:18:54 AM
On a logarithmic scale a third is slightly more than half (.522). Why?  because the log of 3.3333 is .523.  It is basic stuff but it must be said.

None of this matters anyway, as if you look at the data it is clearly marked in the text file as cGr/day. Look at the data file and you'll find your criteria are fulfilled numerous times, bang in the middle of solar cycle where you would expect the GCR flux to be lower.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 03:24:40 AM
Do you understand the difference between a linear scale with an exponential axis and a logarithmic scale?

Do you understand that the graph you keep referring to is on a logarithmic scale? You are misinterpreting the dotted lines that correspond to the x-axis divisions as being a grid that applies to all of it.

But in any case, the numbers, the actual data, are all there for you to download and plot yourself. Why will you not do it? At least two people have done so.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 03, 2018, 03:27:53 AM
Radiation is the transfer of energy by particle are photons and radioactive is the decay of unstable isotopes.

So, what are the decaying, unstable isotopes that are making  the lunar surface radioactive?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 03:28:55 AM
On a logarithmic scale a third is slightly more than half (.522). Why?  because the log of 3.3333 is .523.  It is basic stuff but it must be said.

On any scale 3.333 is not a third.

On a logarithmic scale 3.333 is 3.333. The only difference is how the axis is scaled. In a logarithmic conversion 3.333 is 0.522. However, there is no evidence that the numbers have been converted that way. When a graph uses manipulated data the axis is labelled accordingly. The label on the y-axis states it is the dose in cGy/day, and that is the same unit as the data provided with the graph. If it was a plot of the log of the data the y-axis would say that. Now, either you believe the graph is wrong or the data is misleading, because the data states quite clearly what the dose rates recorded are and huge swathes of them drop below 0.2mGy/day.

Tim, for the umpteenth time, why will you not take five minutes out of your day to download the data set and simply plot the graph on a log scale and see for yourself?

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 03:32:25 AM
On a logarithmic scale a third is slightly more than half (.522). Why?  because the log of 3.3333 is .523.  It is basic stuff but it must be said.

On any scale 3.333 is not a third. When a graph uses manipulated data the axis is labelled accordingly. The label on the y-axis states it is the dose in cGy/day, and that is the same unit as the data provided with the graph. If it was a plot of the log of the data the y-axis would say that. Now, either you believe the graph is wrong or the data is misleading, because the data states quite clearly what the dose rates recorded are and huge swathes of them drop below 0.2mGy/day.

Tim, for the umpteenth time, why will you not take five minutes out of your day to download the data set and simply plot the graph on a log scale and see for yourself?


... and to add to this, if you plot the log of a number there are no units, because a log is a dimensionless number - unless my physics teacher was wrong when he explained this to me at an early age. The ordinate scale in your precious graph clearly has units that correspond to the data. In other words, the scaling of the axis and the data in text file stack up.

Hence the axis is scaled on a log, and plot the true value of your data relative to the log scale.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 03, 2018, 03:48:28 AM
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). .

Citation required.

Chandrayaan also took photographs showing evidence of human activity at Apollo 14, 16 and 17 landing sites. Someone isn't understanding the data properly. Maybe it's you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 03:52:08 AM
Ok, I'll play along.  Accumulated dose = 30 over 15 days the average dose is 2 units/day.  So is that the tactic?  You want to pretend daily fluctuation occured and sometimes they got less and other times they got more?

That's not pretending, that's reality. As you can see from the CraTer data you brought to this very discussion.

Quote
Dosimeters measure accumulated dose.

Tim, literally your entire argument is based on average dose rates. The whole problem is you can't understand what an average is and why you can't point to an average value, then a specific value, and claim that the specific value being less than an average is a problem. That is mathematically guaranteed!

You remind me of Michael Gove when he was minster for education demanding more than 50% of schools should get an 'above average' grading during the Ofsted inspections. Mathematics wasn't his strong suit either...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 03:58:19 AM
You remind me of Michael Gove when he was minster for education demanding more than 50% of schools should get an 'above average' grading during the Ofsted inspections. Mathematics wasn't his strong suit either...

Nor the OFSTED criteria, which are outstanding, good, requires improvement and inadequate. As you point out, quite amusingly, Mr Gove did not quite understand maths either.

In theory, 100% of schools could be outstanding, in which case more than 50% of schools are above the average criteria, but 0% of schools are above the average and 0% are below the average. That's what happens when one tries to combine continuous data and categorical data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 03, 2018, 04:12:42 AM
Chandrayaan data cited by timfinch:

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

If anyone cares to translate.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 04:20:59 AM
Chandrayaan data cited by timfinch:

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

If anyone cares to translate.

That's brilliant. I've skimmed, but there's plenty to talk about.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on April 03, 2018, 04:32:03 AM
Tim, for the umpteenth time, why will you not take five minutes out of your day to download the data set and simply plot the graph on a log scale and see for yourself?

I believe it may be because they realise they have made a calamitous error and their ego will not allow them substantiate this. They'll continue to move the focus of discussion, skirt pertinent facts, anything to admit they are mistaken.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 04:39:46 AM
For Tim. I've plotted data with the y-axis (ordinate) using a linear scale. Note how my y = 10n to show you the idea of using log scales when data has a very large dynamic range (as Jason pointed out).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 04:42:41 AM
For Tim.

Same data on a log scale. Note how I have not taken a log of the actual data, just drawn my axes with a primary division that increases in increments by a factor of 101.

I repeat, I have not taken a log of the data points, just scaled the y-axis to reflect the range of my data. Can you see how the log scale shows the data at smaller values more clearly compared to the linear scale.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 05:08:13 AM
Now lets take a different data set on a linear scale. This time I have only looked at data from 10 - 110 so we can focus on the minor grid markings when introduced in a log scale.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 05:09:44 AM
Now let's add those pesky minor units on a log scale. Same data as previous post, note I have not taken a log of the data, just adjusted my y-axis scale on a log.

So same data, but plotted on graphs that have been scaled in different ways. You can verify that the original data still had its integrity, namely that it has the same values when read off a y-scale in either of the graphical representations.

So you need to do this with the CRaTER data. Should take you, erm, 5 minutes.

LO: There might look as though there are some Shenanigans with edits and deletions there. I managed to reply to myself rather than edit, edited my reply to myself, then thought I had deleted my original message after removing the quotes in my edited reply, realised I had not, so edited my original message and removed my edited reply  :o. If that makes sense?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 03, 2018, 08:19:22 AM
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....

And browsing the summary points of the paper linked by one bigmonkey, page 5:
Quote
dose rate in the inner radiation belt, ~1.3×104 μGy h-1.

I have no problems with this data, but tim you must remember that the transit time through the belts is in a few hours, not days.  Further did the vehicle travel the same transit trajectory that Apollo "generally" used?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 03, 2018, 08:22:44 AM
To be fair there I think the 5 day transit time referred to is specifically that between leaving Earth orbit and lunar orbit capture.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 03, 2018, 08:30:22 AM
I predict he will continue along in the same vein (or should I say "vain") and re-arrange his verbage just to say the same things over and over all the while ignoring all the facts and reasoning that disprove his assertions.  He is just trying to yank our chains, but I am sure everyone realizes that.  One thing he doesn't understand is that we (if I am not being too presumptuous) find his antics amusing once he has shown himself to be deliberately unreasonable.

Oh, if I could only predict the lottery as well.......(of course, even a one number lottery is more complex than tiny tim).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 08:34:05 AM
Everything I read indicates the lowest recorded GCR level is 2.0 mgy/day at solar maximum,

Except the data you brought along to the discussion in the CraTer data set, which manifestly has huge sections of GCR detection of less than 0.2mGy/day. In fact pretty much the whole of the data for 2013 in that set lies below that line. But of course you can't bring yourself to look at the actual numbers instead of trying to zoom in on a tiny graph.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: tikkitakki on April 03, 2018, 08:34:44 AM
~11 µGy h-1 (2.645 mgy/day).
11 µGy/h is 0.264 mGy/day
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 08:37:53 AM
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.

Really? How many people are needed to make and operate 9 unmanned command modules and 8 unmanned lunar modules (generously assuming that only Apollos 8 and 10-17 were faked in that way). How many people are needed to build and operate the soundstages used to fake the surface activities (leaving aside the physical difficulties of creating such soundstages that could withstand being evacuated). You already have 24 astronauts who went to the Moon who, if those missions were faked, know so. How did the remaining 26 or so people pull off everything else?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 03, 2018, 08:54:09 AM
Now let's add those pesky minor units on a log scale. Same data as previous post, note I have not taken a log of the data, just adjusted my y-axis scale on a log.

So same data, but plotted on graphs that have been scaled in different ways. You can verify that the original data still had its integrity, namely that it has the same values when read off a y-scale in either of the graphical representations.

So you need to do this with the CRaTER data. Should take you, erm, 5 minutes.

LO: There might look as though there are some Shenanigans with edits and deletions there. I managed to reply to myself rather than edit, edited my reply to myself, then thought I had deleted my original message after removing the quotes in my edited reply, realised I had not, so edited my original message and removed my edited reply  :o. If that makes sense?

Luke would you plese post a link to the CRaTER data that you have graphed (again?)?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 03, 2018, 09:26:12 AM
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.

Yeah, there's nothing complex about that!  ::)

Quote
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.

Who developed this alleged unmanned lander? When and where was it tested? Do you have photographs or film of it? When was it launched? Why hasn't anyone else verified the radiation data since then? Your "theory" raises more questions than it answers.

Quote
The only thing that is important is the fact that there is an incongruency in the data.

Or... maybe you just don't understand the data. Isn't that the more reasonable explanation than the idea that thousands of professional scientists and engineers have either been wrong, or have conspired to lie about Apollo for the last 50 years?

Quote
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.

And you are far from proving that point. Very far.

Quote
The fundamental question that begs to be answered is can a transit through the VAB, cislunar space...

Why would NASA lie about the radiation if they can't prevent other people from studying it themselves and exposing NASA's lie? Why would NASA lie if they knew they were 100% guaranteed to get caught?

They can't control the radiation, and they can't stop other people from studying it for the rest of time. They can't stop other people from going to the Moon (or discovering it's impossible to do) for the rest of time. That means the hoax would be guaranteed to fail. Lying when you know you'll get caught is beyond stupid. The hoax theory fails the logic test, plain and simple.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 09:49:49 AM
Luke would you plese post a link to the CRaTER data that you have graphed (again?)?

This is the GCR data:

http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/doserates_nospe.txt
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 10:07:34 AM
Hi Tim

I've now done a small piece of analysis for Apollo 10-17, which took me 5 minutes.


Do you want to see the resutls?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 10:19:23 AM
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.  ;)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 03, 2018, 10:23:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 10:48:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 11:17:38 AM
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!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 03, 2018, 11:30:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 11:33:51 AM
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 03, 2018, 11:35:02 AM
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3682b3245e3515ae6d5ec10ef357c2b1-c)

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 dataIf 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".
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 11:36:56 AM
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.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 11:40:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 11:42:46 AM
A little tidbit of information for you to totally disregard.   https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.2014.pdf
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 11:46:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 03, 2018, 11:56:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 03, 2018, 12:04:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 12:06:18 PM
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?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 12:10:58 PM
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?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 03, 2018, 12:16:36 PM
A little tidbit of information for you to totally disregard.   https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.2014.pdf

Did you disregard the fact that Chandrayaan has photographed human activity on the lunar surface?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: BertieSlack on April 03, 2018, 12:37:52 PM
Did you disregard the fact that Chandrayaan has photographed human activity on the lunar surface?

I asked Tim that question (twice) on about Page 5 of this thread, along with similar questions about lunar orbit photography from the Soviet Zond program. I haven't looked through all the 50 subsequent pages of comments, but I don't think he ever gave an answer.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 12:48:53 PM
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?

You people are confusing me.  You rejected the CraTer data because it represents a whole different solar cycle and is not applicable to the conditions that existed during the Apollo missions.  I concurred.  I provide data from solar cycle 20 and now you won't shut up about the CraTer data.  If I submitted and played along, in the end you would reject it because it is not applicable.  Why should I waste valuable time that could be used solving other deceptions the misinformed are to disinterested to look at?  I did the hard part now you do the easy part and open your eyes and your mind.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 12:50:34 PM
Did you disregard the fact that Chandrayaan has photographed human activity on the lunar surface?

I asked Tim that question (twice) on about Page 5 of this thread, along with similar questions about lunar orbit photography from the Soviet Zond program. I haven't looked through all the 50 subsequent pages of comments, but I don't think he ever gave an answer.

What human activity remains exist that a machine could not have been the source of?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 03, 2018, 12:50:57 PM
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!

Again, I have to ask - why do you think the CRaTER data from solar cycle 24 can be applied meaningfully to solar cycle 20 without adjustment
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 12:53:02 PM
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!


Again, I have to ask - why do you think the CRaTER data from solar cycle 24 can be applied meaningfully to solar cycle 20 without adjustment?

I don't it is simply a data point to reference.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 03, 2018, 12:56:40 PM
Tim after starting this thread I have been quietly monitoring it. why are you continuing. surely you must do what Jason has asked quite a few times now or not. if not why not.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 12:57:35 PM
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.  ;)

My bad.  In my unschooled approach I was under the impression the units were in tenths of an hour.  that negative one exponent through me off.  What is your take on the negative one exponent?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 12:59:52 PM
Tim after starting this thread I have been quietly monitoring it. why are you continuing. surely you must do what Jason has asked quite a few times now or not. if not why not.

Did you not read my response as to why not?  It would be disregarded because it represents a different solar cycle.  They would simply claim that it has no bearing on 1969.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 03, 2018, 01:00:42 PM
so why don't you just do it. it took Jason 5 minutes. it will take you just as long. just do it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 01:02:20 PM
so why don't you just do it. it took Jason 5 minutes. it will take you just as long. just do it.
probably for the same reason I don't pick my nose and eat the buggers....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 03, 2018, 01:03:13 PM
yes but the problem is your refusal to do it makes me think you have something to hide. even if you are right (and I don't think that you are) if you just did it (5 minutes) that would put that to rest.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 01:03:39 PM
What is your take on the negative one exponent?

Our take is that it is the standard mathematical alternative way of writing 'per hour' SImple maths, Tim. 1uGyhr-1 = 1uGy/hr.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 01:05:05 PM
Ben, the website graphs the data for you.  You select the parameters and it produces the graph.  Why is it necessary in your mind to re-invent the wheel when the shelves are stocked with wheels?  http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&s
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 03, 2018, 01:05:34 PM
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?

You people are confusing me.  You rejected the CraTer data because it represents a whole different solar cycle and is not applicable to the conditions that existed during the Apollo missions.  I concurred.  I provide data from solar cycle 20 and now you won't shut up about the CraTer data.  If I submitted and played along, in the end you would reject it because it is not applicable.  Why should I waste valuable time that could be used solving other deceptions the misinformed are to disinterested to look at?  I did the hard part now you do the easy part and open your eyes and your mind.

It isn't the CraTer data that are being rejected, it is your interpretation of them.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 01:06:03 PM
You people are confusing me.  You rejected the CraTer data because it represents a whole different solar cycle and is not applicable to the conditions that existed during the Apollo missions.  I concurred.

No, we rejected your analysis of the CRaTER data and simultaneously want to know how you could extrapolate it to a different solar cycle with a higher activity. We were testing your hypothesis on two separate fronts.

One is  point of your initial claim of less than 0.22 mGr/day, the other is that your data would be lower at a time of higher solar activity.


Quote
I provide data from solar cycle 20 and now you won't shut up about the CraTer data.

...because the data for cycle 20 is an average figure, so now we are pointing back to the CRaTER data to demonstrate that an average can be made up of data points with natural variation, such as the CRaTER data, and therefore a dose over a short time slot can be higher or lower than the average. Therefore, the Apollo 11 dose could be lower than the average you cite.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 03, 2018, 01:06:09 PM
because you brought this theory here. if you don't do something that everybody else has done which will take you 5 minutes it doesn't look good does it
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 01:06:35 PM
Did you not read my response as to why not?  It would be disregarded because it represents a different solar cycle.  They would simply claim that it has no bearing on 1969.

Stop playing games. You know damn well that is not true. You have been asked repeatedly why you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the data, in simple black and white, contradicts your claim that the GCR rate is never lower than 0.22uGy/day. It's there, and you can see it and plot the graph that you insisted shows it is always above that value.

You refuse because you would have to admit that all that obfuscation is just your way of refusing to acknowledge your error.

ANd the relevance to cycle 20 has also been explained. Cycle 20 was a more active solar cycle, therefor the GCR flux would be even lower than in cycle 24, where it already falls below your stated minimum GCR levels.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 01:07:04 PM
Ben, the website graphs the data for you.  You select the parameters and it produces the graph.  Why is it necessary in your mind to re-invent the wheel when the shelves are stocked with wheels?  http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&s

Look at the actual data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 01:08:51 PM
Tim, do you or do you not acknowledge that the CraTer data shows recorded dose rates lower than 0.02cGy/day for periods well in excess of any single Apollo lunar mission duration?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 03, 2018, 01:08:56 PM
the problem is tim at the end of the day quite a few people have contributed here and from reading it it seems they are correct. I say this because you keep switching topics. however, and I would too in their shoes, it wont be long before your account Is revoked I suspect
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 01:13:23 PM

My bad.  In my unschooled approach I was under the impression the units were in tenths of an hour.  that negative one exponent through me off.  What is your take on the negative one exponent?
There is no "take" to have. "h-1" means 1/h, i.e. "per hour", as in the common units km h-1 (kilometres per hour), or m s-1 (metres per second), or even just s-1 (per second, better known as hertz).

I don't see how you could possibly interpret "h-1" as indicating "tenths of an hour".

Honestly, if you get thrown by simple everyday unit conventions, then what are the chances that your calculations are correct and the rest of the world's are wrong?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 01:15:54 PM
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?

You people are confusing me.  You rejected the CraTer data because it represents a whole different solar cycle and is not applicable to the conditions that existed during the Apollo missions.  I concurred.  I provide data from solar cycle 20 and now you won't shut up about the CraTer data.  If I submitted and played along, in the end you would reject it because it is not applicable.  Why should I waste valuable time that could be used solving other deceptions the misinformed are to disinterested to look at?  I did the hard part now you do the easy part and open your eyes and your mind.

It isn't the CraTer data that are being rejected, it is your interpretation of them.

And do you reject NASA's position that GCR minimum was .2 mgy/day for the Apollo missions.  Why are you not wrapping your mind around that?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 01:17:07 PM
What is your take on the negative one exponent?

Our take is that it is the standard mathematical alternative way of writing 'per hour' SImple maths, Tim. 1uGyhr-1 = 1uGy/hr.

Well, at least he understands what 10^3 means.

 8)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 01:19:08 PM
And do you reject NASA's position that GCR minimum was .2 mgy/day for the Apollo missions.  Why are you not wrapping your mind around that?

Where exactly is NASA's stated position that the minimum was 0.2mGy/day for the Apollo missions?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 01:23:14 PM
And do you reject NASA's position that GCR minimum was .2 mgy/day for the Apollo missions.  Why are you not wrapping your mind around that?

Where exactly is NASA's stated position that the minimum was 0.2mGy/day for the Apollo missions?
Couldn't you scroll back through the thread?  I posted it numerous times.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 01:24:34 PM
SHouldn't be hard to repost it again then, should it? I am not trawling 60 pages for the answer to a question you could provide now.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 01:26:40 PM
Ben, the website graphs the data for you.  You select the parameters and it produces the graph.  Why is it necessary in your mind to re-invent the wheel when the shelves are stocked with wheels?  http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&s
Yes, it plots the graph for you. Can you not see that the level is below 0.2 mGy/day (i.e. 2 x 10-2 cGy/day on the scale) for the majority of the time?

(http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/plots/2017085/doserates_combined_2017085_alldays_allevents.png)

Do you understand how the logarithmic scale on the vertical axis works? 2 x 10-2 will be log2/log10, or just over 30%, of the way up from 10-2 to 10-1.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on April 03, 2018, 01:26:59 PM
And do you reject NASA's position that GCR minimum was .2 mgy/day for the Apollo missions.  Why are you not wrapping your mind around that?

Where exactly is NASA's stated position that the minimum was 0.2mGy/day for the Apollo missions?
Couldn't you scroll back through the thread?  I posted it numerous times.

No, you quoted it, you have NEVER referenced it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 01:28:10 PM
Do you understand how the logarithmic scale on the vertical axis works? 2 x 10-2 will be log2/log10, or just over 30%, of the way up from 10-2 to 10-1.

No, he doesn't. Which is why I keep suggesting he looks at the numbers and even plays with them himself in Excel, but he won't. His whole argument is that is not a log scale in the accepted sense.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 01:29:30 PM
Consider this article from a Nasa web site.

Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface. These values are expected to double at the low point in the 11-year cycle of solar-flare activity (solar minimum) because of decreased solar magnetic shielding of the central planets. The effect of high-energy cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years. Experimental evidence of the effects of these radiations is dependent on the development of highly advanced particle accelerators or the advent of long-term manned missions outside the Earth's geomagnetic influence.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

I am not sure but I think 1 millirad/hour is equal to .24 mgy/day.  Correct me if I am wrong.  This article was written back in the seventies.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 01:32:05 PM
Ben, the website graphs the data for you.  You select the parameters and it produces the graph.  Why is it necessary in your mind to re-invent the wheel when the shelves are stocked with wheels?  http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&s
Yes, it plots the graph for you. Can you not see that the level is below 0.2 mGy/day (i.e. 2 x 10-2 cGy/day on the scale) for the majority of the time?

(http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/plots/2017085/doserates_combined_2017085_alldays_allevents.png)

Do you understand how the logarithmic scale on the vertical axis works? 2 x 10-2 will be log2/log10, or just over 30%, of the way up from 10-2 to 10-1.

The axis is exponential and not logarithmic.  There is a subtle difference recognizable only by high school graduates.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 01:32:56 PM
Consider this article from a Nasa web site.

Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface. These values are expected to double at the low point in the 11-year cycle of solar-flare activity (solar minimum) because of decreased solar magnetic shielding of the central planets. The effect of high-energy cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years. Experimental evidence of the effects of these radiations is dependent on the development of highly advanced particle accelerators or the advent of long-term manned missions outside the Earth's geomagnetic influence.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

I am not sure but I think 1 millirad/hour is equal to .24 mgy/day.  Correct me if I am wrong.  This article was written back in the seventies.

Oh how many times? That article quotes an average, NOT the minimum. If you cannot even grasp the difference between those two terms what really is the point?

There is literally no way to soundly and logically interpret that statement to say that minimum GCR flux during Apollo was 0.2mGy/day.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 01:33:58 PM
The axis is exponential and not logarithmic.  There is a subtle difference recognizable only by high school graduates.

It really isn't, and if you actually did what you have been advised to do and plotted it yourself you would see that with your own eyes. If you just look at the actual numbers you will see how much of it sits below your stated 'minimum' value. WHy will you not do wither of these things? It takes literally five minutes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 01:36:50 PM
Here you go Tim. The blue line is the data, the reddy-brown data is the threshold value of 0.22 mGr day-1.

What you can you say about most the blue data, other than SPE events? Plotted on a log graph for you. I've done nothing with the data.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 01:38:39 PM
Consider this article from a Nasa web site.

Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface. These values are expected to double at the low point in the 11-year cycle of solar-flare activity (solar minimum) because of decreased solar magnetic shielding of the central planets. The effect of high-energy cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years. Experimental evidence of the effects of these radiations is dependent on the development of highly advanced particle accelerators or the advent of long-term manned missions outside the Earth's geomagnetic influence.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

I am not sure but I think 1 millirad/hour is equal to .24 mgy/day.  Correct me if I am wrong.  This article was written back in the seventies.

Oh how many times? That article quotes an average, NOT the minimum. If you cannot even grasp the difference between those two terms what really is the point?

There is literally no way to soundly and logically interpret that statement to say that minimum GCR flux during Apollo was 0.2mGy/day.
So he quotes the average at solar maximum and solar minimum and you are claiming what, the Apollo missions dodged the rain drops?  We must deal in averages because anything else would not be possible and we are talking about accumulated dose which is essentially an average.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 01:39:47 PM
It really isn't...

I think he thinks that 1 E-2 means exponential. Is it possible he is confusing capital E used to represent standard form with e, as in 2.718...

Tim, are you aware that 1 E-2 means 1 x 10-2?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 01:41:04 PM
Here you go Tim. The blue line is the data, the reddy-brown data is the threshold value of 0.22 mGr day-1.

What you can you say about most the blue data, other than SPE events? Plotted on a log graph for you. I've done nothing with the data.

I am like a proud father.  You have grown so much in the last 3 days.  Now that is a logarithmic graph.  Good job.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 01:43:19 PM
We must deal in averages because anything else would not be possible and we are talking about accumulated dose which is essentially an average.

But the CRaTER data does not show that does it. The CRaTER data illustrates that there are windows where the dose over a short time window will be less than the average of thousands of samples, and so does the Chandrayaan data. This is why trying to use averages reported in scientific literature can only be used as a first order approximation at very best.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: BertieSlack on April 03, 2018, 01:44:21 PM
What human activity remains exist that a machine could not have been the source of?

So you're admitting that Chandrayaan and Zond DID get as far as lunar orbit?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 01:44:28 PM
So he quotes the average at solar maximum and solar minimum and you are claiming what, the Apollo missions dodged the rain drops?

I am claiming nothing. I am pointing out where you are making mistakes in interpretation. You claim that article states a minimum. It absolutely does not. And no, Apollo did not 'dodge' anything, because what that doesn't actually provide is any indication of the range of the data used to generate that average.

Quote
We must deal in averages because anything else would not be possible

That is categorically untrue.

Quote
and we are talking about accumulated dose which is essentially an average.

How is accumulated anything an average? You calculate an average from the accumulated dose by dividing it over time.

Have you noticed what happens if you actually look at the daily dose rates for each Apollo mission with this in mind? SOme are higher, some are lower (as expected mathematically), and the avergae daily dose rate across all those missions is higher than the average GCR flux quoted in that article.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 01:44:45 PM
Nuclear Radiation at the Lunar Surface, Barton -- found in Advances in the Astronautical Sciences vol 6, proceedings of the American Astronautical Society 1960 annual meeting and printed by Macmillan in 1961.

He estimates contribution of the Moon versus both natural radionuclides and secondary radiation activated by "spallation, fission, fragmentation and capture." His estimate is that during a quiet sun what he calls the induced radiation (neutrons, gamma, and protons) would contribute a weekly dose of .5 millirems. The primordial granite and basalt is ALREADY contributing 2.5 millirems.

Now, this was taken before lunar samples had been returned, and the actual neutron value is apparently surprisingly higher. Science marches on. I quote from this book to show:

1) The secondary radiation was described publicly years before the Apollo flights.

2) The secondary radiation could be derived by anyone from first principles; it didn't need spacecraft to go out and look and since any college physics student could do it, it isn't something that can be or was hidden.

3) Physicists clearly separate the short-duration secondary activation from long-lived radioisotopes.

4) The human effect we are talking about is trivial. According to this estimate, the kitchen counter in your fancy home is a bigger threat to your health. Yeah, basically; until they start labeling lumps of granite as "danger, radioactive" museums aren't going to do a damn thing about some dust that happens to be on a pressure suit!



(And now to repack...I really didn't want to dig for that book but I finally had to. What's the use of owning it if I don't use it every now and then?)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 01:44:56 PM
I am like a proud father.  You have grown so much in the last 3 days.  Now that is a logarithmic graph.  Good job.

So where the dose from GCR lie, above or below the 0.22 mGr day-1 line?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 01:45:55 PM
Here you go Tim. The blue line is the data, the reddy-brown data is the threshold value of 0.22 mGr day-1.

What you can you say about most the blue data, other than SPE events? Plotted on a log graph for you. I've done nothing with the data.

I am like a proud father.  You have grown so much in the last 3 days.  Now that is a logarithmic graph.  Good job.

And yet yu have no comment on the obvious: that it shows huge parts of the data lie below what you insisted was the minimum....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 01:46:57 PM

The axis is exponential and not logarithmic.  There is a subtle difference recognizable only by high school graduates.
Well, I'm a high-school and university graduate, and I can plainly see that the axis is logarithmic, as you can tell by the fact that the difference between the bottom two horizontal marks (10-4 and 10-3) is 0.0009 cGy/day, whereas the difference between the top two horizontal marks (104 and 103) is 9,000 cGy/day!

Specifically, because the vertical axis is logarithmic and the horizontal axis is linear, this is what is known as a semi-log plot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-log_plot).

I have never heard of an "exponential scale" as applied to a graph axis, and neither has the internet, other than as a synonym for logarithmic scale!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 01:49:59 PM
I have never heard of an "exponential scale" as applied to a graph axis, and neither has the internet, other than as a synonym for logarithmic scale!

No, me neither.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 01:50:03 PM
So he quotes the average at solar maximum and solar minimum and you are claiming what, the Apollo missions dodged the rain drops?

I am claiming nothing. I am pointing out where you are making mistakes in interpretation. You claim that article states a minimum. It absolutely does not. And no, Apollo did not 'dodge' anything, because what that doesn't actually provide is any indication of the range of the data used to generate that average.

Quote
We must deal in averages because anything else would not be possible

That is categorically untrue.

Quote
and we are talking about accumulated dose which is essentially an average.

How is accumulated anything an average? You calculate an average from the accumulated dose by dividing it over time.

Have you noticed what happens if you actually look at the daily dose rates for each Apollo mission with this in mind? SOme are higher, some are lower (as expected mathematically), and the avergae daily dose rate across all those missions is higher than the average GCR flux quoted in that article.

So, is there no data from the Apollo mission that you re willing to use?  Nasa tells you the Mission operated in a background Cislunar radiation of 1 mrem/hr to 2.5 times that and that is not good enough for you?  What number do you want to use.  Provide one.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 01:51:14 PM
I have never heard of an "exponential scale" as applied to a graph axis, and neither has the internet, other than as a synonym for logarithmic scale!

No, me neither.
if the axis is in exponents then it is an exponential scale.  Maybe we should define scale while we are at it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 01:53:49 PM
Here you go Tim. The blue line is the data, the reddy-brown data is the threshold value of 0.22 mGr day-1.

What you can you say about most the blue data, other than SPE events? Plotted on a log graph for you. I've done nothing with the data.
I am a little confused by why the data don't seem to match - are you using a subset?

In your graph it dips below the 0.1 mGy/day line (10-2 cGy/day), whereas the original CRaTER graph has it somewhat higher.

(http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1444.0;attach=559;image)

versus

(http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/plots/2017085/doserates_combined_2017085_alldays_allevents.png)

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 01:56:05 PM
It is just me or is this whole graph thing a more sophisticated (looking!) version of the usual "don't try to confuse me with that science stuff, you can clearly see the photograph is all wrong?"

I'm not going to quote Lord Kelvin and all but...do the math. It's a math argument, so do it. With standard statistical methods, error bars and all.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 01:58:26 PM
If the axis is in exponents then it is an exponential scale.  Maybe we should define scale while we are at it.

No, exponential relates to logarithms in base e (natural logs). Exponent is the number that says how many times to use the number in a multiplication, 23 has an exponent of 3.

If you look at the graph it clearly marked 10-2, 10-1, 100, 101, 102.

or 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100.

The y is scaled so it increases by a factor by 10 each time, so is logarithmic to base 10; a log scale. You're muddling exponents and exponential.

So now I have plotted the graph for you and shown you the line, are you willing to retract your claim that the data in CRaTER does indeed fall below your 0.22 mG day-1. Careful with that last bit, it does not mean tenths of hours.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 01:58:53 PM
Here you go Tim. The blue line is the data, the reddy-brown data is the threshold value of 0.22 mGr day-1.

What you can you say about most the blue data, other than SPE events? Plotted on a log graph for you. I've done nothing with the data.
I am a little confused by why the data don't seem to match - are you using a subset?

In your graph it dips below the 0.1 mGy/day line (10-2 cGy/day), whereas the original CRaTER graph has it somewhat higher.

(http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1444.0;attach=559;image)

versus

(http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/plots/2017085/doserates_combined_2017085_alldays_allevents.png)

Robb, I am starting to like you.  You are obviously thinking about this...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 02:01:05 PM
I have never heard of an "exponential scale" as applied to a graph axis, and neither has the internet, other than as a synonym for logarithmic scale!

No, me neither.
if the axis is in exponents then it is an exponential scale.  Maybe we should define scale while we are at it.

A logarithmic scale is one in which the evenly spaced marks are consecutive powers (exponents) of 10, rather than consecutive integers. So whereas a linear scale would have the check marks at (say), -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4..., a logarithmic scale would have them at (for instance) 10-2, 10-1, 10-0, 101, 102, 103... (or, in other words, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100, 1000...).

In other words, a fixed vertical distance on the logarithmic scale does not represent a fixed numerical amount: at the bottom of the scale one check mark represents (say) 0.09, whereas at the top of the scale it represents (say) 900. Whereas on a linear scale, one check mark represents the same numerical amount no matter where you are on the scale.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 02:01:31 PM
So, is there no data from the Apollo mission that you re willing to use?  Nasa tells you the Mission operated in a background Cislunar radiation of 1 mrem/hr to 2.5 times that and that is not good enough for you?  What number do you want to use.  Provide one.

NASA tells me no such thing. WHat that article says is that the average was 0.24mGy/day. That's an average taken over the Apollo missions, the lunar ones of which took place over a period of 4 years from December 1968 to December 1972. You cannot apply an average over 4 years to a two week period and conclude that because the data show it was lower in that two week period there is something fishy going on. It is mathematically certain that some two week periods will be lower and some will be higher. That is the very definition of 'average'. By your logic something fishy is happening because the average temperature in March in the UK is about 8 degrees C, but last weekend it dropped to -9 degrees in my location.

You are still determined to find some way of interpreting any statement to mean there is some constant background minimum GCR flux that all Apollo missions must be higher than, but the simple fact is there is NO mathematical justification for that whatsoever.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 02:07:07 PM
I am a little confused by why the data don't seem to match - are you using a subset?

The CRaTER graph plots an average of detectors 1 and 2, 3 and 4 and 5 and 6, and that ground my machine down as ExCel throws a wobbly after 20000 data points. I plotted data for detector 1 only.

If you look closely at the CRaTER graph, there are some other colours. This is because one subset of CRaTER data blots out another. ExCel points are quite large with huge amounts of data points, so that is an artefact. I can plot detector 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 if it pleases. It makes the same point that there are swathes of data below the line.

Do you accept this explanation, or do I have to retract and go away to the drawing board? I could plot an average of all 6 detectors?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 02:07:45 PM


Robb, I am starting to like you.  You are obviously thinking about this...
Just curious about the discrepancy in the figures (edit - which Luke has explained in the next post). Nothing to do with the scale, which is logarithmic on both graphs. Perhaps relabelling the axis with long-form numbers instead of the powers of ten would make it clearer to you that this is a logarithmic scale?

(https://i.imgur.com/h4uR7Qq.png)

(the numbers are in centigrays per day; multiply by 10 for milligrays)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 02:09:24 PM
So, is there no data from the Apollo mission that you re willing to use?  Nasa tells you the Mission operated in a background Cislunar radiation of 1 mrem/hr to 2.5 times that and that is not good enough for you?  What number do you want to use.  Provide one.

NASA tells me no such thing. WHat that article says is that the average was 0.24mGy/day. That's an average taken over the Apollo missions, the lunar ones of which took place over a period of 4 years from December 1968 to December 1972. You cannot apply an average over 4 years to a two week period and conclude that because the data show it was lower in that two week period there is something fishy going on. It is mathematically certain that some two week periods will be lower and some will be higher. That is the very definition of 'average'. By your logic something fishy is happening because the average temperature in March in the UK is about 8 degrees C, but last weekend it dropped to -9 degrees in my location.

You are still determined to find some way of interpreting any statement to mean there is some constant background minimum GCR flux that all Apollo missions must be higher than, but the simple fact is there is NO mathematical justification for that whatsoever.

There is certainly a range with defined limits that GCR's operate within.  If there were not then we certainly could not leave earth because without limits radiation could be any value.  The observed band that existed during the Apollo era was .24 mgy/day to .6 mgy/day, modulated by solar activity.   You can argue range in minutes or seconds but the averages play out over days and weeks.  Deal with it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 02:10:01 PM
I am a little confused by why the data don't seem to match - are you using a subset?

The CRaTER graph plots an average of detectors 1 and 2, 3 and 4 and 5 and 6, and that ground my machine down as ExCel throws a wobbly after 20000 data points. I plotted data for detector 1 only.

If you look closely at the CRaTER graph, there are some other colours. This is because one subset of CRaTER data blots out another. ExCel points are quite large with huge amounts of data points, so that is an artefact. I can plot detector 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 if it pleases. It makes the same point that there are swathes of data below the line.

Do you accept this explanation, or do I have to retract and go away to the drawing board? I could plot an average of all 6 detectors?

That makes sense. Presumably the values for detector 1 are lower than for detector 2, such that the blue line on the CRaTER chart (1 & 2) is higher than that for detector 1 alone.

Anyway, Tim, you should be able to see that both charts are indeed logarithmic!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 02:15:30 PM
Since Tim wants to work with averages, here's some numbers, using the Apollo recorded daily dose rates in mGy

Apollo 8          0.26
Apollo 10        0.60
Apollo 11        0.22
Apollo 12        0.57
Apollo 13        0.40
Apollo 14        1.27
Apollo 15        0.24
Apollo 16        0.46
Apollo 17        0.44

Average:   0.50mGy/day

So on average the lunar Apollo missions got twice as much than the 0.24mGy/day average GCR flux stated in the article. Some more, some less. Tell me again why this is a problem, Tim?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 03, 2018, 02:15:54 PM
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?

You people are confusing me.  You rejected the CraTer data because it represents a whole different solar cycle and is not applicable to the conditions that existed during the Apollo missions.  I concurred.  I provide data from solar cycle 20 and now you won't shut up about the CraTer data.  If I submitted and played along, in the end you would reject it because it is not applicable.  Why should I waste valuable time that could be used solving other deceptions the misinformed are to disinterested to look at?  I did the hard part now you do the easy part and open your eyes and your mind.

It isn't the CraTer data that are being rejected, it is your interpretation of them.

And do you reject NASA's position that GCR minimum was .2 mgy/day for the Apollo missions.  Why are you not wrapping your mind around that?

If you read carefully the words you quoted, you'll see it is a general figure, not specific to the mission.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 02:17:07 PM
There is certainly a range with defined limits that GCR's operate withing.  If there were not then we certainly could not leave earth because without limits radiation could be any value.  The observed band that existed during the Apollo era was .24 mgy/day to .6 mgy/day, modulated by solar activity.   You can argue range in minutes or seconds but the averages play out over days and weeks.  Deal with it.

You really have no idea about statistical distribution in data do you, especially modulated data. You do understand that you have to talk about confidence intervals as values can be lower than 0.24 and higher than 0.60 - for the very reasons we have already discussed.

The 0.24 will be an average based on that part of the solar cycle, with values above and below. The 0.6 will be an average for that part of the solar cycle, with values above and below. Why? Because the data is modulated.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 02:17:54 PM
There is certainly a range with defined limits that GCR's operate withing.

Of course there is. You have no data about that range though.

Quote
The observed band that existed during the Apollo era was .24 mgy/day to .6 mgy/day, modulated by solar activity.

No, it really isn't. 0.24mGy/day is NOT a minimum, it is the AVERAGE taken over the Apollo missions. You have no data at all about the range, error bars or anything.

Quote
You can argue range in minutes or seconds but the averages play out over days and weeks

The average across the Apollo misisons was over four YEARS.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 02:19:11 PM
And I will say this again, just so it's clear:

If 0.24mGy/day is an AVERAGE then there must be periods of time that are higher AND SOME THAT ARE LOWER.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 02:20:17 PM
That makes sense. Presumably the values for detector 1 are lower than for detector 2, such that the blue line on the CRaTER chart (1 & 2) is higher than that for detector 1 alone.

I could go away and represent the data in numerous ways, but its kind of academic given what we are dealing with. Any figures are approximate and only serve to give typical values. I could invest more time, but it's really up to Tim to do the donkey work.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 02:23:00 PM
You are making this more complex than it has to be.

No, we're facing the problem in its full complexity.  You're making it "simple" by skipping the parts you don't have answers for and pretending that they therefore don't matter.  A great way to get rid of fleas on a cat is to incinerate the cat.  It's a great solution unless you "complicate" it by stipulating that the cat has to be alive after the process.  In the real world you don't get to ignore the parts of the problem that don't fit your solution just because you really, really like your solution.  The problem of determining Apollo authenticity is more complicated than you're making it, and you come off sounding rude and arrogant when you belittle people who are looking at the whole problem while you remain focused on one narrow piece.

Quote
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.

And you can say this from your vast experience designing, building, and operating spacecraft?  That would be like me saying, "All you need to do to start the engine on a submarine is get in and turn the key."  You don't seem to realize that you're talking to people who do this for a living and telling them that they don't know what they're talking about.  I'm not sure that you realize how arrogant you're being.  No, it would not need "less than fifty people" to design, build, and operate a remotely controlled and/or autonomous spacecraft that can land on the Moon and do all the things on the Moon that the humans were supposed to do.  That's a very naive proposal.

Quote
I am not a rocket scientist...

Then kindly stop pretending you are.

Quote
I digress.

You do, and it's not for a good reason.  You don't digress into the other areas of evidence because you have reasonable explanations for them.  You digress only to remind your critics how inept they seem to be at reasoning out what might have happened vis-à-vis that evidence.  People point out that interplanetary S-band communications pose a problem for an LEO-only mission, and you digress from your prepared remarks -- not to solve the problem, but to scoff at your critics for not realizing how easy a problem it would be to solve.

Early in the debate you tell us NASA in the 1960s lacked the technology to design, build, and operate a spacecraft that a highly-skilled pilot could use to land on the Moon.  Now you're telling us that "less than fifty people" in the same technology-limited environment could (in secret) design, build, launch, and operate a remote-control or autonomous vehicle that could land on the Moon without a pilot and perform all that Apollo indicates would be required of a human presence on the surface.  When we point out not only your contradictory argument but also the difficulty in doing what your theory suggests, once again we don't get an explanation of how it was done.  We don't even get an expression of interest in determining how such a thing was done.  Instead we get only more deprecation over how intellectually deficient your critics must be for not realizing how easy it would be to do.

I'm baffled at why you think a rational person would buy such an argument.

The reasons for the digressions are even more worrying for this debate.  First, you're obviously willing to bluff.  You don't have any expertise in orbital mechanics, rocket science, or radio communications, but you're quite willing not only to spew ignorant rubbish pertaining to those fields but also to deride people who don't take it as gospel truth -- even when they have demonstrated they know better.  You're willing to bluff, and then to double-down on the bluff by browbeating any who disagree.  That's just pseudo-intellectual bullying, not debate.  It's dishonest at a fundamental level.  It means no one can, or should, trust you to report and interpret accurately.  It also means no one should attempt to engage you until you're willing to grow up and stop arguing like a petulant six-year-old.  You asked to consider whether we're being deceived or not.  Well, we have determined that we are being deceived, just not in the way you had hoped we'd see it.  You're deceiving your readers by pretending you know what you're talking about and that you're willing to have a mature discussion.

Second, you claim you want to focus on radiation, but experience shows you're all too willing to talk about other things -- not to resolve them, but only as opportunities to remind your critics how much smarter you are than they.  Your digressions are purely an ego reinforcement exercise, not an intellectual or rhetorical one.  And you seem to think people don't notice that you do this.  You pretend that zeal for the truth excuses all your arrogance and vitriol, but that's clearly not where you aim it.

Quote
The only thing that is important is the fact that there is an incongruency in the data.

No, that's not the only thing that's important.  You've just arbitrarily enthroned it as such because it's a vocabulary you know from your Navy days.  So you figure you can b.s. enough about it to keep casual critics at bay, or pretend to be some sort of hotshot investigator, or whatever your real point is here.  You obviously don't know enough about the other points of evidence to keep up your end of a conversation on those points, so you just pretend they don't exist or don't matter.

Thing is, in the real world they do matter.  Not everyone you talk to is going to weigh the evidence the same as you.  You propose an approach where one piece of evidence arbitrarily decides the whole issue because the set of explanations for that one piece of evidence is so very decisive.  But in doing that, you ignore 99 pieces of evidence which -- under the explanation you propose for your bellwether -- have no explanation, or speculative explanations at best.  That's not an improvement.  Instead of having only one bit of evidence that has a problematic explanation, now you have 99 bits of evidence that have problematic explanations.  To people not confined to the one-trick-pony style of thinking you're using here, that's a deal-breaker.  If we must resort to speculation to explain things, let's explain the fewest bits of evidence as possible that way.

Quote
If the stated NASA values are correct then it is impossible for the the Apollo mission to have left ELO.

No, that's just a false dilemma.  You want the dilemma to be "Either these figures from NASA are incorrect or Apollo was in LEO."  We stipulate the data are reasonably correct, so you conclude an LEO-only mission.  But as we've all pointed out, there's a third explanation:  Tim isn't interpreting the data correctly.  And despite that being by far the most credible explanation for all the evidence, you categorically refuse to put it on the table.

There may be ego-related reasons why you've declared off-limits the real reason your argument doesn't convince anyone.  But the role your rampant denialism plays in your argument is to let you pretend that your GCR syllogism has deductive strength.  You excise from your argument any and all semblance of the notion that your interpretation of the data comes into play at all.  You lay it all at NASA's feet, suggesting that because it's their data, every inference you want to draw from it must therefore also be laid at their feet and not yours.  Thinking just doesn't work that way.  It's the same error religious scriptural literalists commiit:  they don't want to have to defend their abstraction of meaning while reading the text, so they deny that there's any interpretive exercise at all -- even when it's plain as the nose on their faces.

You are not infallible (or even competent).  But you won't entertain any discussion regarding errors you may have made.  Well, that's not entirely true; you resolve disagreements between you and your critics by suggesting you're smarter than they and therefore necessarily right.  But in a broader scope, you want the argument to be that all of your inferences aren't actually inferences but rather self-evident facts that need no defense and cannot possibly be in error.  You want to deny that you're doing any thinking (because then you'd have to defend it) while at the same time profess that you're the best thinker in the room (because you got the "right" answer, whether the sheeple can see it or not).  You soothe the dissonance from so many people disagreeing with you by insinuating they're all either sheep or wolves.  You effectively deny categorically that there can be a rational disputation to your belief.

Quote
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.
 

No, that's not how proof works.  That is, however, how almost all conspiracy theories work.  Most conspiracy theories work out on the frayed edges of the field of evidence.  In any case, conspiracy theories always pick one or two outlying bits of evidence and -- ignoring the main body of it -- assert that those bits of evidence are so significant that by any objective standard they must disqualify the conventional narrative, which allegedly can't explain it.  This is where your false dilemma comes in -- "can only be two ways of thinking about this."  Your argument demands that you dismiss the prevailing narrative with deductive effect, even though it's patently an indirection.  That in turn is why you will never allow a discussion of whether you know what you're talking about, such that you can interpret scientific findings correctly.

And make no mistake, you pull out all the stops keeping the discussion away from that.  You shame people away from questioning your knowledge.  You throw tantrums.  You call people names.  You try desperately to change the subject.  Good grief, when you finally get dragged kicking and screaming to an obvious factual error you've made, you brush it aside and say you're "moving on."  That tells us two things.  First, we know what the weakest part of your argument is.  It's always the thing that's most irrationally defended.  Second, we know it's deliberate.  Your avoidance of such things as competence and qualifications is calculated.  And that means you're not having an honest debate.  If you were having an honest debate, it would sound more like, "I'm not sure an unmanned spacecraft would be possible, but let's hear what you professionals have to say about it."  No, you don't know what you're talking about.  And you know that you don't know what you're talking about.  You just want credit anyway.

But I digress too.  Having declared by one standard of proof that the conventional narrative cannot possibly stand, the conspiracy theory then brings in a wholly new standard of proof to measure its own hypotheses.  That standard generally looks like, "not entirely impossible."  All the rest of the evidence is explained away by wholly fanciful or facially farfetched speculation.  It's good enough that the evidence was "somehow" made to look like that.

This is not how rational people think.  Rational people apply roughly the same standards of proof to all the evidence.  They don't arbitrarily single one bit out and say that it must decide the question irrespective of everything else, because they know that may require them to postulate even more farfetched and frankly impossible things to explain the "everything else" than they would have to apply to the one bit.  In the real world it's never possible to fully explain every bit of evidence.  Your ability to observe will always outstrip the ability to explain, simply because you will never have a comprehensive view of the evidence.  Some bits that you can see (e.g., the cumulative dosimeter readings) may seem out of place only because you can't see the other evidence that helps it make sense (e.g., hypothetical differences in detection methods).  This is necessarily in inductive reasoning. That's what makes it hard to do.  You don't get around those difficulties by pretending inductive reasoning has deductive strength.

This is why conspiracy theories rarely catch on.  They all follow this pattern, and it is objectively unconvincing.

Quote
I.e. if you prove Apollo 11 never left LEO then it follows that all the Apollo missions were faked.

No, that doesn't follow; it's a generalization error.

Quote
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

That's actually not a principle of logic.  That's a quote from a fictional character invented by a guy who believed in faeries.  Not exactly the sort of reference you want to cite for critical thinking.  In the real world, especially relying upon inductive reasoning, you can never fully enumerate and eliminate the possibilities and therefore you can never hold up by default a hypothesis that's facially improbable.  Conan Doyle is putting words in Holmes' mouth that make it sound like deductive strength can arrive from induction.  It cannot, but Doyle needed it for his stories.  And here's a literary tip:  Holmes is not a good example of how to apply logic.  Most of the Holmes' stories are really deus ex machina stories that rely on Holmes magically knowing things via his "superior acumen."

A better aphorism for this situation is Occam's Razor, the statement made by the monk William of Occam.  It states that, all other things being equal, the simplest explanation that explains all the observations is most likely to be true.  By "simplest" Brother William meant the least reliant upon speculation or factors that could not be observed.  He understood that inductive reasoning requires us to explain as much as we can, and then speculate on the rest.  He advocates doing that parsimoniously, which is why his statement is often called the Rule of Parsimony.

In this case the simplest explanation is that you don't know what you're talking about, and that your interpretation of the radiation data has been shown by those with superior knowledge of physics, engineering, and mathematics to be wrong.  It's not the explanation you like, or want to hear.  But it's the simplest.  Even overlooking your vast inexperience and incompetence -- even considering (for the sake of argument) that your interpretation were correct and the astronauts' cumulative exposure reads too low -- the simplest explanation is still not that they were in low-Earth orbit the whole time.  Why?  Because of all the things that remain unexplained in your theory and about which you can only speculate.  And because you "eliminate" from among only the hypotheses you're willing to consider, not all the hypotheses that exist.  If the data are correct and the Apollo missions were genuine, then another explanation would be that Tim has misinterpreted the data.  That hypothesis also explains the ridiculous floundering around you're doing here in this forum, trying to convince professional scientists and engineers that you know what you're talking about.

Quote
The math does not work for me.

And we've show that that's because you don't know math, but you're quite willing to bluff.

Quote
Somebody is lying.

Yes, and we've proven it's you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 02:26:56 PM
That makes sense. Presumably the values for detector 1 are lower than for detector 2, such that the blue line on the CRaTER chart (1 & 2) is higher than that for detector 1 alone.

I could go away and represent the data in numerous ways, but its kind of academic given what we are dealing with. Any figures are approximate and only serve to give typical values. I could invest more time, but it's really up to Tim to do the donkey work.

To get a more manageable data file I set it to just one year in the middle of the range. This is the resulting text file: http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/data/2013085/doserates_standard_2013085_366days_allevents.txt

And yes, as suspected, the values for detector 1 are always (in so far as I have checked) considerably lower than those for detector 2, which explains why your chart (detector 1 only) showed lower figures than the combined chart (which only plotted the average of d1 & d2).

Screenshot to show what I mean:

(https://i.imgur.com/GMoMnSE.png)

Compare the two highlighted columns.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 02:28:32 PM
Since Tim wants to work with averages, here's some numbers, using the Apollo recorded daily dose rates in mGy

Apollo 8          0.26
Apollo 10        0.60
Apollo 11        0.22
Apollo 12        0.57
Apollo 13        0.40
Apollo 14        1.27
Apollo 15        0.24
Apollo 16        0.46
Apollo 17        0.44

Average:   0.50mGy/day

So on average the lunar Apollo missions got twice as much than the 0.24mGy/day average GCR flux stated in the article. Some more, some less. Tell me again why this is a problem, Tim?

There certainly is.  We would not send astronauts into space if didn't have a level of expectation of the hazards and the radiation doses they would receive.  NASA's prediction fell way off and the question one must ask is the reason why the fact that the mission never left LEO?  Are the mission dose rates representative of LEO mission dose rates?Are the mission doses approximately what we calculate for a lunar transit?  In asking these questions the possibility of a deception becomes apparent.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 02:30:35 PM
That makes sense. Presumably the values for detector 1 are lower than for detector 2, such that the blue line on the CRaTER chart (1 & 2) is higher than that for detector 1 alone.

I could go away and represent the data in numerous ways, but its kind of academic given what we are dealing with. Any figures are approximate and only serve to give typical values. I could invest more time, but it's really up to Tim to do the donkey work.

To get a more manageable data file I set it to just one year in the middle of the range. This is the resulting text file: http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/data/2013085/doserates_standard_2013085_366days_allevents.txt

And yes, as suspected, the values for detector 1 are always (in so far as I have checked) considerably lower than those for detector 2, which explains why your chart (detector 1 only) showed lower figures than the combined chart (which only plotted the average of d1 & d2).

Screenshot to show what I mean:

(https://i.imgur.com/GMoMnSE.png)

Compare the two highlighted columns.

Dude, Tim has moved on.  He is content with the built in plotter.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 02:31:56 PM
Since Tim wants to work with averages, here's some numbers, using the Apollo recorded daily dose rates in mGy

Apollo 8          0.26
Apollo 10        0.60
Apollo 11        0.22
Apollo 12        0.57
Apollo 13        0.40
Apollo 14        1.27
Apollo 15        0.24
Apollo 16        0.46
Apollo 17        0.44

Average:   0.50mGy/day

So on average the lunar Apollo missions got twice as much than the 0.24mGy/day average GCR flux stated in the article. Some more, some less. Tell me again why this is a problem, Tim?

There certainly is.  We would not send astronauts into space if didn't have a level of expectation of the hazards and the radiation doses they would receive.  NASA's prediction fell way off and the question one must ask is the reason why the fact that the mission never left LEO?  Are the mission dose rates representative of LEO mission dose rates?Are the mission doses approximately what we calculate for a lunar transit?  In asking these questions the possibility of a deception becomes apparent.

Wait - are you now saying that because the doses are higher than the average stated GCR flux, they must have never left LEO? I can't quite follow the logic here... I thought your problem was that the Apollo doses were too low, so that means it had to be faked? Now they're too high, which means it had to be faked?   :o


Quote
Dude, Tim has moved on.  He is content with the built in plotter.

So you accept that the chart is (a) correct, (b) logarithmic and (c) shows values comfortably below 0.2 mGy/day most of the time?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 02:35:18 PM
Since Tim wants to work with averages, here's some numbers, using the Apollo recorded daily dose rates in mGy

Apollo 8          0.26
Apollo 10        0.60
Apollo 11        0.22
Apollo 12        0.57
Apollo 13        0.40
Apollo 14        1.27
Apollo 15        0.24
Apollo 16        0.46
Apollo 17        0.44

Average:   0.50mGy/day

So on average the lunar Apollo missions got twice as much than the 0.24mGy/day average GCR flux stated in the article. Some more, some less. Tell me again why this is a problem, Tim?

There certainly is.  We would not send astronauts into space if didn't have a level of expectation of the hazards and the radiation doses they would receive.  NASA's prediction fell way off and the question one must ask is the reason why the fact that the mission never left LEO?  Are the mission dose rates representative of LEO mission dose rates?Are the mission doses approximately what we calculate for a lunar transit?  In asking these questions the possibility of a deception becomes apparent.

Wait, what? Are you seriously dinging a scientific mission for not knowing the answers before they started? Are you questioning why test pilots would risk their lives determining where the edge of the envelop really is?

But, no...you yourself have admitted in your own interpretation of the numbers that the hazard might have been larger than predicted but still fell within the margin of expectation.

Because we've flown plenty of spacecraft since, and continued to model the space environment, and at no point is there any indication other than the Apollo Project proceeded under a best understanding of the current data collected with a diligence that met professional standards then...and now.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 02:35:31 PM
There certainly is.  We would not send astronauts into space if didn't have a level of expectation of the hazards and the radiation doses they would receive.  NASA's prediction fell way off

What prediction? The document you pulled their statement of 0.24mGy/day from is a report pubished after Apollo using the Apollo data.

But the point remains: there is no discrepancy, you simply cannot grasp that an average rate taken across years doesn't provide a baseline rate for a given two week period.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 02:36:58 PM
Compare the two highlighted columns.

Thanks, that's really useful. I did a different analysis, which was to simply calculate the number of times all 6 detectors on a given day are below the 0.22 threshold; 64% for Apollo 11. I also determined the number of detectors that fell below the 0.22 threshold across the data set, 83% for Apollo 11.

The main reason for plotting the graph was to show that the numbers actually fall below the threshold and it is a log scale. I think he was using that latter part once he realised his mistake of analysing the data by inspection of the graph.

It's all academic given the nature and complexity of the problem, but I do like these times when they come to the forum, as I learn that little bit more, and it keeps me thinking.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 02:39:32 PM
So you accept that the chart is (a) correct, (b) logarithmic and (c) shows values comfortably below 0.2 mGy/day most of the time?

 ;)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 02:43:43 PM
Since Tim wants to work with averages, here's some numbers, using the Apollo recorded daily dose rates in mGy

Apollo 8          0.26
Apollo 10        0.60
Apollo 11        0.22
Apollo 12        0.57
Apollo 13        0.40
Apollo 14        1.27
Apollo 15        0.24
Apollo 16        0.46
Apollo 17        0.44

Average:   0.50mGy/day

So on average the lunar Apollo missions got twice as much than the 0.24mGy/day average GCR flux stated in the article. Some more, some less. Tell me again why this is a problem, Tim?

There certainly is.  We would not send astronauts into space if didn't have a level of expectation of the hazards and the radiation doses they would receive.  NASA's prediction fell way off and the question one must ask is the reason why the fact that the mission never left LEO?  Are the mission dose rates representative of LEO mission dose rates?Are the mission doses approximately what we calculate for a lunar transit?  In asking these questions the possibility of a deception becomes apparent.

Wait - are you now saying that because the doses are higher than the average stated GCR flux, they must have never left LEO? I can't quite follow the logic here... I thought your problem was that the Apollo doses were too low, so that means it had to be faked? Now they're too high, which means it had to be faked?   :o


Quote
Dude, Tim has moved on.  He is content with the built in plotter.

So you accept that the chart is (a) correct, (b) logarithmic and (c) shows values comfortably below 0.2 mGy/day most of the time?

The thing that caught my attention in the first place is the graph that shows the mission doses of the NASA space missions.  I thought it unusual that the Apollo lunar mission doses were similar to the LEO doses of the Space shuttle and the rest of the LEO mission.  There can be no question the doses reported by the lunar missions are well within the expected LEO dose profiles.  I grew suspicious then.  That is how I got here.  I think you guys don't understand the difference between Exponential and Logarithmic but that is just my opinion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 02:46:23 PM
So you accept that the chart is (a) correct, (b) logarithmic and (c) shows values comfortably below 0.2 mGy/day most of the time?

 ;)
No.  I am absolutely sure they are not logarithmic.  I am unsure about your ability to understand the difference between a logarithmic scale and and exponential scale.  I even have some concern about your ability to read a graph.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 02:47:33 PM
I think you guys don't understand the difference between Exponential and Logarithmic but that is just my opinion.

Indeed, I've only used those concepts and the associated data visualization methods every day of my professional life for the past 30 years.  Hey, I've never operated a submarine before, but I think I could do it better than you.  But that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 02:48:12 PM
I even have some concern about your ability to read a graph.

Says the man that cannot read an ASCII data file.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 02:50:36 PM
Hey, I've never operated a submarine before, but I think I could do it better than you.  But that's just my opinion.

Easy, make sure the lid is tight and then drive it around under water. There's no traffic lights or interchanges. There's not a great deal of traffic under the sea. Pfffft, how can it be hard. Any moron can do it when you think about it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 02:51:05 PM
Cargo cult science.

As the good doctor said, "That's funny..." is exciting in science. That's when the data doesn't meet expectations. At which point you check the equipment, check the assumptions, check the calculations. The first and best guess is always that you made a mistake somewhere. When peer review works properly, that is what it does; get a whole bunch of other eyes looking at it to see if THEY can figure our where you messed up.

Or you can double down on the finding, argue the reviews, selectively search the literature for data that confirms (never data that disagrees). Not saying it doesn't happen. It does, a lot. We all do it. It even has some utility. But it is also characteristic of bad science.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 03:03:15 PM
I think you guys don't understand the difference between Exponential and Logarithmic but that is just my opinion.

Indeed, I've only used those concepts and the associated data visualization methods every day of my professional life for the past 30 years.  Hey, I've never operated a submarine before, but I think I could do it better than you.  But that's just my opinion.

I have never operated a submarine either.  I have supervised the operation of a Nuclear Power Plant and I don't think you could have passed the entrance requirement as you had to know a logarithmic scale does not have equal distant points and that seems to have eluded you
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 03:05:24 PM
To get a more manageable data file I set it to just one year in the middle of the range.

I've found a little button in ExCel that makes life a bit easier when filling cells with the same formula. I can manipulate the data quickly to take an average of all detectors, or a subset of detectors. Here's an average of all 6 detectors, although I think we've moved on, and my line is in the wrong place as it's not a log scale.  ???
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 03:06:57 PM
Hey, I've never operated a submarine before, but I think I could do it better than you.  But that's just my opinion.

Easy, make sure the lid is tight and then drive it around under water. There's no traffic lights or interchanges. There's not a great deal of traffic under the sea. Pfffft, how can it be hard. Any moron can do it when you think about it.

Only 10% of those who apply are accepted and a third of those that are accepted complete the rigorous training regimen.  I am not sure you have the right stuff.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 03, 2018, 03:08:08 PM
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.

No apology necessary.  I was inspired by all the hard work and dedication by all the constructive contributors on this forum.  I want to belatedly thank all of you for many a personal enlightenment.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 03:11:14 PM
I don't think you could have passed the entrance requirement as you had to know a logarithmic scale does not have equal distant points and that seems to have eluded you

Please compute the ordinate values on the CRaTER graph, 10-4, 10-3, 10-2, 10-1, 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104 and then explain to me how they can be equidistant.

OK, I'll do that for you.

10-4 =  0.0001
10-3 = 0.001
10-2 = 0.01
10-1 = 0.1
100 = 1
101 = 10
102 =100
103 =1000
104 =1000

They're not equidistant are they? What is the common factor between each ordinate. OK, I'll do that for you?

10.

There you go, it's a log scale... tada!!!!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 03:11:59 PM

No.  I am absolutely sure they are not logarithmic.  I am unsure about your ability to understand the difference between a logarithmic scale and and exponential scale.  I even have some concern about your ability to read a graph.
Can you explain the difference, then? What would you call a scale with consecutive tick marks at 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100, 1000...? I would call it logarithmic.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 03:12:54 PM
There can be no question the doses reported by the lunar missions are well within the expected LEO dose profiles.

No-one is questioning the data, only your interpretation. You have NOT considered the variables, and you have NOT grasped that the average GCR flux does NOT provide a baseline that all lunar missions must exceed.

Quote
I think you guys don't understand the difference between Exponential and Logarithmic but that is just my opinion.

I don't really feel like having my mathematical knowledge criticised by someone who, just a couple of hours ago, showed that he could not understand the difference between A x 10-1 and A-1, or that 1/A = A-1, which was something I learned in school.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 03:13:15 PM
Only 10% of those who apply are accepted and a third of those that are accepted complete the rigorous training regimen.

Don't use numbers, not your strong point.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 03:17:29 PM
I have never operated a submarine either.  I have supervised the operation of a Nuclear Power Plant and I don't think you could have passed the entrance requirement as you had to know a logarithmic scale does not have equal distant points and that seems to have eluded you

Doubling down on the bluster only makes you look more foolish.  I'm not sure where you're getting that I said a logarithmic scale had "equal distant points," as I've said no such thing.  But hey, if tarring your critics with made-up accusations is all you've got, then I guess I'm right to keep ignoring you.

Remember the part where I'm a professional engineer, with a degree in engineering and 30 years' experience?  Maybe you don't know this, but engineers are actually legally liable for the correctness of their mathematical understanding, as well a their understanding of the physical world.  So who is more likely to be right about how to read a logarithmic scale:  a bunch of professional scientists and engineers who do this for a living?  Or some guy off the street who's just learning about it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 03, 2018, 03:17:38 PM
the problem is tim at the end of the day quite a few people have contributed here and from reading it it seems they are correct. I say this because you keep switching topics. however, and I would too in their shoes, it wont be long before your account Is revoked I suspect

If he were on cosmoquest's forum, he would have been suspended multiple times and eventually banned long ago.  This forum is more lenient, as at least some of those who stay the course find his childish obstinance amusing, and allows them (me, too) to practice their debating and critical thinking skills.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 03:18:18 PM
I don't think you could have passed the entrance requirement as you had to know a logarithmic scale does not have equal distant points and that seems to have eluded you

Please compute the ordinate values on the CRaTER graph, 10-4, 10-3, 10-2, 10-1, 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104 and then explain to me how they can be equidistant.

OK, I'll do that for you.

10-4 =  0.0001
10-3 = 0.001
10-2 = 0.01
10-1 = 0.1
100 = 1
101 = 10
102 =100
103 =1000
104 =1000

They're not equidistant are they? What is the common factor between each ordinate. OK, I'll do that for you.

10.

There you go, it's a log scale... tada!!!!

Luke, Luke, Luke....  Now deep in your heart you know that each mark in a grid represents a tenth of that grid.  Now if the spacings of these marks are equidistant then it is a linear grid.  If they are spaced as a log function then it is a logarithmic scale.  Why would you call it a log scale if you were not using logs in the scale?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 03:19:42 PM
If he were on cosmoquest's forum, he would have been suspended multiple times and eventually banned long ago.  This forum is more lenient, as at least some of those who stay the course find his childish obstinance amusing, and allows them (me, too) to practice their debating and critical thinking skills.

...an finally realise there is a FILL button in Excel that fills in cells with the same formula rather than doing a cell corner drag.  :D
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 03:21:05 PM
the problem is tim at the end of the day quite a few people have contributed here and from reading it it seems they are correct. I say this because you keep switching topics. however, and I would too in their shoes, it wont be long before your account Is revoked I suspect

If he were on cosmoquest's forum, he would have been suspended multiple times and eventually banned long ago.  This forum is more lenient, as at least some of those who stay the course find his childish obstinance amusing, and allows them (me, too) to practice their debating and critical thinking skills.
Sycophants like listening to the sound of their own voices don't they.  Your arguments are without substance so your only recourse is to expel the one who sings out of tune with the other sheeple?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 03:21:12 PM
Naw. I give him full points for staying on topic. And staying polite. Addressing questions in a meaningful way, not so much, but, hey, the average hoaxie sets a pretty low bar.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 03:26:03 PM
Your arguments are without substance...

In whose opinion?  Pointing out all the things you got wrong, from our position of relevant expertise, is usually considered a strong argument.

Quote
...so your only recourse is to expel the one who sings out of tune with the other sheeple?

Odd that you would pick an analogy where conformity is pretty much the idea.  Has it occurred to you that simply being in the minority or simply thinking differently is not inherently better?  You seem really wrapped up in notions of conformity and groupthink, and you aren't paying attention to whether you really actually know what the facts are.  You seem almost obsessed with making sure people see you as a right thinker, not whether you actually have the right answer.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 03:26:16 PM
Why would you call it a log scale if you were not using logs in the scale?

You actually think you need to take logs to scale the axis, really, really? That's what you think a log scale is? really? Honestly? Really? Please don't tell me you think you take logs to make a log scale. Tell you what, you take log10 of the following numbers

1 000 000
100 000
10 000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001

Then compute these exponents (not exponentials).

106
105
104
103
102
101
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4

Then you might see the relationship between log10 and the reason for calling it a log scale.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 03:26:23 PM
Luke, Luke, Luke....  Now deep in your heart you know that each mark in a grid represents a tenth of that grid.  Now if the spacings of these marks are equidistant then it is a linear grid.

Once again, there is no grid on that graph. Look especially at the position of the '100' mark in relation to what you think is the grid.

Quote
If they are spaced as a log function then it is a logarithmic scale.  Why would you call it a log scale if you were not using logs in the scale?

They are spaced as a log function. When each marked equidistant point on the axis is 10x greater than the one before it's a log10 scale. That's fundamental.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 03:29:48 PM
The fact remains, however, that you still can't tell the difference between an average and a minimum...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 03:32:03 PM
Now if the spacings of these marks are equidistant then it is a linear grid.

The grid is equidistant in length, but then aren't most graphs scaled this way? The distance (of numerical difference) between the numbers are not equidistant are they. The difference between numbers increases by a factor of 10 each time. That's why it is log scaled, using a log10 function.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 03:33:00 PM
Only 10% of those who apply are accepted and a third of those that are accepted complete the rigorous training regimen.  I am not sure you have the right stuff.

This is interesting.  When other people talk about their training and qualifications, you dismiss it as nothing more than pretention.  But when we turn the scenario around, all of a sudden proper training and experience matter.  Yes, we're all familiar with the stringent requirements of service aboard a nuclear-powered warship.  And we're glad they're that way.  The point I made is that you have a double standard.  In your mind you're the only one whose expertise counts, whether it has a suitable basis or not.  In your fantasy world, rocket science doesn't have stringent requirements or qualifications, nor risk substantial failure.  Did you know that engineers are legally liable for the correctness of their mathematical reasoning?  Are you willing to risk that sort of consequence if you were wrong on your radiation data?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 03:33:20 PM
The fact remains, however, that you still can't tell the difference between an average and a minimum...

I'll add to that... and come here making the claim that the CRaTER data does not fall below a threshold, because you cannot interpret a log scale or examine data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 03:36:27 PM
Why would you call it a log scale if you were not using logs in the scale?

You actually think you need to take logs to scale the axis, really, really? That's what you think a log scale is? really? Honestly? Really? Please don't tell me you think you take logs to make a log scale. Tell you what, you take log10 of the following numbers

1 000 000
100 000
10 000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001

Then compute these exponents (not exponentials).

106
105
104
103
102
101
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4

Then you might see the relationship between log10 and the reason for calling it a log scale.
I am going to timidly toss this out there for your consideration.  That is an exponential scale using exponents in the axis.  It is different than a logarithmic scale.  The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 03:39:18 PM
The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.

Which is EXACTLY what that graph is. It just doesn't show the intermediate tick marks, for clarity!

See these two graphs? One generated by CRaTER (on the left) and one created by Luke. Luke's graph only shows the data for detector 1, which is the dark blue line on the CRaTER graph.

See how they are basically exactly the same? How the heights of the peaks is the same on both charts, on the logarithmic scale? The only difference is the labels, and the fact the one has the axis in centigrays per day and one in milligrays per day, so there is a factor of 10 difference. Both are logarithmic plots.

(https://i.imgur.com/mzrWVYX.png)

Can you really not see that the difference between 104 and 103 is bigger than the difference between 103 and 102? Or do you think that the gap between 10,000 and 1,000 is the same as the gap between 1,000 and 100? Or between 0.1 and 0.01?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 03:41:06 PM
I am going to timidly toss this out there for your consideration.  That is an exponential scale using exponents in the axis.  It is different than a logarithmic scale.  The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.

TIm, in your own examples of log scales you can see that each set of decreasing divisions is repeated, and the difference between the lowest and highest is a 10x multiplication. The CraTer graph does not include the decreasing spacers between the major tick markes because they are not necessary.

Again, plot the data in Excel and give it the command to plot on a logarithmic axis and see what you get when you don't include the minor gridlines.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 03:42:34 PM
For that matter plot the GCR on a linear scale. It doesn't matter. The numbers clearly go below what you call the minimum.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 03, 2018, 03:42:51 PM

I have never operated a submarine either.  I have supervised the operation of a Nuclear Power Plant

Which one - the Thresher?  And if you were ever the EDO, I pity the poor mugs under you at what must have been an extremely short stint.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 03:43:05 PM
I am going to timidly toss this out there for your consideration.  That is an exponential scale using exponents in the axis.  It is different than a logarithmic scale.  The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.

Exponential pertains to natural logs, base e, as in 2.718... so exponential graph (if it existed) would be scaled on the major unit according to

e-4, e-3, e-3, e-1, e0, e1, e2...

Logarithmic graphs pertain to log 10, base 10. The major unit is scaled

10-4, 10-3, 10-2, 10-1, 100, 101, 102...

As in the CRaTER graph.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 03:47:23 PM
The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.

Which is EXACTLY what that graph is. It just doesn't show the intermediate tick marks, for clarity!

See these two graphs? One generated by CRaTER (on the left) and one created by Luke. Luke's graph only shows the data for detector 1, which is the dark blue line on the CRaTER graph.

See how they are basically exactly the same? How the heights of the peaks is the same on both charts, on the logarithmic scale? The only difference is the labels, and the fact the one has the axis in centigrays per day and one in milligrays per day, so there is a factor of 10 difference. Both are logarithmic plots.

(https://i.imgur.com/mzrWVYX.png)

Can you really not see that the difference between 104 and 103 is bigger than the difference between 103 and 102? Or do you think that the gap between 10,000 and 1,000 is the same as the gap between 1,000 and 100? Or between 0.1 and 0.01?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 03:50:57 PM
I am going to timidly toss this out there for your consideration.  That is an exponential scale using exponents in the axis.  It is different than a logarithmic scale.  The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.

Exponential pertains to natural logs, base e, as in 2.718... so exponential graph (if it existed) would be scaled on the major unit according to

e-4, e-3, e-3, e-1, e0, e1, e2...

Logarithmic graphs pertain to log 10, base 10. The major unit is scaled

10-4, 10-3, 10-2, 10-1, 100, 101, 102...

As in the CRaTER graph.

Definition of exponent
1 : a symbol written above and to the right of a mathematical expression to indicate the operation of raising to a power
2 a : one that expounds or interprets
b : one that champions, practices, or exemplifies
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 03:51:09 PM
Would you find it easier to comprehend if we added in the intermediate tick marks on the CRaTER graph, as I have done here between the 102 and 103 lines? I think you can see why the default is not to do that: because it is very cluttered (even allowing for the thick minimum line width on my screenshot program!)

(https://i.imgur.com/CsrZ1lA.png)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 03:55:24 PM
Tim, we all know what a log plot looks like. The CraTer graph is a semi-log plot, in that only one axis is log scaled.

But again, I note that you couldn't tell the difference between X-1 and X x10-1 when looking at the units from your source document. THat does rather undermine your claims to any mathematical competence, and you haven't addressed anyone who pointed it out.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 03:55:41 PM
Tim:

The scaling of the major unit is what determines whether a graph is a log plot. The omission of the minor scales which get closer together still means the CRaTER data is a log plot.

How does the major unit on the y-axis in your graph differ to the y-axis in CRaTER graph? The y-axis on the CRaTER graph is scaled in the same way as your example. You failed to read the scale properly.

Not this makes a difference, as you've been shown your initial assumption regarding the CRaTER data is fallacious and you can find that in the data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 04:02:00 PM
Would you find it easier to comprehend if we added in the intermediate tick marks on the CRaTER graph, as I have done here between the 102 and 103 lines? I think you can see why the default is not to do that: because it is very cluttered (even allowing for the thick minimum line width on my screenshot program!)

(https://i.imgur.com/CsrZ1lA.png)

Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question.  You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right.  You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 04:02:25 PM
On the subject of the stringent selection criteria Tim refers to, given that we are talking about nuclear subs, how much of 'the cut' is determined by availability of positions versus applicant numbers, how much by technical skill, and how much by stringent background security and medical checks? I ask because if Tim wishes to use them as a bolster to his credibility he is being disingenuous if he implies it's all skills and intelligence that scuppered the rest of them.

As he insisted on using the term 'the right stuff', I'll point out that as it pertains to the Mercury astronauts, hundreds applied, dozens were selected, 7 made the cut. The selection criteria were based on a wide variety of things. Pete Conrad didn't make the first cut because he was flippant in a psych test but was clearly a competent astronaut given his later history.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 04:03:57 PM

Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question.  You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right.  You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?

Oh for the love of...

YES, we all know this, which is why we suggested you go and do this yourself. I have plotted the data on a LOG scale, and get EXACTLY the same curve as the graph on the CraTer web page. EXACTLY.

But again, the shape of the curve does not matter. The NUMBERS tell you what you need to know. You just want to keep going on about this graph because you can't admit to the numbers showing you to be wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 04:04:42 PM
Definition of exponent

I know, I posted this a while back. You're confusing exponential and exponent when defining whether a graph is a log scale or linear. You keep saying that the CRaTER graph has an exponential scale.

It has a scale expressed using exponents, which are log10 scaled.

Exponent and exponential are different things.

Not that this matters as the CRaTER data falls below your threshold, but you won't look at that data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 04:10:55 PM
Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question.  You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right.  You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?




None of this matters of course, because Tim won't go and find this out for himself, as his claim has found to be fallacious because he did not read the scale properly.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 04:11:11 PM
On the subject of the stringent selection criteria Tim refers to, given that we are talking about nuclear subs, how much of 'the cut' is determined by availability of positions versus applicant numbers, how much by technical skill, and how much by stringent background security and medical checks? I ask because if Tim wishes to use them as a bolster to his credibility he is being disingenuous if he implies it's all skills and intelligence that scuppered the rest of them.

As he insisted on using the term 'the right stuff', I'll point out that as it pertains to the Mercury astronauts, hundreds applied, dozens were selected, 7 made the cut. The selection criteria were based on a wide variety of things. Pete Conrad didn't make the first cut because he was flippant in a psych test but was clearly a competent astronaut given his later history.

Why don't you apply and see if you have the right stuff?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 04:13:03 PM

Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question.  You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right.  You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?

Oh for the love of...

YES, we all know this, which is why we suggested you go and do this yourself. I have plotted the data on a LOG scale, and get EXACTLY the same curve as the graph on the CraTer web page. EXACTLY.

But again, the shape of the curve does not matter. The NUMBERS tell you what you need to know. You just want to keep going on about this graph because you can't admit to the numbers showing you to be wrong.


The before and after curves cannot be the same.  You did something wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 03, 2018, 04:13:50 PM
ok can I just jump in again. I think it is now pretty obvious that people are not going to agree. I know who I believe. Tim i'm going to be honest. we have conversed for a while now on FB but your making yourself look a bit silly here
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 04:14:22 PM
I ask because if Tim wishes to use them as a bolster to his credibility...

He isn't, and I'm not suggest that he do.  Early in the debate he cited his Navy experience as qualifications for understanding the radiation argument he was making.  After some discussion he withdrew the claim and conceded that Navy training was not applicable, and that he did not have any qualifications in astrophysics or aerospace engineering.  I'm content to let that rest.  My point in bringing it up again was to elicit exactly what I received:  a concession that where expertise is indicated, it needs to appear.  I'm obviously not qualified to do anything aboard a U.S. nuclear submarine except occupy space.  So when I suggest that I'm Tim's equal in that respect, he rightfully bristled.  It's the bristling that made the point.  He hasn't yet grasped that he's trying to do to other professions what I did to his in order to make my point.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 04:15:10 PM
Graphs are great for visualizing data. But if you are making a numeric analysis and you have the original data...you use the original data.

Squinting at the pretty picture is for amateurs.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 03, 2018, 04:15:41 PM
Did you not read my response as to why not?  It would be disregarded because it represents a different solar cycle.  They would simply claim that it has no bearing on 1969.

Stop playing games. You know damn well that is not true. You have been asked repeatedly why you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the data, in simple black and white, contradicts your claim that the GCR rate is never lower than 0.22uGy/day. It's there, and you can see it and plot the graph that you insisted shows it is always above that value.

You refuse because you would have to admit that all that obfuscation is just your way of refusing to acknowledge your error.

ANd the relevance to cycle 20 has also been explained. Cycle 20 was a more active solar cycle, therefor the GCR flux would be even lower than in cycle 24, where it already falls below your stated minimum GCR levels.

Double thumbs up on that summation!! :)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 04:15:49 PM
Tim, here you go. An exponential plot.

See, the data still falls below the line.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 04:17:27 PM
Why don't you apply and see if you have the right stuff?

You first.  The professional engineer's exam is 13 hours long.  The study guide is about five inches thick, 9 pt. text.  You've already admitted you have no qualifications or training in astrophysics, engineering, or any of the other sciences that relate to your claim.  You're arrogantly presuming to correct people who have not only had their expertise in these areas properly adjudicated, but have practiced those professions successfully, in some cases for decades.  You have a right to be proud of your service in the Navy.  You do not have the right to pretend others do not have the proper expertise.  You're being arrogant and rude.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 04:18:30 PM
Sorry for this LO with the attachments. Delete if you wish.

Look Tim, scaled to Base 16 now. Lo and behold, the data falls below the line.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 04:18:55 PM
The before and after curves cannot be the same.  You did something wrong.

I am not talking about 'before and after' curves. I plotted the data on a log scale and it matches the graph on the CraTer website exactly. Because the graph on the CraTer website is on a log scale. This is the point. No other plotting produced exactly the same curve.

But again you ignore the point: the NUMBERS disagree with your claim. Why will you not address this?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 04:21:42 PM
Last one LO, I promise...

Tim, look, scaled to base 0.5...

Guess what... you've got it. The data falls below the line. I scale the axis as I wish, but plot the original data without alteration and I always get the same result. The data falls below the line.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 04:25:14 PM
Would you find it easier to comprehend if we added in the intermediate tick marks on the CRaTER graph, as I have done here between the 102 and 103 lines? I think you can see why the default is not to do that: because it is very cluttered (even allowing for the thick minimum line width on my screenshot program!)

(https://i.imgur.com/CsrZ1lA.png)

Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question.  You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right.  You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?

Yes of course. Try plotting the values on a linear plot and you will see that the shape of the curve is nothing like this one!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 04:28:05 PM
Yes of course. Try plotting the values on a linear plot and you will see that the shape of the curve is nothing like this one!

Like this, but then you can barely see the data that is central to Tim's hypothesis, hence scaling the ordinate as a log scale.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 04:29:30 PM

Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question.  You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right.  You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?

Oh for the love of...

YES, we all know this, which is why we suggested you go and do this yourself. I have plotted the data on a LOG scale, and get EXACTLY the same curve as the graph on the CraTer web page. EXACTLY.

But again, the shape of the curve does not matter. The NUMBERS tell you what you need to know. You just want to keep going on about this graph because you can't admit to the numbers showing you to be wrong.


The before and after curves cannot be the same.  You did something wrong.

Yes they can be the same, because both graphs are logarithmic graphs. Look at them, compare them. Stick them in a graphics program and overlay them if you want!

(https://i.imgur.com/mzrWVYX.png)

10-2 cGy/day on the left-hand graph is the same tick mark as 0.1 mGy/day on the right-hand graph. The next tick mark up is also the same: 10-1 cGy/day = 1 mGy/day.

This is incredibly basic maths, literally multiplying by 10. My six-year-old daughter can multiply by 10, without a pencil and paper.



Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 04:33:36 PM
This is incredibly basic maths, literally multiplying by 10. My six-year-old daughter can multiply by 10, without a pencil and paper.

OK, we can do the after graph in cGy day-1. Same, the data falls below the line.

LO: I broke my promise.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 04:37:33 PM
See if this makes a difference.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 04:40:30 PM
ANd yu have failed to plot the linear one with the same range as the log one. Why? Your log graph goes from 0.01 to 1. Plot the linear one with the same range.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 04:42:58 PM
But sticking wth that little subset of data, what do you think you'd get if you calculated the average of the whole data set, the first half and the second half?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 04:45:28 PM
ANd yu have failed to plot the linear one with the same range as the log one. Why? Your log graph goes from 0.01 to 1. Plot the linear one with the same range.

Try this.  In excel plot the raw data.  Right click on the vertical  axis and select format axis.  Click in the Logarithmic scale box and then compare the two data sets.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 04:48:17 PM
ANd yu have failed to plot the linear one with the same range as the log one. Why? Your log graph goes from 0.01 to 1. Plot the linear one with the same range.

Try this.  In excel plot the raw data.  Right click on the vertical  axis and select format axis.  Click in the Logarithmic scale box and then compare the two data sets.

How many times do I have to tell you, I have done this? This is exactly what I and others have been advising you to do. The curve on the logarithmic axis exactly matches the curve shown on the CraTer graph. Nothing is changing about the numbers, only the scale on which they are plotted, and they STILL show a substantial section less than your arbitrary minimum.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 04:50:34 PM
I have noticed that no one wants to embrace the fact that NASA claims a cislunar GCR background range of .24 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.  Is it that we believe that all 9 lunar missions fell through the gaps on this and managed to transit the VAB, lunar surface and cislunar space on a beautiful and quiet space week?  No one finds this even remotely curious?  Just me?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 04:50:58 PM
I have noticed that no one wants to embrace the fact that NASA claims a cislunar GCR background range of .24 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.  Is it that we believe that all 9 lunar missions fell through the gaps on this and managed to transit the VAB, lunar surface and cislunar space on a beautiful and quiet space week?  No one finds this even remotely curious?  Just me?

Have we finally got to the bottom of this?

Tim, do you think that because changing the scale of a graph changes the appearance of the graph, different conclusions can be drawn from the data depending on how we draw the graph scale? Are conclusions sensitive to our choose of scaling? Is this what you think?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 04:52:15 PM
Have we finally got to the bottom of this?

Tim, do you think that because changing the scale of a graph changes the appearance of the graph, different conclusions can be drawn from the data depending on how we draw the graph scale? Are conclusions sensitive to our choose of scaling? Is this what you think?

No, I don't.  I simply don't think the concept of a logarithmic graph has been fully grasped and this is a way to reach the unbelieving.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 04:53:23 PM
I have noticed that no one wants to embrace the fact that NASA claims a cislunar GCR background range of .24 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.

Tim, let me say this veyr clearly. 0.24mGy/day is an AVERAGE. It is not a range minimum. How many times do you need to be told this?

Quote
Is it that we believe that all 9 lunar missions fell through the gaps on this and managed to transit the VAB, lunar surface and cislunar space on a beautiful and quiet space week?

All 9 did not. If you average the daily doses across all missions it comes out substantially higher. Again, why do you need to have this pointed out again? Only ONE mission returned a daily dose rate lower than the average GCR dose rate. This is what we expect when we use averaged data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 03, 2018, 04:53:51 PM
the problem is tim at the end of the day quite a few people have contributed here and from reading it it seems they are correct. I say this because you keep switching topics. however, and I would too in their shoes, it wont be long before your account Is revoked I suspect

If he were on cosmoquest's forum, he would have been suspended multiple times and eventually banned long ago.  This forum is more lenient, as at least some of those who stay the course find his childish obstinance amusing, and allows them (me, too) to practice their debating and critical thinking skills.

He was discussing the same nonsense only to be handed his head, but he was smart enough to duck out before he violated their rules.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 04:54:03 PM
No one finds this even remotely curious?  Just me?

Your claim has been thoroughly examined.  It has no merit, because you fail at simple data analysis.  There's no use trying to call people sheeple after they've already spent nearly 70 pages trying to correct your mistakes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 04:54:33 PM
Have we finally got to the bottom of this?

Tim, do you think that because changing the scale of a graph changes the appearance of the graph, different conclusions can be drawn from the data depending on how we draw the graph scale? Are conclusions sensitive to our choose of scaling? Is this what you think?

No, I don't.  I simply don't think the concept of a logarithmic graph has been fully grasped and this is a way to reach the unbelieving.

Tim, I will say again, plottting the data on an Excel graph and telling it to use a logarithmic y-axis is exactly what I did in the first place and exactly what I advised you to do, and it produces exactly the same curve a the very first one you showed from the CraTer website.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 04:54:54 PM
It sure is lonely up here in the stratified air of open mind mountains.  I could use a little company.  Bueller? Bueller?  Anyone?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 04:55:37 PM
No, I don't.  I simply don't think the concept of a logarithmic graph has been fully grasped and this is a way to reach the unbelieving.

You don't know how to read the graph.  It's as simple as that.  These are tools that Luke, Jason, and I work with on a daily basis.  It's obviously new to you, but you're not helping your case by pretending you're the expert and blustering your way around facts.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 04:56:17 PM
It sure is lonely up here in the stratified air of open mind mountains.  I could use a little company.  Bueller? Bueller?  Anyone?
No response to the repeated requests to acknowledge that the numbers disagree with you then?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 04:56:25 PM
It sure is lonely up here in the stratified air of open mind mountains.  I could use a little company.  Bueller? Bueller?  Anyone?

Obvious troll is obvious.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 04:58:05 PM
Have we finally got to the bottom of this?

Tim, do you think that because changing the scale of a graph changes the appearance of the graph, different conclusions can be drawn from the data depending on how we draw the graph scale? Are conclusions sensitive to our choose of scaling? Is this what you think?

No, I don't.  I simply don't think the concept of a logarithmic graph has been fully grasped and this is a way to reach the unbelieving.

Tim, I will say again, plottting the data on an Excel graph and telling it to use a logarithmic y-axis is exactly what I did in the first place and exactly what I advised you to do, and it produces exactly the same curve a the very first one you showed from the CraTer website.
I printed out the graphs as proof it doesn't.  I don't understand how it works differently for me than it does you but I am forced to ask the question,  Why is it reasonable in your mind that a plot of raw data does not change between a linear plot and a logarithmic plot?  Why does that make sense to you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 04:59:38 PM
Have we finally got to the bottom of this?

Tim, do you think that because changing the scale of a graph changes the appearance of the graph, different conclusions can be drawn from the data depending on how we draw the graph scale? Are conclusions sensitive to our choose of scaling? Is this what you think?

No, I don't.  I simply don't think the concept of a logarithmic graph has been fully grasped and this is a way to reach the unbelieving.

Tim, I will say again, plottting the data on an Excel graph and telling it to use a logarithmic y-axis is exactly what I did in the first place and exactly what I advised you to do, and it produces exactly the same curve a the very first one you showed from the CraTer website.
I printed out the graphs as proof it doesn't.  I don't understand how it works differently for me than it does you but I am forced to ask the question,  Why is it reasonable in your mind that a plot of raw data does not change between a linear plot and a logarithmic plot?  Why does that make sense to you?

Where do you get this idea that I am saying a linear and logarithmic plot do not change? I have said quite clearly that when the data are plotted on a logarithmic y-axis the resultant curve looks like the one on the CraTer website, because that is also a logarithmic plot.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 05:00:42 PM
Why is it reasonable in your mind that a plot of raw data does not change between a linear plot and a logarithmic plot?  Why does that make sense to you?

If I have a data point 10 on a linear scale, what does it corresponds to on the y scale when read off the graph?

If I have a data point 10 on a log scale, what does it correspond to on the y scale when read off the graph?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 05:01:27 PM
Have we finally got to the bottom of this?

Tim, do you think that because changing the scale of a graph changes the appearance of the graph, different conclusions can be drawn from the data depending on how we draw the graph scale? Are conclusions sensitive to our choose of scaling? Is this what you think?


No, I don't.  I simply don't think the concept of a logarithmic graph has been fully grasped and this is a way to reach the unbelieving.

Tim, I will say again, plottting the data on an Excel graph and telling it to use a logarithmic y-axis is exactly what I did in the first place and exactly what I advised you to do, and it produces exactly the same curve a the very first one you showed from the CraTer website.
I printed out the graphs as proof it doesn't.  I don't understand how it works differently for me than it does you but I am forced to ask the question,  Why is it reasonable in your mind that a plot of raw data does not change between a linear plot and a logarithmic plot?  Why does that make sense to you?

Where do you get this idea that I am saying a linear and logarithmic plot do not change?

You said you plotted the raw data and then converted it to logarithmic and the curve did not change.  I read where you said that.  I think...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 05:03:19 PM
You said you plotted the raw data and then converted it to logarithmic and the curve did not change.  I read where you said that.  I think...

No, I did not. I said I plotted the data and converted it to logarithmic and then it matched the CraTer graph. I said nothing about what the linear graph looked like.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 05:04:13 PM
Why is it reasonable in your mind that a plot of raw data does not change between a linear plot and a logarithmic plot?  Why does that make sense to you?

If I have a data point 10 on a linear scale, what does it corresponds to on the y scale when read off the graph?

If I have a data point 10 on a log scale, what does it correspond to on the y scale when read off the graph?

If you had two sheets of graph paper, one linear and one logarithmic and you were plotting by had 20 data points on each sheet and assuming the same data points were used on each sheet, would the curves be identical?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 05:05:28 PM
Tim, for the last time, no-one is saying the curves would be identical. No-one at all. Is your reading comprehension as bad as your mathematical comprehension?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 05:05:37 PM
You said you plotted the raw data and then converted it to logarithmic and the curve did not change.  I read where you said that.  I think...

No, I did not. I said I plotted the data and converted it to logarithmic and then it matched the CraTer graph. I said nothing about what the linear graph looked like.

So the two curves were different?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 05:06:57 PM
So why didn't you show both data sets?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 05:08:24 PM
Of course the linear and logarithmic curves were different. I didn't show any data sets and I didn't need to. I urged you to go and look for yourself.  The point was, and remains, the logartihmic curve generated in Excel matches the one on the CraTer website, showing that this is also a logartihmic curve. If you can't comprehend that then you really must just be trolling now.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 03, 2018, 05:09:47 PM
You are making this more complex than it has to be.

No, we're facing the problem in its full complexity.  You're making it "simple" by skipping the parts you don't have answers for and pretending that they therefore don't matter.  A great way to get rid of fleas on a cat is to incinerate the cat.  It's a great solution unless you "complicate" it by stipulating that the cat has to be alive after the process.  In the real world you don't get to ignore the parts of the problem that don't fit your solution just because you really, really like your solution.  The problem of determining Apollo authenticity is more complicated than you're making it, and you come off sounding rude and arrogant when you belittle people who are looking at the whole problem while you remain focused on one narrow piece.

...

Jay I'm cutting out some of your responses for brevity's sake not to disagree with anything you posted.

I've said it more than once, I want Jay on my debating team. :)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 05:15:37 PM
If you had two sheets of graph paper, one linear and one logarithmic and you were plotting by had 20 data points on each sheet and assuming the same data points were used on each sheet, would the curves be identical?

You really don't get it do you? If I have a point of data that has a value of 3, it still has a value of 3 against a log scale or linear scale. The analysis of the data is not about the shape of the graph, the data doesn't change  just becasue you changed the scaling.

If I have numbers that range from 0-10, I would use a linear scale.

If I have numbers that range from 0.000001-100000 (for example) I'd use a log scale so the smaller numbers would not be 'squashed' up at the lower end of the scale, and would play an equal and important part in the visual presentation of my data. The scale is a choose which depends on your data range, and with modern packages this can be quickly changed to produce the best visual representation.

... but as explained, graphs aren't analysis, they are visual representations that aid the reader with the textual aspect of the analysis. I've written a PhD and professional research science, and understand the difference appropriate representation of data through visual means, and writing analysis to support a graph.

Now, if you looks at your data, how often does the data falls below your arbitrary level? That's the real question.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 05:17:31 PM
Of course the linear and logarithmic curves were different. I didn't show any data sets and I didn't need to. I urged you to go and look for yourself.  The point was, and remains, the logartihmic curve generated in Excel matches the one on the CraTer website, showing that this is also a logartihmic curve. If you can't comprehend that then you really must just be trolling now.

My confusion arises from the fact, early in the discussion when you insisted the raw data did not have to converted to logarithms.  You said that was not how it worked and I assume then you continued to insist the plot of raw data looked like the plot of logarithmic data and I couldn't understand how that was possible.  I understand now.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 05:20:16 PM
Of course the linear and logarithmic curves were different. I didn't show any data sets and I didn't need to. I urged you to go and look for yourself.  The point was, and remains, the logartihmic curve generated in Excel matches the one on the CraTer website, showing that this is also a logartihmic curve. If you can't comprehend that then you really must just be trolling now.

My confusion arises from the fact, early in the discussion when you insisted the raw data did not have to converted to logarithms.

Yes. Plotting the data on a log scale is not converting the data, just changing how it is displayed. The numbers are the same whatever scale they are plotted on.

Quote
You said that was not how it worked and I assume then you continued to insist the plot of raw data looked like the plot of logarithmic data and I couldn't understand how that was possible.  I understand now.

I'm glad. So you now actually understand that the CraTer graph is a log scale? ANd that the numbers actually fall below 0.2mGy/day for large parts of it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 05:23:09 PM
So why didn't you show both data sets?

I have posted twice (and now three times) a comparison of Luke's logarithmic plot and the CRaTER logarithmic plot (which you claimed was not logarithmic). They are the same, because both are logarithmic. If one of them was linear, they would look nothing alike, would they?

Here is the third time:

(https://i.imgur.com/mzrWVYX.png)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 05:23:58 PM
Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data.  Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time.  Can we make this work?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 05:24:29 PM
So why didn't you show both data sets?

I have posted twice (and now three times) a comparison of Luke's logarithmic plot and the CRaTER logarithmic plot (which you claimed was not logarithmic). They are the same, because both are logarithmic. If one of them was linear, they would look nothing alike, would they?

Here is the third time:

(https://i.imgur.com/mzrWVYX.png)
OK
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 05:24:52 PM
Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data.  Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time.  Can we make this work?

Which ones are outward facing?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 05:26:42 PM
Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us

Is that a concession that actually you were wrong and the CraTer graph is actually logarithmic?

Quote
Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time.  Can we make this work?

Those averages are already there. The graph shows the avergaes of detectors 1&2, 3&4 and 5&6. The whole GCR curve still spends a large part of the time under your 0.2mGy.day 'minimum'
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 05:26:47 PM

My confusion arises from the fact, early in the discussion when you insisted the raw data did not have to converted to logarithms.  You said that was not how it worked and I assume then you continued to insist the plot of raw data looked like the plot of logarithmic data and I couldn't understand how that was possible.  I understand now.

Ah, I think I see where your misunderstanding arises. You don't convert the data in order to plot it on a logarithmic graph. All you do is adjust the scale of the axes.

A value of 0.2 is still 0.2 whether you plot it on a linear scale or a logarithmic one. All that differs is that on a linear scale, it will be 20% of the way between the 0 mark and the 1 mark, whereas on a logarithmic scale, it will be (log 2 / log 10) = ~30% of the way between the 0.1 mark and the 1 mark. Get it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 05:28:07 PM
Ah, I think I see where your misunderstanding arises. You don't convert the data in order to plot it on a logarithmic graph. All you do is adjust the scale of the axes.

I said this about 103 pages back, or 1000 on a linear scale. I'm sure I did.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 05:36:01 PM
I said this about 103 pages back, or 1000 on a linear scale. I'm sure I did.

You did.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 05:36:58 PM
Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data.  Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time.  Can we make this work?

Which ones are outward facing?
1-4...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 05:40:18 PM

My confusion arises from the fact, early in the discussion when you insisted the raw data did not have to converted to logarithms.  You said that was not how it worked and I assume then you continued to insist the plot of raw data looked like the plot of logarithmic data and I couldn't understand how that was possible.  I understand now.

Ah, I think I see where your misunderstanding arises. You don't convert the data in order to plot it on a logarithmic graph. All you do is adjust the scale of the axes.

A value of 0.2 is still 0.2 whether you plot it on a linear scale or a logarithmic one. All that differs is that on a linear scale, it will be 20% of the way between the 0 mark and the 1 mark, whereas on a logarithmic scale, it will be (log 2 / log 10) = ~30% of the way between the 0.1 mark and the 1 mark. Get it?
That would cause the graph to look like a traditional logarithmic graph with logarithmic spacing.  To achieve the CraTer graph with linear spacing you would have to convert the raw data to logs.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 05:41:21 PM
The CraTer graph does not have linear spacing. We've been over this. It is a traditional log graph with no conversion of the data. Why are you so insistent that it is not?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 05:44:35 PM
Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data.  Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time.  Can we make this work?

Which ones are outward facing?
1-4...

Here you go... what can you say about the dose data compared to your threshold?

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 05:46:20 PM
To achieve the CraTer graph with linear spacing you would have to convert the raw data to logs.
The CRaTER graph doesn't have linear spacing. Look at the scale. It is logarithmic!

(https://i.imgur.com/MUlvC3G.png)

I thought you had just agreed this?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 05:48:25 PM
I said this about 103 pages back, or 1000 on a linear scale. I'm sure I did.

You did.

Given the donkey work I'm doing with this graph plotting, I've not had a chance to ask you some questions about radiation detection and orbital mechanics. I need time to think through my questions properly, and do a little research. Hope you are well - along with everyone else. I've been absent from the forum about 1 year. Far too busy and a little unwell to be honest - nothing serious!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 03, 2018, 05:49:51 PM
Here are the individual detector data. I have drawn a line at the 0.2 mGy/day level.

(https://i.imgur.com/bBHMHBB.png)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 03, 2018, 06:04:18 PM
Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data.  Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time.  Can we make this work?

Which ones are outward facing?
1-4...

Here you go... what can you say about the dose data compared to your threshold?

Some of those points appear to be approximately .1 which is significantly lower the AVERAGE dose during A11, and for your bonus this was in a period of lower flux.
tim can you see where your interpretation of the data not bear out.

And
Here are the individual detector data. I have drawn a line at the 0.2 mGy/day level.

(https://i.imgur.com/bBHMHBB.png)
there are definitely points lower than .1, go figure tim. 

ETA:
And this data occurs in a higher flux than that of Apollo.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 06:04:46 PM
Here are the individual detector data. I have drawn a line at the 0.2 mGy/day level.

(https://i.imgur.com/bBHMHBB.png)

What is beautiful about this graph is the consistency in recording the SPEs, but the slight variation in dose. This should highlight to Tim that detectors on board the same vehicle give different values for the dose, so why shouldn't the dose monitoring equipment on board another vehicle give different values.

In respect of this observation I look at the recent figure of 0.24 mGy/day he cited and the Apollo 11 data of 0.22 mGy/day. There is a discrepancy for the lower value in the Apollo dosimetery and the figure he cited from the literature, but the figures are well within tolerances or equipment and sampling errors. There is the issue of using averages too, which have been discussed at length.

This only serves to illustrate the complexity of the problem, which seems quite wasted on our friend with his broad statements of whataboutery.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 06:09:23 PM
The CraTer graph does not have linear spacing. We've been over this. It is a traditional log graph with no conversion of the data. Why are you so insistent that it is not?

It is probably because each of the little tick marks are equidistantly spaced and not logarithmically spaced.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 06:10:12 PM
This should highlight to Tim that detectors on board the same vehicle given different values for the dose...

For detectors placed in different locations on the spacecraft, this is expected when measuring SPE effects.

Quote
...the figures are well within tolerances or equipment and sampling errors. There is the issue of using averages too, which ash been discussed at length.

And these are all effects Tim has not eliminated before defaulting to an LEO-mission.

Quote
This only serves to illustrate the complexity of the problem, which seems quite wasted on our friend with his broad statements of whataboutery.

The problem is complex.  Tim insists on simplifying it down to his understanding instead of expanding his understanding to encompass the problem.  That's not the "right stuff."
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 03, 2018, 06:12:10 PM
The CraTer graph does not have linear spacing. We've been over this. It is a traditional log graph with no conversion of the data. Why are you so insistent that it is not?

It is probably because each of the little tick marks are equidistantly spaced and not logarithmically spaced.

No, each set correspond but the tick marks ARE NOT equally spaced.  Look carefully at the distance between 1 and 2 and then 8 and 9.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 06:12:23 PM
Some of those points appear to be approximately .1 which is significantly lower the AVERAGE dose during A11, and for your bonus this was in a period of lower flux.

Yup, precisely, his claim of <0.22 was fallacious and the data shows this to be irrefutable. It's taken a 1050 message thread, and we're still not sure if he accepts that the CRaTER data is a log scale or not.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 06:13:07 PM

It is probably because each of the little tick marks are equidistantly spaced and not logarithmically spaced.

Tim, there are no 'little tick marks' on the y-axis. The only grduations on the y-axis are the major log scale graduations that go up in powers of 10. The intermediate values are not marked. Look at the zoomed in axis posted earlier. The dots corrspond to the x-axis graduations, not the y-axis.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 06:13:39 PM
Here are the individual detector data. I have drawn a line at the 0.2 mGy/day level.

(https://i.imgur.com/bBHMHBB.png)

What is beautiful about this graph is the consistency in recording the SPEs, but the slight variation in dose. This should highlight to Tim that detectors on board the same vehicle given different values for the dose, so why should the dose monitoring equipment on board another vehicle give different values.

In respect of this observation I look at the recent figure of 0.24 mGy/day he cited and the Apollo 11 data of 0.22 mGy/day. There is a discrepancy for the lower value in the Apollo dosimetery and the figure he cited from the literature, but the figures are well within tolerances or equipment and sampling errors. There is the issue of using averages too, which ash been discussed at length.

This only serves to illustrate the complexity of the problem, which seems quite wasted on our friend with his broad statements of whataboutery.

The point that you all continue to gloss over is that GCR is the lowest radiation area the lunar vehicle will see.  It is lower than the SAA, the VAB, Lunar orbit and the Lunar surface.  It probably makes up a third of the total exposure.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 06:14:39 PM
It is probably because each of the little tick marks are equidistantly spaced and not logarithmically spaced.

And we've been over this too.  Tick marks that represent orders of magnitude (10, 100, 1000, ...) must be equally spaced in a logarithmic scale.  The minor gradations within them -- those representing linear multiples of values -- are the ones that end up logarithmically spaced in a logarithmic scale, and are frequently omitted for clarity.  When they are omitted, referring to the order-of-magnitude tick labels is what confirms the scale is logarithmic.

You cannot bluff your way past this, Tim.  For those of us who pursued scientific careers, this is literally something we learned in our mid-teens and have used daily for decades.  You're trying to parlay your personal confusion over how to read a logarithmic scale as something you can gaslight your way around.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 06:15:43 PM
The point that you all continue to gloss over is that GCR is the lowest radiation area the lunar vehicle will see.

No-one is glossing over it. THe only issue is your quantification of it. The point you keep glossing over is that loads of it is below what you said was the minimum level.

Quote
It probably makes up a third of the total exposure.

How do you arrive at that figure?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 06:17:32 PM

It is probably because each of the little tick marks are equidistantly spaced and not logarithmically spaced.

Tim, there are no 'little tick marks' on the y-axis. The only grduations on the y-axis are the major log scale graduations that go up in powers of 10. The intermediate values are not marked. Look at the zoomed in axis posted earlier. The dots corrspond to the x-axis graduations, not the y-axis.
Yep, those are the one that would logarithmically spaced on a logarithmic graph.  The fact that they are spaced linearly tells you it is not a logarithmic graph rather it is a linear plot of logarithmic data.  Haven't we spent enough time hashing this out?  The guys are going to get away with the deception if we don't get back to sleuthing.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 06:18:44 PM
Tim, the major tick marks increase by factors of 10. It's a log plot.

The minor ticks marks that get closer together have been omitted.

You're right, a log plot does sometimes have those minor tick marks that get closer together, but the major tick marks are equally spaced in distance, but not in data interval.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 06:19:38 PM
The point that you all continue to gloss over is that GCR is the lowest radiation area the lunar vehicle will see.

No-one is glossing over it. THe only issue is your quantification of it. The point you keep glossing over is that loads of it is below what you said was the minimum level.

Quote
It probably makes up a third of the total exposure.

How do you arrive at that figure?
pick any range you would like from the data set and we will use it as a base line for a lunar transit.  be conservative and I will hold fast to what ever range you select. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 06:20:30 PM
Yep, those are the one that would logarithmically spaced on a logarithmic graph.

No. Just no. Look at the axis on your own log graph. The equidistant points increase in multiples of 10. Seriously, you just did this and you still can't see it? Look at your own example you posted earier. 0.01 and 0.1 are equally spaced as 0.1 and 1.

If the equidistant numbers go up in multples of 10 that is a log scale. End of discussion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 06:21:48 PM
pick any range you would like from the data set and we will use it as a base line for a lunar transit.

And exactly how will you do this? Justify your mathematical reasoning.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 06:21:57 PM
Yep, those are the one that would logarithmically spaced on a logarithmic graph.

No. Just no. Look at the axis on your own log graph. The equidistant points increase in multiples of 10. Seriously, you just did this and you still can't see it? Look at your own example you posted earier. 0.01 and 0.1 are equally spaced as 0.1 and 1.

If the equidistant numbers go up in multples of 10 that is a log scale. End of discussion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 06:22:25 PM
Yep, those are the one that would logarithmically spaced on a logarithmic graph.

No, that's incorrect.

Quote
The fact that they are spaced linearly tells you it is not a logarithmic graph rather it is a linear plot of logarithmic data.

No, that's not correct.  The values attached to the tick marks clearly vary by order of magnitude.  That's how you tell you have a logarithmic scale.

Quote
Haven't we spent enough time hashing this out?

Yes.  This is something I could explain in ten minutes to a high school physics class and well over half of them would get it without further discussion.

Quote
The guys are going to get away with the deception if we don't back to sleuthing.

Come down off your high horse.  You are patently incompetent at even the most basic techniques in data analysis.  You are not going to "uncover" anything, and most of us are getting tired of you trying to draw us into your fantasy world where you're the hero who unmasked NASA.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 06:23:00 PM
Tim, I've plotted the average for detectors 1-4. Do you agree that your initial premise that the CRaTER data did not fall below your base threshold is incorrect?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 06:24:08 PM
Yep, those are the one that would logarithmically spaced on a logarithmic graph.

No. Just no. Look at the axis on your own log graph. The equidistant points increase in multiples of 10. Seriously, you just did this and you still can't see it? Look at your own example you posted earier. 0.01 and 0.1 are equally spaced as 0.1 and 1.

If the equidistant numbers go up in multples of 10 that is a log scale. End of discussion.

Tim, look at the spacing between 1 and 10, 10 and 100, 100 and 1000. See how they are equidistant? Ignore the numbers in between. THAT is the key feaure of a log scale. The factors of 10 are equidistant, just as in the CraTer graph.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 06:25:11 PM
Jay, take this opportunity to disengage.  You don't have to include yourself in this discussion.  You have brought nothing to the table anyway and it is not like your input will be missed.  I'm sure you have neighbors you can berate.  Have at it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 06:29:27 PM
Jay, take this opportunity to disengage.  You don't have to include yourself in this discussion.  You have brought nothing to the table anyway and it is not like your input will be missed.  I'm sure you have neighbors you can berate.  Have at it.

Looks like I touched a nerve.  I'll let the readers decide for themselves who has brought what to this discussion.  Also, you may want to temper your attempts to control the debate.  LunarOrbit will tolerate a lot of things, but one thing he will not tolerate is ordinary users trying to act like a forum moderator or administrator and dictate who can use his board.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 06:30:00 PM
Tim, I've plotted the average for detectors 1-4. Do you agree that your initial premise that the CRaTER data did not fall below your base threshold is incorrect?

I am of the mind that we cannot include any of the region with the SPE spikes as those would be a whole different issue in and of themselves, the remaining area looks pretty close to about .2 mgy/day wouldn't you say?  Remember my assertion is that the minimum a lunar transit should ever have is defined by GCR.  If we exited at the poles and did not enter into lunar orbit then that would be all we got.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 06:31:36 PM
I am of the mind that we cannot include any of the region with the SPE spikes

Why? The GCR data without SPE events is availabe to be analysed too.

Ah, but this way you can ignore that the GCR baseline is actually lower than you insist it must be...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 06:35:09 PM
I am of the mind that we cannot include any of the region with the SPE spikes

Why? The GCR data without SPE events is availabe to be analysed too.

Ah, but this way you can ignore that the GCR baseline is actually lower than you insist it must be...
If you sent a moon mission out during a time in which SPE events were occurring regularly do you think your baseline would be set by GCR or SPE's?  If you were planning such a trip what would you use for an estimate?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 06:35:30 PM
Ah, but this way you can ignore that the GCR baseline is actually lower than you insist it must be...

...and isn't a single number.  The notion that any such physical phenomenon would be represented by a single number for all times and places is just daft.  You couldn't do any meaningful science or engineering under that assumption.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 06:36:28 PM
If you sent a moon mission out ding a time in which SPE events were occurring regularly do you think your baseline would be set by GCR or SPE's?

I can almost hear those goalposts shifting. You were the one who insisted the GCR was the baseline. That's literally the whole foundation of your discussion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 06:37:00 PM
Ah, but this way you can ignore that the GCR baseline is actually lower than you insist it must be...

...and isn't a single number.  The notion that any such physical phenomenon would be represented by a single number for all times and places is just daft.  You couldn't do any meaningful science or engineering under that assumption.
No, but one could use a range with a safety margin to calculate expected exposure.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 06:38:00 PM
The remaining area looks pretty close to about .2 mgy/day wouldn't you say?

Not according to the data, the band in the middle of solar maximum is closer to 0.1 mGy day-1. I'm looking at the actual numbers, not just the graph.

Remember me telling you that graphs are for pretty, numbers actually inform the analysis. Sorry, but your initial premise of the CRaTER data not being less than 0.2 mGy day-1 was incorrect wasn't it? That's the crux of the matter.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 06:38:55 PM
If you sent a moon mission out during a time in which SPE events were occurring regularly...

They don't.

Quote
...do you think your baseline would be set by GCR or SPE's?

It's mostly nonsensical to talk about a "baseline" for SPEs.  They're discrete events.

Quote
If you were planning such a trip what would you use for an estimate?

For SPEs I use a probabilistic model parameterized with acceptable values for mission success.  For VAB, the Apollo data -- because that's what the industry actually uses.  For GCR, which is the only "baseline" here, a historical model parameterized by time and mission path.
 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 06:39:27 PM
No, but one could use a range with a safety margin to calculate expected exposure.

No, that's not how it's done.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 06:42:13 PM
If you sent a moon mission out ding a time in which SPE events were occurring regularly do you think your baseline would be set by GCR or SPE's?

I can almost hear those goalposts shifting. You were the one who insisted the GCR was the baseline. That's literally the whole foundation of your discussion.

I standby my assertion.  I propose nothing radical.  The assumption is 4 hours in the VAB, a few hours on the lunar surface and a couple days in lunar orbit.  The bulk of the time is spent in cislunar space.  It just happens that cislunar space is the lowest radiation area of the whole trip.  The problem with picking a average from a high solar activity point is two fold.  One , you probably wouldn't have sent men there at that time in the first place.  Two the SPE's will raise your exposure considerably.  It is only reasonable to pick a realistic point and proceed from there.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 06:42:20 PM
If you sent a moon mission out during a time in which SPE events were occurring regularly do you think your baseline would be set by GCR or SPE's?

Jay may correct me, but they took a risk with SPEs. They quite literally did. Having said this, do you know the occurence of SPEs occur in a solar cycle that afford a biological hazard to astronauts?

The reason for that is that you can inform the risk involved. But yes, they took a risk.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 03, 2018, 06:45:48 PM
Tim, why do you assume that you're right?  You must be assuming that, because otherwise, you would be taking the opportunity to learn.  I could have explained to my four-year-old by now what a logarithmic chart is.  (He'd rather I go get him some milk and let him watch Underdog, but there we are.)  You also note that I provided a list of exactly what it would take to convince me that Apollo was faked, and calling me a sherson for not believing your bluster was, strangely, not one of the things that would convince me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 06:48:31 PM
I standby my assertion.  I propose nothing radical.  The assumption is 4 hours in the VAB,

Which part of the VAB and what kind of radiaiton and flux density is relevant there?

Quote
a few hours on the lunar surface

Apollo 11 was on the surface for a day, later missions for up to three days.

Quote
and a couple days in lunar orbit.

How do you account for the division between CSM in orbit and LM on the surface in your model?

Quote
The bulk of the time is spent in cislunar space.  It just happens that cislunar space is the lowest radiation area of the whole trip.

Agreed.

Quote
The problem with picking a average

Who said an average? You want a baseline. That's not the same thing. SPEs are discrete events that can be discounted in determining a baseline.

Quote
One , you probably wouldn't have sent me there at that time in the first place.

Yes I would.

Quote
Two the SPE's will raise your exposure considerably.

How many are dangerous?

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 06:48:52 PM
If you sent a moon mission out during a time in which SPE events were occurring regularly do you think your baseline would be set by GCR or SPE's?

Jay may correct me, but they took a risk with SPEs. They quite literally did. Having said this, do you know the occurence of SPEs occur in a solar cycle that afford a biological hazard to astronauts?

The reason for that is that you can inform the risk involved. But yes, they took a risk.

Personally, I don't think they did.  We know the Russians didn't.  The whole point of this discussion is whether or not they actually risked the lives of the astronauts on an unproven venture realizing a single SPE could have killed the entire crew.  It chills my bones to think the government would be so callous with the lives of the men who dedicated their service to them.  I don't believe it happened.  I think they did what I would have done.  Protected my men and lied to everyone else.  But that is just me.  I'm like that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 06:50:45 PM
If you sent a moon mission out during a time in which SPE events were occurring regularly do you think your baseline would be set by GCR or SPE's?

Jay may correct me, but they took a risk with SPEs. They quite literally did. Having said this, do you know the occurence of SPEs occur in a solar cycle that afford a biological hazard to astronauts?

The reason for that is that you can inform the risk involved. But yes, they took a risk.

Personally, I don't think they did.  We know the Russians didn't.  The whole point of this discussion is whether or not they actually risked the lives of the astronauts on an unproven venture realizing a single SPE could have killed the entire crew.  It chills my bones to think the government would be so callous with the lives of the men who dedicated their service to them.  I don't believe it happened.  I think they did what I would have done.  Protected my men and lied to everyone else.  But that is just me.  I'm like that.

Oh, this old chestnut. Tim, the astronauts went up voluntarily. They had been test pilots. They accepted risks all the time in their professional lives.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 06:54:02 PM
Tim, why do you assume that you're right?  You must be assuming that, because otherwise, you would be taking the opportunity to learn.  I could have explained to my four-year-old by now what a logarithmic chart is.  (He'd rather I go get him some milk and let him watch Underdog, but there we are.)  You also note that I provided a list of exactly what it would take to convince me that Apollo was faked, and calling me a sherson for not believing your bluster was, strangely, not one of the things that would convince me.

I don't assume I am right.  I assume the data is conflicting.  As far a Logarithmic Plot, I will have to take your word on it because I am not convinced full comprehension has been achieved by the masses.  But we digress.  The evidence is before us.  We can analyze it and come up with independently arrived conclusions or we can get the ready made answer add water and microwave it as we settle in to watch Survivor.  I don't believe it because the government is not above lying and I can see and think. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 06:54:26 PM
Astronauts can die by many much more abrupt and violent ways. Komarov and the Soyuz 11 crew found that out. Radiation was the least of their worries.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 06:54:37 PM
Jay may correct me, but they took a risk with SPEs.

That's what "probabilistic model" means.  In practice we categorize SPEs into classes corresponding roughly to orders of magnitude.  And those within a category have roughly equivalent effects on organisms and equipment.  It's not unlike earthquake magnitudes.  There's a big difference in effect between a Richter 6.0 earthquake and a Richter 7.0, but little difference (in effect) between a Richter 6.0 and a 6.2.  Then for each category, a fairly complicated random variable is created with parameters drawn from historical observations.  Then a likelihood function is computed that is the convolution of the categorized parametric model and the mission window -- time and orbital path.  It's heavy-duty statistics, but it is suitable for quantifying risk.

During a solar max peak year, you can expect up to about 6 events in all directions within the ecliptic, of the most hazardous magnitude -- the ones that would have a significant biological effect on the astronauts in the Apollo CSM, up to and including ultimately fatal exposures.  If you fly a 12-day Apollo mission four times a year, you have a reasonably good likelihood of success because all your operations take place on one side of the sun.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 06:56:31 PM
Personally, I don't think they did.  We know the Russians didn't.  The whole point of this discussion is whether or not they actually risked the lives of the astronauts on an unproven venture realizing a single SPE could have killed the entire crew.  It chills my bones to think the government would be so callous with the lives of the men who dedicated their service to them.  I don't believe it happened.  I think they did what I would have done.  Protected my men and lied to everyone else.  But that is just me.  I'm like that.

Was involving the men in the test programme low risk, when 3 of them actually died in the development phase? Was placing astronauts on a rocket filled with kerosene fuel without risk? What about flying into space and insertion into lunar orbit? How about landing on the surface, followed by reinsertion into lunar orbit and docking with the CM? Was that risky? What about reentry?

The missions from inception, through to development and execution were risky. Why place SPEs above any other risk?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 06:56:53 PM
As far a Logarithmic Plot, I will have to take your word on it because I am not convinced full comprehension has been achieved by the masses.

The only person lacking comprehension on this matter is you. If the equidistant graduations on the axis go up by factors of  of 10 it is a log scale. End of story. Seriously, why do you keep arguing this point wth people who do this stuff for a living?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 06:59:41 PM
...realizing a single SPE could have killed the entire crew.

No, that's being dramatic.

Quote
It chills my bones to think the government would be so callous with the lives of the men who dedicated their service to them.

You haven't proven anyone was callous.  You certainly don't have a good conceptual understanding of the risk, and you've provided no pertinent data.  I'm not interested in your personal fears or cold feet.  Keep in mind these men -- most of them -- were already military test pilots.  In the 1960s that occupation had a 25% mortality rate.  So your desperate fear-mongering over whether these men would have accepted a space assignment is comical but non-probative.

Quote
I don't believe it happened.  I think they did what I would have done.  Protected my men and lied to everyone else.  But that is just me.  I'm like that.

It's clear you don't believe it happened.  It's also clear you're not a very honest person.  But it's unfair of you to project that onto other people simply to cushion the consequences of your belief.  Ultimately your level of honesty is not of interest, because you go on to make the mistake of believing that your demon-haunted world has objective, empirical verification.  It clearly does not.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 07:02:31 PM
As far a Logarithmic Plot, I will have to take your word on it because I am not convinced full comprehension has been achieved by the masses.

The only person lacking comprehension on this matter is you. If the equidistant graduations on the axis go up by factors of  of 10 it is a log scale. End of story. Seriously, why do you keep arguing this point wth people who do this stuff for a living?

if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 07:04:27 PM
I am curious.  Is there anyone on this site that believes in any conspiracy theory at all?  Kennedy assassination? 9/11. Sandy Hook, Titanic?  Anything?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 07:08:02 PM
I am curious.  Is there anyone on this site that believes in any conspiracy theory at all?  Kennedy assassination? 9/11. Sandy Hook, Titanic?  Anything?

Why would such a thing matter?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 07:12:02 PM
I am curious.  Is there anyone on this site that believes in any conspiracy theory at all?  Kennedy assassination? 9/11. Sandy Hook, Titanic?  Anything?

Why would such a thing matter?
It is merely a thing of curiosity.  Is there harm in asking?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 07:12:25 PM
if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.

See how the divisions between 1, 10 and 100 are equally spaced. That's called a log scale. The ones that are equally spaced - the major tick marks - increase by factors of 10.

Just because the minor marks are omitted, it does not mean you have a log linear scale - or whatever daft name you want to call it - it just means the minor tick marks are omitted for clarity.

It's linked to log of base 10 and use of exponents in standard form. I'm glad you've dropped the exponential aspect of this now. That much is a relief.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 07:16:07 PM
It is merely a thing of curiosity.

Then it won't matter if no one answers you.

Quote
Is there harm in asking?

All the other conspiracy theorists who come here and ask the same question have had one of a small number of ulterior motives in asking it.  So you tell me what harm you might intend by asking it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 07:16:26 PM
if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.

See how the divisions between 1, 10 and 100 are equally spaced. That's called a log scale. The ones that are equally spaced - the major tick marks - increase by factors of 10.

Just because the minor marks are omitted, it does not mean you have a log linear scale - or whatever daft name you want to call it - it just means the minor tick marks are omitted for clarity.

It's linked to log of base 10 and use of exponents in standard form. I'm glad you've dropped the exponential aspect of this now. That much is a relief.
No, I don't see how the divisions between 1 and ten are evenly spaced.  They are spaced as a function of the logarithm. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 07:16:47 PM
It is merely a thing of curiosity.  Is there harm in asking?

Yes, because one pertains to the shooting of children at a school, which some people may find quite sensitive.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 07:18:04 PM
No, I don't see how the divisions between 1 and ten are evenly spaced.  They are spaced as a function of the logarithm.

I said 1, 10 and 100. Look at the double headed arrows. They show you that the distance from 1 --> 10 is the same as from 10 -->100.

Also 100 -->1000.

Read my post properly.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 07:18:30 PM
if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.

The entirety of mathematics and my 20 years of professional experience supports my position. Have you ever noticed when you plot the graphs in Excel that whether you include the minor gridlines or not the scale remains the same? Even your own examples actually support what I and everyone else has been saying, with the powers of 10 being equidistant in every single example. The CraTer graph ONLY calls out those powers on 10 on the y-axis. The fact that it leaves out the minor graduations of values like 2,3,4 etc doesn't alter the scaling. So either they have plotted their graph with no modifications to the data using a standard mathematical graphical presentation, or they have done some conversion that they have not described (because if the numbers had been changed the y-axis labelling would have to reflect that or else the graph is fraudulent) to make it fit your version of what you think that graph is. For some reason you are unable tp grasp the idea of standard methodology when it comes to presentation of data.

Now if you could provide other exmaples of any kind of graph following the pattern you talk about I might be more prone to discssing this further, but I suspect this is just your lack of mathematical skill at work. Still no comment about your failure to recongise the standard practice that mGy per hour = mGy/hr = mGyhr-1 either I see....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 07:19:23 PM
It is merely a thing of curiosity.

Then it won't matter if no one answers you.

Quote
Is there harm in asking?

All the other conspiracy theorists who come here and ask the same question have had one of a small number of ulterior motives in asking it.  So you tell me what harm you might intend by asking it.

My, my, we are defensive.  I am in the far corner of the country and I am old and harmless.  I am a threat to a beer bottle but that is the extent of it.  I am just trying to get a feel for the nature of the group.  So tell me.  What conspiracy do you fancy?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 07:20:38 PM
if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.

See how the divisions between 1, 10 and 100 are equally spaced. That's called a log scale. The ones that are equally spaced - the major tick marks - increase by factors of 10.

Just because the minor marks are omitted, it does not mean you have a log linear scale - or whatever daft name you want to call it - it just means the minor tick marks are omitted for clarity.

It's linked to log of base 10 and use of exponents in standard form. I'm glad you've dropped the exponential aspect of this now. That much is a relief.
No, I don't see how the divisions between 1 and ten are evenly spaced.  They are spaced as a function of the logarithm. 

Oh for crying out loud, will you read? It is not the divisions between 1 and 10 that matter, it is the space between 1 and 10, which is equal to the space between 10 and 100, which is equal to the space between 100 and 1000, which is equal to the space between 0.00001 and 0.0001. That is what defines a log scale. How many different ways do we have to explain this to you?

It is precisely because all the numbers are spaced according to the logarithm that makes 1-10 the same as 1000-10000 or 0.01-0.1 on the axis
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 07:21:14 PM
if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.

The entirety of mathematics and my 20 years of professional experience supports my position. Have you ever noticed when you plot the graphs in Excel that whether you include the minor gridlines or not the scale remains the same? Even your own examples actually support what I and everyone else has been saying, with the powers of 10 being equidistant in every single example. The CraTer graph ONLY calls out those powers on 10 on the y-axis. The fact that it leaves out the minor graduations of values like 2,3,4 etc doesn't alter the scaling. So either they have plotted their graph with no modifications to the data using a standard mathematical graphical presentation, or they have done some conversion that they have not described (because if the numbers had been changed the y-axis labelling would have to reflect that or else the graph is fraudulent) to make it fit your version of what you think that graph is. For some reason you are unable tp grasp the idea of standard methodology when it comes to presentation of data.

Now if you could provide other exmaples of any kind of graph following the pattern you talk about I might be more prone to discssing this further, but I suspect this is just your lack of mathematical skill at work. Still no comment about your failure to recongise the standard practice that mGy per hour = mGy/hr = mGyhr-1 either I see....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 07:24:44 PM
Putting up the same picture won't change the reality here, tim. It is the space between the 1 and 10, the 10 and 100, the 0.1 and 1 that defines the log scale. Even if you leave off all the other numbers between them.

Do you insist that a linear axis must include every number on it, or do you accept that if it goes up 0, 10, 20, 30 then all the other numbers between fit the same linear scale without actually having to be drawn in?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 07:25:46 PM
if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.

See how the divisions between 1, 10 and 100 are equally spaced. That's called a log scale. The ones that are equally spaced - the major tick marks - increase by factors of 10.

Just because the minor marks are omitted, it does not mean you have a log linear scale - or whatever daft name you want to call it - it just means the minor tick marks are omitted for clarity.

It's linked to log of base 10 and use of exponents in standard form. I'm glad you've dropped the exponential aspect of this now. That much is a relief.
No, I don't see how the divisions between 1 and ten are evenly spaced.  They are spaced as a function of the logarithm. 

Oh for crying out loud, will you read? It is not the divisions between 1 and 10 that matter, it is the space between 1 and 10, which is equal to the space between 10 and 100, which is equal to the space between 100 and 1000, which is equal to the space between 0.00001 and 0.0001. That is what defines a log scale.
You are confusing an exponential scale with a log scale.  If the scale is in logs then it is a log scale.  If the scale is in exponents then it is an exponential scale.  the terms are not interchangeable and they don't mean the same thing.  If you are plotting on a logarithmic scale then you don't convert the data to a log.  Scaling accomplishes that.  if you are plotting to an exponential scale then you have to convert the data to a log first.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 07:26:51 PM
My, my, we are defensive.

How so?  I'm acting according to the learned wisdom that "innocent" questions of that type almost never turn out to be purely innocent.  You said your interest in the answer was only casual.  In that case it wouldn't matter if anyone answered it.  But now look at you pressing for answers.  Not quite so casual after all, then.

Quote
I am just trying to get a feel for the nature of the group.

And I assume that's so you can continue to make spurious, categorical ad hominem arguments.  Am I close?  It's not like it's hard to find posts where you describe in what low regard you hold people here.  My guess is that you seem to be trying to find an empirical excuse to keep doing that, now that you appear to be out of actual arguments.  Justifying one's dismissal of the group as a whole is one of the small handful of historically attempted ulterior motives I mentioned.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 07:26:56 PM
Putting up the same picture won't change the reality here, tim. It is the space between the 1 and 10, the 10 and 100, the 0.1 and 1 that defines the log scale. Even if you leave off all the other numbers between them.

Do you insist that a linear axis must include every number on it, or do you accept that if it goes up 0, 10, 20, 30 then all the other numbers between fit the same linear scale without actually having to be drawn in?

It is a technical point and I am a stickler for technicality.  It is a character flaw that I am working on.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 07:30:10 PM
My, my, we are defensive.

How so?  I'm acting according to the learned wisdom that "innocent" questions of that type almost never turn out to be purely innocent.  You said your interest in the answer was only casual.  In that case it wouldn't matter if anyone answered it.  But now look at you pressing for answers.  Not quite so casual after all, then.

Quote
I am just trying to get a feel for the nature of the group.

And I assume that's so you can continue to make spurious, categorical ad hominem arguments.  Am I close?  It's not like it's hard to find posts where you describe in what low regard you hold people here.  My guess is that you seem to be trying to find an empirical excuse to keep doing that, now that you appear to be out of actual arguments.  Justifying one's dismissal of the group as a whole is one of the small handful of historically attempted ulterior motives I mentioned.

No you are not close at all.  I need no impetus to make remarks.  They just happen.  I am one of those kind of people that likes to put everything in its place.  I place people into categories and deal with them according to their placement.  It is highly efficient.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 07:30:24 PM
You are confusing an exponential scale with a log scale.  If the scale is in logs then it is a log scale.  If the scale is in exponents then it is an exponential scale.

Tell me then how you determine the difference between a logarithmic scale and an 'exponential' scale when the only numbers included on the axis are the powers of 10. And tell me exactly where such a scale is used and why you would convert the data to fit it on such a scale rather than just plotting it on a log scale.

Your argument fails for lack of any evidence that such a scaling method is ever actually used.

And, as I already pointed out, when the CraTer data is plotted in Excel on a log scale it looks exactly like the graph on the website that you first introduced. Why should we not conclude that the CraTer graph is a log scale?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 07:32:45 PM
Here you go, previously asked at a physics forum, the difference between log and exponential scales.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/logarithmic-vs-exponential-scales.371771/

Note the one reply: never heard of it, and then pretty much attempted to explain it in the same way I explained it you, by scaling the major division according to base e.

In all my years as a physicist, and I have dealt with plenty of relationships based on natural logs, I've never heard of an exponential scale.  I've plotted the natural logs of data to determine monomial relationships; but never scaled a graph exponentially.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 03, 2018, 07:35:35 PM
It sure is lonely up here in the stratified air of open mind mountains.  I could use a little company.  Bueller? Bueller?  Anyone?

Obvious troll is obvious.

Yeah, I've been trying to give it the benefit of the doubt, but it's crystal clear that Tim isn't arguing in good faith, and never had any intention of doing so. 

It's a troll.  It's not interested in anything except getting people wound up.  I'm willing to bet real money it wasn't a nuc, either. 

But because I spent time on it, attached is yet another plot of the CRaTER data, scaled to powers of 10 (whether you want to call that logarithmic or exponential, I don't really care):

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 07:37:41 PM
Let's try one more time Tim.

Distance between 1 and 10 = distance between 10 and 100 = distance between 100 and 1000.

Read this bit slowly: Are the double headed arrows the same length?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 07:39:16 PM
You are confusing an exponential scale with a log scale.  If the scale is in logs then it is a log scale.  If the scale is in exponents then it is an exponential scale.

Tell me then how you determine the difference between a logarithmic scale and an 'exponential' scale when the only numbers included on the axis are the powers of 10. And tell me exactly where such a scale is used and why you would convert the data to fit it on such a scale rather than just plotting it on a log scale.

Your argument fails for lack of any evidence that such a scaling method is ever actually used.

And, as I already pointed out, when the CraTer data is plotted in Excel on a log scale it looks exactly like the graph on the website that you first introduced. Why should we not conclude that the CraTer graph is a log scale?
I come from a time of graph paper and slide rules.  When plotting data, if you plotted it on logarithmic graphing paper it was actually a logarithmic conversion process.  If you wanted to see your data in a linear plot you could first convert it into logarithms and then plot it on regular graph paper.  It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 07:42:20 PM
No you are not close at all.  I need no impetus to make remarks.  They just happen.

I didn't say you were looking for an impetus.  I said you were looking for a justification.  I have no doubt you'll keep making categorical ad hominem remarks.  Your efforts to socially engineer your way past the debate -- which certainly have not gone unnoticed -- would fare better if you could rely on something stronger than assumption for their basis.  You wouldn't be the first to try to use belief in conspiracy theories as a proxy for open-mindedness.  You have no problem accusing everyone here of having a closed mind.  You've already done it several times.  But those accusations would work better for you for avoiding real debate if you could point to data supplied by other people that seemed to support them.

Quote
I am one of those kind of people that likes to put everything in its place.  I place people into categories and deal with them according to their placement.  It is highly efficient.

Yeah, that would be the categorical ad hominem arguments I mentioned.  It's disappointing that you think that's how adults should manage a discussion.

No, I won't be answering your question.  You'll have to continue assuming without evidence that everyone is ideologically set against you, rather than their just pointing out that you're factually wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 07:43:31 PM
This is incredibly basic maths, literally multiplying by 10. My six-year-old daughter can multiply by 10, without a pencil and paper.

OK, we can do the after graph in cGy day-1. Same, the data falls below the line.

LO: I broke my promise.

Could we do it in...hrm, what's a non-standard unit for ionizing radiation? Oh, of course. BED's per, um, Luau.  If you can come up with a standard duration for a luau.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 07:44:08 PM
No you are not close at all.  I need no impetus to make remarks.  They just happen.

I didn't say you were looking for an impetus.  I said you were looking for a justification.  I have no doubt you'll keep making categorical ad hominem remarks.  Your efforts to socially engineer your way past the debate -- which certainly have not gone unnoticed -- would fare better if you could rely on something stronger than assumption for their basis.  You wouldn't be the first to try to use belief in conspiracy theories as a proxy for open-mindedness.  You have no problem accusing everyone here of having a closed mind.  You've already done it several times.  But those accusations would work better for you for avoiding real debate if you could point to data supplied by other people that seemed to support them.


Quote
I am one of those kind of people that likes to put everything in its place.  I place people into categories and deal with them according to their placement.  It is highly efficient.

Yeah, that would be the categorical ad hominem arguments I mentioned.  It's disappointing that you think that's how adults should manage a discussion.

No, I won't be answering your question.  You'll have to continue assuming without evidence that everyone is ideologically set against you, rather than their just pointing out that you're factually wrong.

Intellectual cowardice is such an ugly thing to watch...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 07:46:17 PM
I come from a time of graph paper and slide rules.  When plotting data, if you plotted it on logarithmic graphing paper it was actually a logarithmic conversion process.  If you wanted to see your data in a linear plot you could first convert it into logarithms and then plot it on regular graph paper.  It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.

If you want to investigate the monomial relationship, yes, you'd do that. But we aren't doing that are we? We're plotting the raw data straight on to a graph. I thought we had established that point.

If you think you have data that is of the form y = axb you take a log of your y and x data, which gives you

log y = log axb

log y = log a + b log x

You can then determine a and b from the equation of a straight line if you the log of your data on a linear scale.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 07:47:13 PM
So why didn't you show both data sets?

What the flying...!

There's one data set. It doesn't matter if you graph it linearly, by some power law, or as a bluidy pie chart!

I say again, graphs are useful to visualize data. That means grasp at underlying patterns. How you graph it doesn't change the data set (not if you did it right...!)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 07:48:12 PM
if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.

The entirety of mathematics and my 20 years of professional experience supports my position. Have you ever noticed when you plot the graphs in Excel that whether you include the minor gridlines or not the scale remains the same? Even your own examples actually support what I and everyone else has been saying, with the powers of 10 being equidistant in every single example. The CraTer graph ONLY calls out those powers on 10 on the y-axis. The fact that it leaves out the minor graduations of values like 2,3,4 etc doesn't alter the scaling. So either they have plotted their graph with no modifications to the data using a standard mathematical graphical presentation, or they have done some conversion that they have not described (because if the numbers had been changed the y-axis labelling would have to reflect that or else the graph is fraudulent) to make it fit your version of what you think that graph is. For some reason you are unable tp grasp the idea of standard methodology when it comes to presentation of data.

Now if you could provide other exmaples of any kind of graph following the pattern you talk about I might be more prone to discssing this further, but I suspect this is just your lack of mathematical skill at work. Still no comment about your failure to recongise the standard practice that mGy per hour = mGy/hr = mGyhr-1 either I see....

Why would you call a scale logarithmic if there are no logarithms used in the scale?  That doesn't make logical sense does it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 07:50:31 PM
So why didn't you show both data sets?

What the flying...!

There's one data set. It doesn't matter if you graph it linearly, by some power law, or as a bluidy pie chart!

I say again, graphs are useful to visualize data. That means grasp at underlying patterns. How you graph it doesn't change the data set (not if you did it right...!)
The graph on the CraTer web site was self explanatory but for some strange reason you had to download the data convert it and rechart it.  Logic is weak in this one.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 07:51:50 PM
Could we do it in...hrm, what's a non-standard unit for ionizing radiation? Oh, of course. BED's per, um, Luau.  If you can come up with a standard duration for a luau.

How about nano-gherkins per jiffy on a log base number of Twinkies in a bag versus a non-linear bound Hermitian function scale / Alistair Cook's batting average graph?

What do you think the blue data will do? Fall below the line or be above the line?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 07:51:54 PM
Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data.  Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time.  Can we make this work?

We?

I hope you are talking about you and the weasel in your vest pocket, because the forum members understand log graphs. Any that didn't have a hard science (or statistics, or...honestly, it isn't like they are uncommon!) background going in, got brought up to speed by the excellent educators here some years ago.

I for one am not willing to move on. You didn't understand the representation of the data set and you refused to work with the data itself, insisting that your interpretation of the graph was correct and everyone else was, somehow, missing it.

You want to present this as a learning experience? Be my guest. By showing you are capable of learning.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 07:52:31 PM
It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.

No, this is not just another way in which you are superior to your critics.  I also come from the slide-rule and graph-paper world.  Yes, if you have graph paper with a linear scale only, you have to first compute the logarithm of the data and then plot that on the linear scale.  That's because the equally-spaced gradations on the linear graph paper correspond to degrees of magnitude when those degrees are expressed as logarithms.  Back when I drafted graphs on actual vellum using india ink and a forceps ruling pen, I had no problem understanding this.  That's why I have no problem looking at a logarithmic scale and seeing those evenly spaced major gradations as orders of magnitude in the data, as whole numbers in the logarithms, and as the proper place for data to live.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 07:55:02 PM
Ah, I think I see where your misunderstanding arises. You don't convert the data in order to plot it on a logarithmic graph. All you do is adjust the scale of the axes.

I said this about 103 pages back, or 1000 on a linear scale. I'm sure I did.

Sure that isn't 10,000? Because you know you are supposed to add the ten to the other three. Because ^n is always to the power of ten, right?  ;) ;)

Sorry. I'm going to step away here while I try to clear a persistent odor of sock from my nose.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 07:56:56 PM
Intellectual cowardice is such an ugly thing to watch...

And look at you trying to shame me into giving you those answers.  Hardly casual interest, then.  You might just have to carry on with this debate without a rational basis for pigeonholing and dismissing your critics.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 07:58:41 PM
I come from a time of graph paper and slide rules.  When plotting data, if you plotted it on logarithmic graphing paper it was actually a logarithmic conversion process.  If you wanted to see your data in a linear plot you could first convert it into logarithms and then plot it on regular graph paper.  It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.

That is not answering my question. How do you tell the difference bwtween the two types of scale you are discussing when the only numbers on the axis are the powers of 10?

You can also tell me what the difference is between plotting the raw data on a log scale and taking the logs of the data and plotting on a inear scale.

And you haven't provided any evidence for any kind of 'exponential' scale that works the way you described.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 07:58:49 PM
It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.

No, this is not just another way in which you are superior to your critics.  I also come from the slide-rule and graph-paper world.  Yes, if you have graph paper with a linear scale only, you have to first compute the logarithm of the data and then plot that on the linear scale.  That's because the equally-spaced gradations on the linear graph paper correspond to degrees of magnitude when those degrees are expressed as logarithms.  Back when I drafted graphs on actual vellum using india ink and a forceps ruling pen, I had no problem understanding this.  That's why I have no problem looking at a logarithmic scale and seeing those evenly spaced major gradations as orders of magnitude in the data, as whole numbers in the logarithms, and as the proper place for data to live.

We have something in common.  We are both old.  The difference is I am a war hero and you are not.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 03, 2018, 07:59:54 PM
I come from a time of graph paper and slide rules.

So do I, and so did the Apollo astronauts. They actually carried slide rules on the flights

(http://sliderulemuseum.com/Ephemera/Buzz_Aldrin_Apollo11_with_slide_rule.jpg)

When plotting data, if you plotted it on logarithmic graphing paper it was actually a logarithmic conversion process.  If you wanted to see your data in a linear plot you could first convert it into logarithms and then plot it on regular graph paper.

And you think you have a mortgage on being around a long time

It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.

I wasn't and its not, and I'll bet most of the people you are arguing with are a lot older and more experienced in the use of slide rules and pre-computer technology that you realize.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2018, 08:00:30 PM
Why would you call a scale logarithmic if there are no logarithms used in the scale?

I ask again, how do you determine there are no logarithms used when the only numbers given on the axis are the powers of 10, and plotting them on a log scale makes them come out equidistantly?

HOw exactly are you determining where the numbers between, say, 1 and 10 come on that graph axis?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 08:01:14 PM
We have something in common.  We are both old.  The difference is I am a war hero and you are not.

You'll find no one here diminishes your service to your country, and that we hold those that are prepared to sacrifice their lives for our freedoms in high regard.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 08:01:39 PM
I come from a time of graph paper and slide rules.  When plotting data, if you plotted it on logarithmic graphing paper it was actually a logarithmic conversion process.  If you wanted to see your data in a linear plot you could first convert it into logarithms and then plot it on regular graph paper.  It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.

That is not answering my question. How do you tell the difference bwtween the two types of scale you are discussing when the only numbers on the axis are the powers of 10?

You can also tell me what the difference is between plotting the raw data on a log scale and taking the logs of the data and plotting on a inear scale.

And you haven't provided any evidence for any kind of 'exponential' scale that works the way you described.

Don't get your panties all in a bunch.  It is semantical and not worth pursuing.  Those that have betrayed our trust are getting away with their crimes.  We need to act to insure justice is carried out.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 08:01:48 PM
The graph on the CraTer web site was self explanatory but for some strange reason you had to download the data convert it and rechart it.  Logic is weak in this one.

I know, right?  What a concept!  Someone actually tried to think for himself instead of just listening to you pontificate.  Data analysis being what he does for a living, he obtained the raw data, rendered it, and verified his conclusions by a proper analysis.

"No, no, no!  Don't do that!  Just look at the graph and believe what I tell you about it!"  That's always been the right way to approach learning, right?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 08:02:54 PM
We have something in common.  We are both old.  The difference is I am a war hero and you are not.

You'll find no one here diminishes your service to your country, and that we hold those that are prepared to sacrifice their lives for our freedoms in high regard.

I was just pulling your leg to get a rise out of you but thank you.  It was a kind thing to say.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 08:04:58 PM
"No, no, no!  Don't do that!  Just look at the graph and believe what I tell you about it!"  That's always been the right way to approach learning, right?

That's what I've been doing wrong all these years. You mean I have to analyse the numbers and then apply appropriate science to understand their implications, applying assumptions and caveats in accord with methodology and statistical confidence?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 08:06:18 PM
We have something in common.  We are both old.  The difference is I am a war hero and you are not.

You'll find no one here diminishes your service to your country, and that we hold those that are prepared to sacrifice their lives for our freedoms in high regard.

I was just pulling your leg to get a rise out of you but thank you.  It was a kind thing to say.

That wasn't a rise from me. That was genuinely respectful.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 08:07:07 PM
I am curious.  Is there anyone on this site that believes in any conspiracy theory at all?  Kennedy assassination? 9/11. Sandy Hook, Titanic?  Anything?

I don't claim to speak for everyone, but as this board has evolved over the years it has collected mostly people who don't "believe," period. They agree, provisionally, to those things for which there is a preponderance of evidence.

This is orthogonal to the entire concept of conspiracy theories. If they are well-tested, they are history. Or science.

It is one thing to wonder about the possibility of intelligent life out there (insert obligatory joke). It is entirely another to argue that it must or must not be; at that point you are proposing a hypothesis, and that opens it up to rigorous testing. So come here with the idea of an intangible soul and, sure, some forum members will entertain it alehouse style. Come with a claim that the Earth is flat and that's a testable idea, and people here are, well.....eager to test.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 08:08:43 PM
I was just pulling your leg to get a rise out of you...

If you admit to occasionally trying to antagonize your critics, why is it a problem that I respond defensively to your posts?  It seems you do have ulterior motives.  And it seems you're trying to shame people into lowering their guard.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 08:08:58 PM
A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God.  After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't.  So he turned around and walked away.  I ask you gentlemen and lady.  Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convince you that you have been deceived?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 08:12:27 PM
A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God.  After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't.  So he turned around and walked away.  I ask you gentlemen and lady.  Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convinced you that you have been deceived?

Yes, you could show me the CRaTER graph and tell me you interpreted the scale correctly. That would make me feel deceived given your complete lack of basic mathematical understanding while claiming expertise on complex matters of ionising radiation. So yes, you could show me that with your claims, that would invoke feelings of deception on my part.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 08:15:49 PM
A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God.  After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't.  So he turned around and walked away.  I ask you gentlemen and lady.  Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convinced you that you have been deceived?

Yes, you could show me the CRaTER graph and tell me you interpreted the scale correctly. That would make me feel deceived given your complete lack of basic mathematical understanding while claiming expertise on complex matters of ionising radiation. So yes, you could show me that with your claims, that would invoke feelings of deception on my part.
Easy enough....

http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&s

I have analyzed this correctly.

I feel so relieved.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 08:17:40 PM
It was a kind thing to say.

Was and is, and heartfelt even though it wasn't me who said it.  I've lost family members in the service in armed conflict over many years, beginning with Vietnam.  My best friend later was killed in the first Gulf War over Iraq (USAF).  My sister is a West Point graduate and served as an MP.  I have a brother-in-law on active duty in the Navy, deployed out of Bahrain.  I have another brother-in-law in the Army reserves.  My career as an engineer has involved many contracts with the U.S. Dept. of Defense.  No, I don't consider that equivalent to serving in harm's way, but in my opinion you diminish the honor of your service by using it in such a flippant way.  Unless being a war hero somehow gives you the proper knowledge to interpreta radiation data, let's leave that alone.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 08:18:03 PM
I have analyzed this correctly.

No.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 08:18:25 PM
A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God.  After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't.  So he turned around and walked away.  I ask you gentlemen and lady.  Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convinced you that you have been deceived?

You mean, the Apollo Program equivalent of a fossilized bunny in a Cambrian deposit?

It would have to be a hell of a big bunny. The Apollo Program is supported in so many different ways, documented so extensively, agrees so well with all other practice and science, it would take at the very least more than one line of unimpeachable evidence. Since some of the evidence is technical, I for one would require explanations that provide an adequate alternate explanation for that data. Not a hand-wave, but a detailed description of, say, the process of sample collection -- or the process used to create ersatz samples.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 08:19:44 PM
Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convince you that you have been deceived?

Evidence of deception, not just a default conclusion of deception when one bit of data, misinterpreted by a layman, fails to meet naive expectations.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 08:21:43 PM
I have analyzed this correctly.

No.
YEs.  Better than it has ever been analyzed before.  I used the keen intellect honed in the neutron flux of a raging reactor aboard a fast attack killing machine.  My ability to analyze data is enhanced in a similar way to the hulk's strength is increased by gamma radiation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 08:21:59 PM
I have analyzed this incorrectly.

Glad to be of assistance.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 08:22:40 PM
YEs.  Better than it has ever been analyzed before.  I used the keen intellect honed in the neutron flux of a raging reactor aboard a fast attack killing machine.  My ability to analyze day is enhanced in a similar way to the hulk's strength is increased by gamma radiation.

And I see you're back to arguing like a six-year-old.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 08:23:57 PM
Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convince you that you have been deceived?

Evidence of deception, not just a default conclusion of deception when one bit of data, misinterpreted by a layman, fails to meet naive expectations.

Exactly what evidence would be required to convince you?  A death bed confession.  Footage of studio, A government acknowledgement?  What would work for you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 08:25:09 PM
YEs.  Better than it has ever been analyzed before.  I used the keen intellect honed in the neutron flux of a raging reactor aboard a fast attack killing machine.  My ability to analyze day is enhanced in a similar way to the hulk's strength is increased by gamma radiation.

And I see you're back to arguing like a six-year-old.

Occasionly, in the absence of humour I self excite.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 08:26:09 PM
You know I am funny...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 08:28:51 PM
Because I care...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 08:29:21 PM
Occasionly, in the absence of humour I self excite.

So do chimps in a zoo. It's biologically interesting how the males whip themselves into a state of frenzy once separated from the whoop.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 08:30:02 PM
Exactly what evidence would be required to convince you?

Fairly comprehensive, and direct.

You've punted on the comprehensive part.  You admit you can't provide it.  You make the entire decision on one bit of evidence and then disregard all the rest with the hope that it will somehow just work out.  And you don't have direct evidence.  You have a default conclusion you draw when things don't work out exactly the way you think they should.  You've relied on a mystery writer to give you pointers on reasoning.

Quote
A death bed confession.  Footage of studio, A government acknowledgement?  What would work for you?

None of that, really.  That's because all the evidence still has to be explained.  Faced with, say, a deathbed confession it's still more parsimonious to belief the confession was false unless all the other evidence can be explained by it.  You seem to be insisting on a smoking gun.  That's not how it works.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 08:33:07 PM
Exactly what evidence would be required to convince you?

Fairly comprehensive, and direct.

You've punted on the comprehensive part.  You admit you can't provide it.  You make the entire decision on one bit of evidence and then disregard all the rest with the hope that it will somehow just work out.  And you don't have direct evidence.  You have a default conclusion you draw when things don't work out exactly the way you think they should.  You've relied on a mystery writer to give you pointers on reasoning.

Quote
A death bed confession.  Footage of studio, A government acknowledgement?  What would work for you?

None of that, really.  That's because all the evidence still has to be explained.  Faced with, say, a deathbed confession it's still more parsimonious to belief the confession was false unless all the other evidence can be explained by it.  You seem to be insisting on a smoking gun.  That's not how it works.

So essentially your mind is made up and no amount of evidence will suffice.  Interesting....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 08:34:27 PM
I was doomed from the start.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 08:40:31 PM
I was doomed from the start.

No, just wrong from the start. Don't give up. I'm sure the local college run elementary math classes. Averages, you need to work on averages, then logs and exponential functions. I suggest you take note in the class on logs to base 10 and natural logs.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 08:41:19 PM
I have business with the government and will be out of the office for a couple of weeks.  I need someone to stand in for me while I attend to matters of great importance to both me and the nation.  I am concerned that in my absence the group will lose focus and resort to needle work and soap operas.  Who can I trust to act in my behalf for the good of the group?  Anyone?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 08:43:00 PM
I was doomed from the start.

No, just wrong from the start. Don't give up. I'm sure the local college run elementary math classes. Averages, you need to work on averages, then logs and exponential functions. I suggest you take note in the class on logs to base 10 and natural logs.

It has been almost fifty years since I mastered logarithms and graph paper and slide rules...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 08:43:08 PM
So essentially your mind is made up and no amount of evidence will suffice.  Interesting....

No.  You seem very desperate to put different words in my mouth than what I said.  I told you I would be convinced of a hoax by fairly comprehensive direct evidence.  I explained why that would be my standard of proof.  You didn't explain what, if anything, is irrational or unreasonable about that standard of proof.

You mentioned a deathbed confession, footage of the studio, and an admission by the government.  Out of those you mentioned, I said none of them would convince me.  That's because they fail to meet my standard of proof, for the reasons I gave.  I didn't say that nothing would convince me.  It may be that nothing you are able to provide can convince me, and that's perhaps as it should be.  There is no reason to lower the standard of proof to meet what the claimant is willing or able to provide.

As I said before, you're practically falling all over yourself looking for an excuse to write off your critics as closed-minded or ideologically impaired -- any reason that lets you keep believing there's a rational basis to your claims.  I present you with a reasonable standard of proof, and you run with it to the dismissal you've obviously predetermined for all your critics.  Interesting.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 08:43:37 PM
I am concerned that in my absence the group will lose focus and resort to needle work...

Mmmm... the only patch working around here is coming from you, and I mean that in the metaphorical sense.

Flounce on the cards?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 08:44:59 PM
I was doomed from the start.

You were doomed from the start by having an improper understanding of the relevant sciences and the data, and doomed further by insisting upon an arrogant attitude that prevented you from understanding your mistakes.  You failed to meet a reasonable standard of proof, and now you're all butthurt over it.  Grow up.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2018, 08:48:34 PM
It has been almost fifty years since I mastered logarithms and graph paper and slide rules...

... but still to understand log scales and the difference between log10, loge and the term exponent; and that if we take an average of n numbers the average must be less than the biggest number and greater than the smallest number. Way to go champ.

If you want to play bragging rights, it's been 25 years since I mastered the mathematics of quantum mechanics and relativity (general and special). You really don't impress me Seaman Timmy.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 08:49:40 PM
I have business with the government and will be out of the office for a couple of weeks.  I need someone to stand in for me while I attend to matters of great importance to both me and the nation.  I am concerned that in my absence the group will lose focus and resort to needle work and soap operas.  Who can I trust to act in my behalf for the good of the group?  Anyone?

Spare us your delusions of grandeur.  You're not important.  When you retreat back into your walled garden of self-delusion, I assure you the rest of the universe will continue on appropriately.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 08:53:13 PM
Seriously, my work here is done.  I knew I could never reach any of you directly.  My mission was a bit more subtle than that.  My mission was to get you to look closer and I accomplished that.  In the near future things will happen and you will reflect back on this encounter.  What you do not see now will clarify then.  I am on Facebook.  Shoot me a "You the man" when you see it.  And like old Tim always says.  Remain vigilant and stay thirsty.  Peace.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2018, 08:57:16 PM
My mission was to get you to look closer and I accomplished that.

Spare us the delusions of grandeur.  You came here ill-prepared with the same unconvincing argument and the same arrogant attitude as nearly every other conspiracy theorist before you, made the same vague "Oooh, radiation!" arguments as about half of them do, failed to stand up to even a modicum of scrutiny, berated and belittled your critics, tried to gaslight them as much as possible, failed, and are now trying to rewrite the experience in your mind to make it seem like it's not a dismal failure.

You pretended to be something you aren't, and you got caught.  That's all that's happened.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 03, 2018, 09:11:30 PM
My mission was to get you to look closer and I accomplished that.

Spare us the delusions of grandeur.  You came here ill-prepared with the same unconvincing argument and the same arrogant attitude as nearly every other conspiracy theorist before you, made the same vague "Oooh, radiation!" arguments as about half of them do, failed to stand up to even a modicum of scrutiny, berated and belittled your critics, tried to gaslight them as much as possible, failed, and are now trying to rewrite the experience in your mind to make it seem like it's not a dismal failure.

You pretended to be something you aren't, and you got caught.  That's all that's happened.


Its known as pigeon chess...

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 03, 2018, 10:41:23 PM
We have something in common.  We are both old.  The difference is I am a war hero and you are not.

You'll find no one here diminishes your service to your country, and that we hold those that are prepared to sacrifice their lives for our freedoms in high regard.

I was just pulling your leg to get a rise out of you but thank you.  It was a kind thing to say.

Yup.  Troll.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 03, 2018, 11:14:05 PM
A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God.  After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't.  So he turned around and walked away.  I ask you gentlemen and lady.  Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convince you that you have been deceived?

Hey, I know you're mostly ignoring me, but I literally already gave you a list.  Pages back.  Want to give me yours?  Bet it isn't as comprehensive.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 03, 2018, 11:17:03 PM
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.

I know I'm not as fun to argue with as the scientist/engineer types, but here's my "start proving Apollo wrong" list.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 03, 2018, 11:17:30 PM
A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God.  After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't.  So he turned around and walked away.  I ask you gentlemen and lady.  Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convince you that you have been deceived?

If you could back it with data, then yes.  But you have provided no data, because there isn't any, quit trying to find them.
I've told you once and I'll repeat:
I don't believe in Apollo.  Rather I know Apollo happened as recorded, because the data, paperwork, materials, hardware/software that went into the project are too enormous to hand wave away.
And like a good many here, I went to school with slide rules and graph paper.  You have nothing on me and I understand logarithmic units and how to plot them.  From you posts you don't understand and many are attempting to teach you, but you won't listen because you are right and the rest of are wrong.

Jay doesn't need anyone to stick up for him, but he has forgotten more Apollo information than you will ever know.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2018, 11:29:46 PM
Seriously, my work here is done.  I knew I could never reach any of you directly.  My mission was a bit more subtle than that.  My mission was to get you to look closer and I accomplished that.  In the near future things will happen and you will reflect back on this encounter.  What you do not see now will clarify then.  I am on Facebook.  Shoot me a "You the man" when you see it.  And like old Tim always says.  Remain vigilant and stay thirsty.  Peace.

Suuure you did. You came to a forum which has been around for, what, thirty years now, filled with people who are fans of the Apollo Program. Of course we've looked at it closely before you came. That's what we do. It isn't empty celebration, it is the joy of understanding and, yes, discovery.

Oh, and the piddling nonsense the conspiracy believers bring to the table? Yes, sometimes it does start a new avenue of exploration, but it is rarely in the direction the conspiracy believer had intended. Doesn't help that, at this date, we know all the tired canards better than they do.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 03, 2018, 11:29:59 PM
A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God.  After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't.  So he turned around and walked away.  I ask you gentlemen and lady.  Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convince you that you have been deceived?

If you could back it with data, then yes.  But you have provided no data, because there isn't any, quit trying to find them.
I've told you once and I'll repeat:
I don't believe in Apollo.  Rather I know Apollo happened as recorded, because the data, paperwork, materials, hardware/software that went into the project are too enormous to hand wave away.
And like a good many here, I went to school with slide rules and graph paper.  You have nothing on me and I understand logarithmic units and how to plot them.  From you posts you don't understand and many are attempting to teach you, but you won't listen because you are right and the rest of are wrong.

Jay doesn't need anyone to stick up for him, but he has forgotten more Apollo information than you will ever know.

Put another way, acceptance of the Apollo missions isn't a matter of belief, it's a matter of data. 

Data that Tim is deliberately misunderstanding so he can troll as many people as possible. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 03, 2018, 11:45:26 PM
A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God.  After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't.  So he turned around and walked away.  I ask you gentlemen and lady.  Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convince you that you have been deceived?

Hey, I know you're mostly ignoring me, but I literally already gave you a list.  Pages back.  Want to give me yours?  Bet it isn't as comprehensive.
I didn't mean to ignore you as you are special in my mind.  Few women dare venture into this realm and  the ones that do garner my deepest respects.  I was a teenager when Apollo 11 blasted off and i watched with profound admiration and respect for the courage the astronauts displayed.  My parents didn't buy into it but I did.  It was only recently that doubt crept into my mind.  I do not think the Van Allen belts are much of an obstacle or that traveling to the moon is an insurmountable obstacle.  I simply believe the danger it presented was an obstacle that they were not prepared to face.  I believe President Nixon chose to take the safe path and ordered the deception.  You remember Tricky Dick, right.  I don't condemn him.  I would have erred to the side of caution myself.  The thing that set me on this path was the graph that showed the mission dosage of all the NASA missions.  When I realized that the Lunar mission had mission dosages similar to the LEO missions, I became suspicious.  I then began to research data to explain the similarities.  My research led me to believe that it is not possible to have LEO dosages if you actually made a lunar transit so here I am.  That is my story and I am sticking to it.  Having rambled on, What it would take for me to believe the Apollo lunar landing happened is a return to the moon and back safely with similar exposure levels.  If they are incapable of doing it or they kill and astronaut then my disbelief will blossom.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 04, 2018, 12:14:30 AM
I am curious.  Is there anyone on this site that believes in any conspiracy theory at all?  Kennedy assassination? 9/11. Sandy Hook, Titanic?  Anything?

Most of the members of this forum are intelligent and rational, and unlikely to be gullible enough to be fooled by such ridiculous conspiracy theories. And considering how offensive the Sandy Hook and 9/11 "theories" are, I'm pretty sick of hearing about them. So I'd recommend sticking to discussing Apollo in the future.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 04, 2018, 12:23:04 AM
Um . . .timfinch. 'Tricky Dick' wasn't even inaugurated when an Apollo spacecraft first went to the moon.
Sure, he was president for the big payoff, the actual landings, but the actual development? The part where they first would have sent humans through the Van Allen belts? Nope. He had nothing to do with that.  So he would have had no say in whether deciding it was feasible or not.
Moreover, he had a speech written just in case Apollo 11 actually failed in a way that killed the crew (https://www.space.com/26604-apollo-11-failure-nixon-speech.html). Plus, before he even elected President, let alone inaugurated, Apollo had already killed three people . . . and they kept going.
Finally, the USSR had sent their own  unmanned probes contemporary to Apollo to, among other things, test the radiation environment. They found that (http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/864491/files/p484.pdf)  "seven day flights along the trajectories of Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from a radiation point of view".  I seriously doubt the USSR had any  significantly better radiation protection than what NASA would have had, so the idea NASA would concoct this big, massive lie that if, no, when, it was discovered would  be hugely  embarrassing on the world stage, when it wouldn't even be necessary, even with the tech of the time?
I am no expert like most of the fine people on this fine forum, you yourself even know much more about radiation within your field of nuclear reactors aboard submarines, but your little story is ludicrous on multiple levels, even to me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 04, 2018, 12:23:57 AM
Hey, anyone seen the bingo card? I think I just got four across.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 04, 2018, 12:44:22 AM
http://www.apollohoax.net/bingo
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 04, 2018, 01:26:52 AM
Timfinch, how would faking it be "taking the safe path"? Faking a lunar landing has a 100% likelihood of being found out: if the landers and evidence of human activity aren't all present and correct, and exactly matching the photographic record which was made very public, then you are busted.

Those landing sites are likely to be visited quite soon (isn't there a private plan to send an unmanned rover to visit one within a year?). At the time of the landings, for all anyone knew the Russians could have been ready to land within months. What president would risk the international embarrassment of being caught out in a lie of that magnitude, compared to the small ignominy of failing in an attempt to do what nobody had ever done before?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 04, 2018, 01:50:31 AM
I sense a stealth flounce....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 04, 2018, 02:55:26 AM
I didn't mean to ignore you as you are special in my mind.  Few women dare venture into this realm and  the ones that do garner my deepest respects.

Can I give you a hint?  That's partially because we're creeped out at being told that we're special in strange men's minds.

More to the point, though, do you have anything substantive to say about my list?  You bring up Nixon; okay, you've got me there.  I don't remember him, at least not as President.  I was born in 1976, making me considerably younger than most of the fine people who've handed you your hat on the forum over the last week or so.  My grandmother went to grade school with him, though, and my aunt was alumni director at Whittier College while he was still alive, so I guess that's something.

But okay.  You know how Nixon felt about Kennedy, right?  Man, there was some deep personal betrayal going there; he'd actually gotten along reasonably well with the family before JFK ran for office.  He took a lot of the campaigning personally, and by 1969, he hated the whole family.  Probably Bobby in particular, from what I can tell, because Bobby's criticism was more pointed.  Anyway, he wasn't the world's biggest LBJ fan, either, and LBJ was gung ho for NASA in a way that JFK wasn't personally.  JFK's interest was a lot more political.  The point is, take Nixon.  Do you really think he would've let Apollo stand as their legacy if he could prove that they'd been lying to the American public and the world for the whole build up?  There never would have been an Apollo 11 fake under Nixon, because the first thing he would've done was to use it to denigrate JFK and LBJ in the popular view.  That's so incredibly basic to his psyche; he wanted to be loved.  All the dirty stuff he did to make sure he got reelected was to make himself feel important.  Faking Apollo wouldn't have done that; remember that he axed the last few missions as soon as he had wrung all the propaganda value out of them that he thought he could.  Revealing a fraud?  That would have resonated with him . . . the same way it clearly does with you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 04, 2018, 03:01:58 AM
Oh, I'd also point out that you know bugger all about filming if you think it wouldn't have taken easily a hundred people or more to manage the kind of special effects work that would have been required even if filming Apollo on Earth were possible, and that's without all the people in on the bits where you'd have to fake the rock and soil samples and so forth.  Any hoax would have to be huge.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 04, 2018, 03:12:15 AM
Heck...as gillianren also knows quite well...it's hard to film a romantic comedy with only a hundred people. My rule of thumb for live theater on the small-to-regional scale is if you put all the people who worked on a single production in seats for opening night you'd have less than half the house left to sell to paying audience. And that's theater -- our technical standards are lower and we don't have to pay for the film.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 04, 2018, 03:13:32 AM
again sorry guys. I speak with Tim on facebook but i'm not sure if i will continue. he has clearly trolled here. apologies
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 04, 2018, 03:25:06 AM
Total inability to reply to my simple questions about the axes noted.

On the slide rule subject, I am honestly baffled why anyone thinks mastery of a slide rule (or any other 'old' technology) somehow automatically makes them an expert greater than anyone who uses other, newer technology. I use calculators and computer analysis packages because those are the tools I have at my disposal. Hand me a slide rule and instruct me in its use and I'd be just as capable of using that to achieve the same results. Hand me an abacus, a book of log tables, or even the fundamental (if complex) calculations that were done using nothing more complex than pen and paper and I'd still be able to perform the same mathematical functions using the tools of whatever age anyone cares to choose. It's not the tools that matter, it's the ability of the person using them to use the right and check and interpret the output correctly.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 04, 2018, 03:46:52 AM

I am no expert like most of the fine people on this fine forum, you yourself even know much more about radiation within your field of nuclear reactors aboard submarines

I doubt it.  As a retired Radiological Control Technician (a.k.a. Physical Science Tech), I have dealt with many nuclear workers, both civilian and Navy.  The Navy's personnel who performed functions similar to mine and had a fair amount of nuclear physics knowledge was an Engineering Laboratory Technician (ELT), but they were still less trained than personnel in my profession were.  A nuclear electrician's knowledge of the actual physics of radiation is VERY limited.  The "nuclear" in their title just allowed them to work in areas where radiation was present, and be monitored for their exposure.  No detailed knowledge was required, and I think that is quite evident by Mr. Finch's ignorance regarding the subject.  He just used that title to sound more qualified than he was.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 04, 2018, 04:22:58 AM
again sorry guys. I speak with Tim on facebook but i'm not sure if i will continue. he has clearly trolled here. apologies

On the contrary, I am personally glad you brought him here. Thanks to his trolling, the responses from our acknowledged experts, engineers and scientists on this forum has taught me a lot about the radiation environment around the earth and in cislunar space.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 04, 2018, 04:32:15 AM

I am no expert like most of the fine people on this fine forum, you yourself even know much more about radiation within your field of nuclear reactors aboard submarines

I doubt it.  As a retired Radiological Control Technician (a.k.a. Physical Science Tech), I have dealt with many nuclear workers, both civilian and Navy.  The Navy's personnel who performed functions similar to mine and had a fair amount of nuclear physics knowledge was an Engineering Laboratory Technician (ELT), but they were still less trained than personnel in my profession were.  A nuclear electrician's knowledge of the actual physics of radiation is VERY limited.  The "nuclear" in their title just allowed them to work in areas where radiation was present, and be monitored for their exposure.  No detailed knowledge was required, and I think that is quite evident by Mr. Finch's ignorance regarding the subject.  He just used that title to sound more qualified than he was.
Fair enough. I certainly learned something I did not know before.  I may be ignorant, but at least I'm willing to admit it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 04, 2018, 05:02:10 AM
On the contrary, I am personally glad you brought him here. Thanks to his trolling, the responses from our acknowledged experts, engineers and scientists on this forum has taught me a lot about the radiation environment around the earth and in cislunar space.

That's where debating with hoaxtards really has it's merits. Lets be honest, it's rare that these people are ever swayed by facts. There's probably a graph to be made (someone else can argue about the scaling of the axes ;D ) that plots the likelihood of them accepting facts against how spittle-flecked their arguments are.
The real benefit is to be gained by the audience that are sitting on the fringes. I, for one, have learned loads during this debate.

It's just a shame that Tim has such a closed mind. Wilful ignorance really is intellectual cowardice.  :-\
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 04, 2018, 05:06:10 AM
again sorry guys. I speak with Tim on facebook but i'm not sure if i will continue. he has clearly trolled here. apologies

As a fairly quiet participant on this forum, you might like to point him to the dictionary he brought up earlier and get him to look up humility. Pretty much this whole thread has him avoiding the original data because he failed to read it in favour of looking at the pretty picture of the graph(even that shows his error). His behaviour is just laughable, but sadly not unique, as hoax believers do this sort of thing all the time. A complete and almost humiliating failure to admit his errors whilst insisting that only he knew the answers. Arrogance only works when the person knows what they are talking about.

The upside as always, is we get to here some fairly concise arguments and references, that serve as a good go to point when encountering the radiation claims.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 04, 2018, 07:12:09 AM
Oh, I'd also point out that you know bugger all about filming if you think it wouldn't have taken easily a hundred people or more to manage the kind of special effects work that would have been required even if filming Apollo on Earth were possible, and that's without all the people in on the bits where you'd have to fake the rock and soil samples and so forth.  Any hoax would have to be huge.

This is just another of the HB oversimplification strategies. Somehow or other a handful of people can pull off a hoax because in their minds only the few have to know it is a hoax. Of course, everyone involved in running a soundstage filming the fake surface footage would notice. Even if they didn't realise it at the time, they'd sure as hell spot it when they sit down to watch the 'live' TV from the Moon and see the movie they were working on being broadcast. Even worse is the idea that no-one building the hardware had to know, because HBs can't grasp the notion that if you tell a bunch of engineers to build you a lunar spacecraft they will do exactly that, and if you don't tell them it doesn't have to work then it will work, because that was their assignment. Essentially, if you don't tell the engineers it's all fake, they will provide you with working hardware which means you won't need to fake it anyway!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 04, 2018, 07:40:56 AM
Essentially, if you don't tell the engineers it's all fake, they will provide you with working hardware which means you won't need to fake it anyway!

Probably be cheaper to just go to the Moon as well. After all, you're only going to save on a bit of catering.....


Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 04, 2018, 08:53:28 AM
In the CRaTER data that I downloaded, I have some errors in the download.  They pertain to items starting around 64900, whereby the data is NaN.  I am unfamiliar with this type of data so I'm asking what this means Not Available ??
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: theteacher on April 04, 2018, 09:12:33 AM
You are confusing an exponential scale with a log scale.  If the scale is in logs then it is a log scale.  If the scale is in exponents then it is an exponential scale.

Tell me then how you determine the difference between a logarithmic scale and an 'exponential' scale when the only numbers included on the axis are the powers of 10. And tell me exactly where such a scale is used and why you would convert the data to fit it on such a scale rather than just plotting it on a log scale.

Your argument fails for lack of any evidence that such a scaling method is ever actually used.

And, as I already pointed out, when the CraTer data is plotted in Excel on a log scale it looks exactly like the graph on the website that you first introduced. Why should we not conclude that the CraTer graph is a log scale?
I come from a time of graph paper and slide rules.  When plotting data, if you plotted it on logarithmic graphing paper it was actually a logarithmic conversion process.  If you wanted to see your data in a linear plot you could first convert it into logarithms and then plot it on regular graph paper.  It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.

So do I.

I made a little sketch on a random piece of paper.

What is the meaning of the smaller tics along the x-axis? They divide the x-axis in increments of 0.1. Rather convenient.

Then what about the smaller tics on the y-axis. What is the meaning of them?
Nothing. They have absolutely no meaning. They would only disturb the interpretation af any graph drawn in this particular coordinate system on this paticular piece of paper.

But that was the only paper I had on hand. Maybe I would have been better off drawing on the backside of it with no grid at all and just adding the major tics with the edge of my slideruler.  :)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 04, 2018, 09:19:00 AM
In the CRaTER data that I downloaded, I have some errors in the download.  They pertain to items starting around 64900, whereby the data is NaN.  I am unfamiliar with this type of data so I'm asking what this means Not Available ??
NaN means 'Not A Number' so there is probably a letter or symbol in that field.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 04, 2018, 09:23:28 AM
In the CRaTER data that I downloaded, I have some errors in the download.  They pertain to items starting around 64900, whereby the data is NaN.  I am unfamiliar with this type of data so I'm asking what this means Not Available ??

"Not a Number"

For this particular practical purpose, yes it means the data are not available for whatever reason.  In modern IEEE representations of floating-point data in a computer, a few patterns of bits are reserved to represent concepts like this, and are assigned customary labels when they are printed out.  "NaN" means no value is set for that number.  "Inf" means infinity, and so forth.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 04, 2018, 09:28:54 AM
In the CRaTER data that I downloaded, I have some errors in the download.  They pertain to items starting around 64900, whereby the data is NaN.  I am unfamiliar with this type of data so I'm asking what this means Not Available ??

"Not a Number"

For this particular practical purpose, yes it means the data are not available for whatever reason.  In modern IEEE representations of floating-point data in a computer, a few patterns of bits are reserved to represent concepts like this, and are assigned customary labels when they are printed out.  "NaN" means no value is set for that number.  "Inf" means infinity, and so forth.

The errors are on all of the detectors not just one, would this be representative of a transmission error?

ETA:
And these lack of data points lasted for about 2 days (48 hourly) points.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 04, 2018, 09:58:28 AM
The errors are on all of the detectors not just one, would this be representative of a transmission error?

ETA:
And these lack of data points lasted for about 2 days (48 hourly) points.

There's no way to tell a precise cause since there are many possible causes.  Transmission error is certainly among them.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 04, 2018, 10:16:59 AM
Ok, thanks
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 04, 2018, 10:20:25 AM
The errors are on all of the detectors not just one, would this be representative of a transmission error?

ETA:
And these lack of data points lasted for about 2 days (48 hourly) points.

That's obviously when a cloaked alien mothership arrived. They probably shutdown the probe so that it wouldn't detect the radiation coming from their exhaust port.  ;)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 04, 2018, 11:39:54 AM
Lets be honest, it's rare that these people are ever swayed by facts.

The facts they cite are not what led them to their beliefs.  They arrived at their beliefs according to different lines of reasoning (e.g., "Don't ever trust the government") and then try to backfill with arguments that allude to the available facts.  Or stated differently, they cherry-pick and misinterpret the facts to support a proposition they believe for wholly different reasons.  It wasn't very hard to get Tim to tip his hand and reveal that his claims had more to do with ideology and worldview than with radiation.  Toward the end, he wasn't even really trying to hide it.  He made the ideology argument his major point.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 04, 2018, 12:00:41 PM
Lets be honest, it's rare that these people are ever swayed by facts.

The facts they cite are not what led them to their beliefs.  They arrived at their beliefs according to different lines of reasoning (e.g., "Don't ever trust the government") and then try to backfill with arguments that allude to the available facts.  Or stated differently, they cherry-pick and misinterpret the facts to support a proposition they believe for wholly different reasons.  It wasn't very hard to get Tim to tip his hand and reveal that his claims had more to do with ideology and worldview than with radiation.  Toward the end, he wasn't even really trying to hide it.  He made the ideology argument his major point.

And did so, as usual, without even really understanding human psychology, either.  While I'm quite sure that he would lie and claim that he'd accomplished something he hadn't, I'm also sure that he would gleefully reveal if one of his rivals had lied to accomplish something it could be proven they hadn't.  If you won't accept my argument about Nixon, which I admit is very much armchair psychology from me, there's always the Soviet Union or North Korea.  If a retired Navy electrician can find the one thing that proves the lie, the only way to suppose that no other nation had the expertise to show it up is to assume that they could and didn't.  So they, too, would have to be in on the hoax.  Eventually, everyone is.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: 12oh2alarm on April 04, 2018, 12:00:57 PM
To those that downloaded the CRaTER data: it would be interesting to find stretches of time where the dose rate (of at least one or even all six) detectors is always below the magic 0.22mGy/d. Are there continuous stretches longer than the Apollo 11 mission duration?

A little bit of Unix awk magic might not convince our hardcore math talent, but it would make for some cool facts to point at.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 04, 2018, 12:19:02 PM
Reviewing this thread, sometimes I think the better approach is to adopt the 'how could so many people be in on the hoax' tact immediately and ignore the initial claims. Arguing the finer points of science and engineering often (always) ends in a to and fro reaction for all participants. It was a little like fattydash and the lost Eagle all over.

I've looked back and realised that several people were posting in response, often with the same point, and the volume of posts could become confusing for the individual on the receiving end. Is this the correct approach? I looked at one of my replies, and saw that the verbage I used could lead to some confusion over scaling. This is no criticism of individuals as I could sense the frustration I was feeling when doing my utmost to clarify the point being made by all.

Having said this, the consistency of response from both sides of the debate provides a record Tim's ineptitude when faced with basic math, the concepts of using data correctly, and the difference between visual inspection and analytical processes. He arrived at the board with professed expertise and a smoking gun, elevated himself as the holder of privileged knowledge with a cast iron case, and was then quickly found wanting after 1000+ posts. I can see the merit of the approach followed last night too.

Please, I'm not trying to act as moderator or tell others how to post, that is neither my role and would be presumptuous to elevate myself above others. I've read a few of the recent posts and am thinking about the simplicity of the counter argument. Occam's razor springs to mind.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
To those that downloaded the CRaTER data: it would be interesting to find stretches of time where the dose rate (of at least one or even all six) detectors is always below the magic 0.22mGy/d. Are there continuous stretches longer than the Apollo 11 mission duration?

A little bit of Unix awk magic might not convince our hardcore math talent, but it would make for some cool facts to point at.

From about mid-2012 all the way through to the end of 2013 at least all but a few readings at the extreme upper end of the range picked up by any of the six detectors is below that magic line. This was pointed out to him several times but, since he is so wedded to the idea of his being right, even this blatant visual clue he was wrong did not sway him. He insists the numbers have been manipulated somehow so they don't reflect reality.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 04, 2018, 12:26:11 PM
To those that downloaded the CRaTER data: it would be interesting to find stretches of time where the dose rate (of at least one or even all six) detectors is always below the magic 0.22mGy/d. Are there continuous stretches longer than the Apollo 11 mission duration?

A little bit of Unix awk magic might not convince our hardcore math talent, but it would make for some cool facts to point at.

I'm going to remove the SPE data and plot it on a linear scale after dinner. Why? Tim finally understood from various graphs that the data does indeed fall below the 0.22 mGy day-1, but then fell back on visual inspection to suggest it was close enough to 0.22 mGy day-1when it did fall below the line. It actually falls to values less than 0.1 mGy day-1. So yes, it's a job that can be easily done.

However, Tim hand waved that away with his GCR probably contributes up to 1/3 of the total dose, so add the VAB, lunar environment and other factors would ensure the numbers rise above 0.22 mGy day-1.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 04, 2018, 12:28:37 PM
And did so, as usual, without even really understanding human psychology...

...and throwing in a bit of casual misogyny for good measure.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 04, 2018, 12:40:50 PM
Reviewing this thread, sometimes I think the better approach is to adopt the 'how could so many people be in on the hoax' tact immediately and ignore the initial claims.

The issue with that from my point of view is threefold:

1: Their whole argument is usually 'I have found an issue that can only mean a hoax', and I would rather present alternatives and show where their understanding is wrong than sidestep their 'unanswerable' question.

2: It is hard to tell at the start whether someone is a dyed-in-the-wool hoax believer or just misguided, and I prefer to remain optimistic at least for the first few posts.

3: The question 'how could so many people be in on it' will end up in the same to and fro anyway, since they invariably cannot conceive of how reality actually works when it comes to things like Apollo. Tim already said he believes only about 50 people would be needed to pull it off. It's easier to drill down into specifics and give conrete examples of where someone is in error (such as showing that the numbers absolutely do not fit his argument) than to concoct what may appear to any spectators to be no more than 'you say, I say'. Plus the more they keep ignoring the specific simple questions and blustering the more they undermine their own arguments.

Quote
I've looked back and realised that several people were posting in response, often with the same point, and the volume of posts could become confusing for the individual on the receiving end.

I honestly have no sympathy for them. If they come to a group forum they can expect a group response, and if they are not willing to take the time to consider the responses before replying again with more rubbish they earn everything they get.

Quote
Having said this, the consistency of response from both sides of the debate provides a record Tim's ineptitude when faced with basic math, the concepts of using data correctly, and the difference between visual inspection and analytical processes. He arrived at the board with professed expertise and a smoking gun, elevated himself as the holder of privileged knowledge with a cast iron case, and was then quickly found wanting after 1000+ posts. I can see the merit of the approach followed last night too.

That's where I see the merit in it too.

[/quote]I've read a few of the recent posts and am thinking about the simplicity of the counter argument. Occam's razor springs to mind.
[/quote]

Occam's razor unfortunately only works when someone is willing to consider they may be wrong as one possible answer to the problem they think they have found. As several people tried to point out, Tim refused to even consider the possibility that he just didn't fully understand how to interpret the data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 04, 2018, 12:59:11 PM
The issue with that from my point of view is threefold:

1: Their whole argument is usually 'I have found an issue that can only mean a hoax', and I would rather present alternatives and show where their understanding is wrong than sidestep their 'unanswerable' question.

2: It is hard to tell at the start whether someone is a dyed-in-the-wool hoax believer or just misguided, and I prefer to remain optimistic at least for the first few posts.

3: The question 'how could so many people be in on it' will end up in the same to and fro anyway, since they invariably cannot conceive of how reality actually works when it comes to things like Apollo. Tim already said he believes only about 50 people would be needed to pull it off. It's easier to drill down into specifics and give conrete examples of where someone is in error (such as showing that the numbers absolutely do not fit his argument) than to concoct what may appear to any spectators to be no more than 'you say, I say'. Plus the more they keep ignoring the specific simple questions and blustering the more they undermine their own arguments.

Thanks, that's unfogged my mind, particularly point 2. I've noticed that in your posts and those of others, the patient start until you've worked out the lie of the land. This is a good starting position, fair and welcoming, and at least giving the person chance with their claim.

Quote
I honestly have no sympathy for them. If they come to a group forum they can expect a group response, and if they are not willing to take the time to consider the responses before replying again with more rubbish they earn everything they get.

Once one realises they are dyed in the wool and not simply misguided, then the group approach is fair game, particularly when people have invested the time and effort to counter the claim, yet the claimant is not ready to make that effort themselves - such as plotting the data. This was borne out in this thread. All contributors began in the spirit of point 2 above.

Quote
Occam's razor unfortunately only works when someone is willing to consider they may be wrong as one possible answer to the problem they think they have found.

I was thinking more from the point that the simpler explanation of how could it be faked given the number of people involved, rather than the technical aspects that can be difficult to explain. However, I refer back to your point number 2. The initial claim has to be addressed for reasons of fairness.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 04, 2018, 01:44:29 PM
Thanks, that's unfogged my mind, particularly point 2. I've noticed that in your posts and those of others, the patient start until you've worked out the lie of the land. This is a good starting position, fair and welcoming, and at least giving the person chance with their claim.

Glad to have helped. The thing about Apollo is it is not simple, not intuitive, and yes, there's a lot about it that doesn't seem to make sense at first glance. That people have questions is understandable. My own introduction to this whole arena was the Fox Special, and after I watched that I had some doubts myself. I even bought Dark Moon and the accompanying video, read the whole book and watched the whole video. It wasn't long before the cracks in their arguments started to appear and by the time I joined Apollohoax and Bad Astronomy, as it was then, I was pretty convinced the conspiracy theory was bunk. Still there was a lot I did not know and I learned a heck of a lot from Phil Plait, Jay, Bob B. and others. I am always mindful when new people arrive here that my own motive in the online community when I started was to learn about the bits I wasn't sure of, and try to treat others as I expected to be treated then.

Once they turn down the road of ignoring gaping holes in their basic mathematics and refusing to look at actual data or do simple tasks for themselves, well, see the next quote:

Quote
I honestly have no sympathy for them.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 04, 2018, 02:03:04 PM
The thing about Apollo is it is not simple, not intuitive, and yes, there's a lot about it that doesn't seem to make sense at first glance.

For me, that was the photography claims and secondary lighting (e.g. falloff with Aldrin in the crater, Aldrin on the ladder of the LM etc). Various visits here, discussions with a once very active YouTube community and Clavius have been invaluable sources.

The hoax discussion has led me to read about lunar geology, which has been fascinating. I knew a fair chunk about space weather and radiation before, but I've consolidated that knowledge with a broad range of published articles from the scientific literature. This discussion had only added to my understanding.

The rocket engine discussions confuse the living hell out, particularly the benefits and functions of different types of rocket engines and their fuels.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 04, 2018, 02:44:26 PM
Lets be honest, it's rare that these people are ever swayed by facts.

The facts they cite are not what led them to their beliefs.  They arrived at their beliefs according to different lines of reasoning (e.g., "Don't ever trust the government") and then try to backfill with arguments that allude to the available facts.  Or stated differently, they cherry-pick and misinterpret the facts to support a proposition they believe for wholly different reasons.  It wasn't very hard to get Tim to tip his hand and reveal that his claims had more to do with ideology and worldview than with radiation.  Toward the end, he wasn't even really trying to hide it.  He made the ideology argument his major point.

Indeed. They become so blinded by confirmation bias that they think that their position is unassailable. Ally to that an ego the size of a house and an obnoxious demenour and you've got a thoroughly unlikeable combination.

I'd hate to become so egotistical that it became impossible to question my position and to shut myseldf off from learning new things.  Wilful ignorance is the most cowardly of intellectual fallacies.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 04, 2018, 06:42:34 PM
I have two different hats on when it comes to this stuff. One is as an amateur fan of science, technology, and the history of both. The Apollo Program continues to be a year-long Advent Calendar of new gifts, as every time I come back to it I discover some new and fascinating bit of the story.

I think the hoax is basically dead. It sort of got laughed out of the room. But even if the only vocal doubters are a futile minority, the underlying conflict is alive and well and growing new legs (and I have no idea where that metaphor is going). The hoaxies will rarely change their minds, the observers mostly don't care, but there's still a space where science itself can be and should be defended. Every unchallenged bit of lying and twisting, from Young Earth Creationist claims to the Ancient Aliens crap that continues to crawl all over the public face of archaeology will, if left to stand (or crawl...damned metaphors!) will add to the divide.



Ah, but I also have a second hat, and that one is on a brain that thinks story. Is there a plausible narrative in which the Apollo Program is faked? Hell no. But is there an amusing one that kinda sorta holds together in some limited way? I'm still waiting for that one. The best the hoaxies have ever been able to do, however, is unrelated incident. Plot is beyond them. An actual interesting story......
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 04, 2018, 07:16:20 PM
And did so, as usual, without even really understanding human psychology...

...and throwing in a bit of casual misogyny for good measure.

If I let that drive me away from these discussions, I would've abandoned them years ago.  Like the time someone I had barely had any exchanges with sent me a PM asking for pictures.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 04, 2018, 11:38:14 PM
I have two different hats on when it comes to this stuff. One is as an amateur fan of science, technology, and the history of both. The Apollo Program continues to be a year-long Advent Calendar of new gifts, as every time I come back to it I discover some new and fascinating bit of the story.

I think the hoax is basically dead. It sort of got laughed out of the room. But even if the only vocal doubters are a futile minority, the underlying conflict is alive and well and growing new legs (and I have no idea where that metaphor is going). The hoaxies will rarely change their minds, the observers mostly don't care, but there's still a space where science itself can be and should be defended. Every unchallenged bit of lying and twisting, from Young Earth Creationist claims to the Ancient Aliens crap that continues to crawl all over the public face of archaeology will, if left to stand (or crawl...damned metaphors!) will add to the divide.



Ah, but I also have a second hat, and that one is on a brain that thinks story. Is there a plausible narrative in which the Apollo Program is faked? Hell no. But is there an amusing one that kinda sorta holds together in some limited way? I'm still waiting for that one. The best the hoaxies have ever been able to do, however, is unrelated incident. Plot is beyond them. An actual interesting story......

The hoax proponents now thrive in Ytube land go visit, unfortunately it is still alive.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 05, 2018, 01:50:05 AM
I'm seeing Flat Earth more often. I guess what I meant was the classic Apollo Hoax 1.0 is mostly gone; the charmingly naive one that generally accepted (although rarely understood) astronomy and physics and the other sciences. "Apollo was impossible because of the temperatures. Here, let me explain from my poor understanding of thermodynamics."

Now it seems to be imbedded in more generalized disbelief and conspiracy theory, and the argument format is a lot closer to; "Apollo was impossible because They are lying about the existence of Space."

Of course the typical hoaxie was always a Pringle eater. Like our recent guest, they could never bite on just one conspiracy theory.

But the focus on just Apollo, and the willingness to at least pretend to place it within an accepted framework of science and technology, is gone. I rarely see the Moon Hoax alluded to except in a wider context of disbelief in science itself.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 05, 2018, 02:16:21 AM
I'm seeing Flat Earth more often.

Even the Facebook algorithm is throwing links to flat Earth on my feed, more often than not links to a scientist or celeb-wity that's 'owned' flat Earthers with a 'single tweet.' Curious to how that works, maybe it's my interest in science in general.

Quote
I guess what I meant was the classic Apollo Hoax 1.0 is mostly gone; the charmingly naive one that generally accepted (although rarely understood) astronomy and physics and the other sciences. "Apollo was impossible because of the temperatures. Here, let me explain from my poor understanding of thermodynamics."

How we long for the days of 'but the film in the camera would melt' and 'how could they be cold in the LM the surface is really hot' arguments.

Quote
Now it seems to be embedded in more generalized disbelief and conspiracy theory, and the argument format is a lot closer to; "Apollo was impossible because They are lying about the existence of Space."

Interestingly, space has been measured to be flat with 0.3% error, but then the flatness of space and the 3-dimensional geometry that we observe on a day-to-day basis are two different things.

Quote
Of course the typical hoaxie was always a Pringle eater. Like our recent guest, they could never bite on just one conspiracy theory.

Once you've popped, you can't just stop. Amusing comparison.

Quote
But the focus on just Apollo, and the willingness to at least pretend to place it within an accepted framework of science and technology, is gone. I rarely see the Moon Hoax alluded to except in a wider context of disbelief in science itself.

Our friend here showed his true colours in the end, the anti-government, sheeple argument finally surfaced.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 05, 2018, 04:53:26 AM
Flat earthers and Mr Finch, in my experience, mostly don't care about proving their case, they want to prove how clever they are. It doesn't matter to them that the Earth is flat, they just want to prove they can get one over on someone else.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on April 05, 2018, 05:48:49 AM
I also want to look at any plausible claims it was faked. It is often fun to examine what appears to be plausible claim, finding out new details and then discover why the claim does not hold.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 05, 2018, 06:37:15 AM
I also want to look at any plausible claims it was faked. It is often fun to examine what appears to be plausible claim, finding out new details and then discover why the claim does not hold.

I remember when I first 'involved' myself with the discussion, it was over in the wastelands of YouTube. One argument presented on numerous occasions was 'compartmentalisation' with parallels being made to the Manhattan Project.

Yes, there were aspects of the Manhattan Project that were compartmentalised where workers in industry made components for the bomb blissfully unaware of their function and final destination. Those making the explosive mechanisms and enriching the uranium and plutonium knew the destination of their labour. There is one difference. The Manhattan project was a strategic secret to end the most destructive war in history. The Apollo project was highly publicised goal announced by the US President involving multiple contractors and sub-contractors. The Apollo project was more than landing men on the moon, even Kennedy made reference in his speech about doing the 'things that are difficult.' It was a celebration of US ambition at the heart of the nation's psyche, intellectual prowess and industrial might (IMHO).

One of the most obvious flaws in the hoax theory are the filming of the EVAs. There are those here that are involved in theatre, film and TV production. There are those here with incredible knowledge of those areas. They present the notion of the numbers involved in the production of the EVAs as being numerous. How have those people been kept silent for all these years?  Nixon couldn't keep a lid on Watergate. Hell, even 3 Australian cricketers couldn't keep a lid on ball tampering recently  ;)

Then there's the issue of the large rocket taking off. As Jason Thompson explained, if you tell a bunch of engineers to make a rocket and space ship that is capable of landing men on the moon, they're going to make a rocket and space ship that will land men on the moon. There are two outcomes here: They make you a large rocket and space ship that will land men on the moon, or they can't. In the first case, you land men on the moon. In the second instance, you have to keep them quiet for many years. Not just a handful of people, but a multitude of people. We have evidence on tape that there is indeed a large rocket that worked. That large rocket involved thousands of people to design, test and build. Now, there are those CT's that claim that the astronauts were launched into LEO, but the trans-lunar flight part was not possible. That still means all those people involved in the building  the large rocket that we saw on our screens are going to know the other part of their rocket did not go. Why? Because the people that were involved for the moon landing part are going to know their part did not work. What about the people that saw the large rocket launch and then had to film the EVAs, aren't they going to have a little suspicion at this point.

I'm sure Jay can tell us more about the level or project integration, and if one part of the space vehicle did not work as advertised, then people in the other part of the project were very quickly going to know.

Apollo was on a scale where compartmentalisation simply could not work.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 05, 2018, 07:21:12 AM
I have two different hats on when it comes to this stuff. One is as an amateur fan of science, technology, and the history of both. The Apollo Program continues to be a year-long Advent Calendar of new gifts, as every time I come back to it I discover some new and fascinating bit of the story.

I think the hoax is basically dead. It sort of got laughed out of the room. But even if the only vocal doubters are a futile minority, the underlying conflict is alive and well and growing new legs (and I have no idea where that metaphor is going). The hoaxies will rarely change their minds, the observers mostly don't care, but there's still a space where science itself can be and should be defended. Every unchallenged bit of lying and twisting, from Young Earth Creationist claims to the Ancient Aliens crap that continues to crawl all over the public face of archaeology will, if left to stand (or crawl...damned metaphors!) will add to the divide.



Ah, but I also have a second hat, and that one is on a brain that thinks story. Is there a plausible narrative in which the Apollo Program is faked? Hell no. But is there an amusing one that kinda sorta holds together in some limited way? I'm still waiting for that one. The best the hoaxies have ever been able to do, however, is unrelated incident. Plot is beyond them. An actual interesting story......

The hoax proponents now thrive in Ytube land go visit, unfortunately it is still alive.


I dont know if anybody on here is on facebook but it is alive and well there. 1 particularly funny one is entitled 'Manned lunar landing hoax'
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 05, 2018, 08:02:54 AM
Yes, there were aspects of the Manhattan Project that were compartmentalised where workers in industry made components for the bomb blissfully unaware of their function and final destination. Those making the explosive mechanisms and enriching the uranium and plutonium knew the destination of their labour. There is one difference. The Manhattan project was a strategic secret to end the most destructive war in history.

That difference is even more pronounced. The Manhattan project had an obvious point at which everyone working on it knew the secret would be blown:the moment that weapon is deployed it's not a secret any more. Yes, some of the technical details may be kept confidential, but no-one working on the project needs to take the secret of the project's very existence to their grave any more because the whole world happened to notice when two major Japanese cities were wiped off the map with one bomb each at the end of the war. The guys flying the B-29s that dropped them don't have to lie about it now. Oppenheimer didn't have to keep his involvement quiet and give a deathbed confession (though honestly he may have preferred it if essentially everyone didn't know him as the father of the most destructive and deadly weapon in history once the war was over).

The Apollo hoax would have to be kept secret for decades, in the face of constant developments and investigations. NASA had no way to guarantee the hoax would not be discovered in ten, twenty, thirty years, or even during Apollo 11 itself, and there is no point in the future where the secret can unavoidably come out.

Quote
They present the notion of the numbers involved in the production of the EVAs as being numerous.

This is where the HB arguments always fall down. They never appreciate the number of people who have to be involved in the first place, even before trying to suggest how many have to be in on the secret.
 
Quote
Nixon couldn't keep a lid on Watergate.

I wasn't surprised to see Tim fall back on the old 'tricky Dick' argument. Again, they never understand how the project works, and how much of it was actually complete before Nixon was even running for president, never mind sworn in and in a position to start making decisions about NASA. He inherited a mature project from a political rival. Why would he, on discovering it was fake, continue along that line rather than just use it as ammo against his opponents? On the other hand, given a mature project that was about to achieve the amazing goal of the lunar landing, he gets to bask in the inherited glory that comes with being in charge at the time when all the really hard work has been done and the bit that is really going to make the US (and him) look great will happen anyway whatever he does.

Quote
Now, there are those CT's that claim that the astronauts were launched into LEO, but the trans-lunar flight part was not possible. That still means all those people involved in the building  the large rocket that we saw on our screens are going to know the other part of their rocket did not go.

And that anyone who happened to look up would notice the Apollo spacecraft in orbit. Most HBs have never actually used their eyes to examine the sky and see just what is visible there. Hell a load of them claimed that blank areas on Google Sky or on images of the Moon were evidence of a cover-up, apparently blissfully unaware that there is an actual sky they could look at, and an actual moon that telescopes will allow them to see in detail with their own eyes!

Quote
I'm sure Jay can tell us more about the level or project integration, and if one part of the space vehicle did not work as advertised, then people in the other part of the project were very quickly going to know.

Most HBs don't even understand that NASA is not some big organisation that did all the work. one HB some years ago proudly proclaimed his credentials included work at a couple of aviation companies, and had no reply when we asked him to check with his colleagues and their records archives about the work done on the parts of the rocket and spacecraft built by some of those companies and ask why they continue to lie about it if it was all faked....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 05, 2018, 08:45:43 AM
I dont know if anybody on here is on facebook but it is alive and well there. 1 particularly funny one is entitled 'Manned lunar landing hoax'


Please paste this link into the group:
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 05, 2018, 09:10:26 AM
I dont know if anybody on here is on facebook but it is alive and well there. 1 particularly funny one is entitled 'Manned lunar landing hoax'


Please paste this link into the group:


allan i have vacated the group many moons (no pun) ago because my head hurt. i will send that link to somebody who i know in there but i can assure you they wont listen. 1 gent tried to tell me that he couldnt believe the 18 tonne LM just floated on down to the moon. when i explained his error i got a laughing face on the comment lol another gent told me Nasa used moonbounce to simulate the signal and fool all the people tracking it. i actually asked the question here and got a simple answer as normal. the people who inhabit that group believe because they want to and use comments such as 'most people will never see the deception'
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 05, 2018, 10:09:52 AM
the people who inhabit that group believe because they want to and use comments such as 'most people will never see the deception'

You see it more in the holistic medicine camp, but there's definitely a segment of fringe claimants who insist they must have some greater or deeper insight that transcends the need for traditional training, knowledge, and experience.  Yes, all you ever get out of them are simplistic, often wrong statements.  But they believe the simplicity is what makes them great.  Whereas others have to resort to complicated explanations no one else understands, the fringe claimants of this particular stripe believe their "discernment" (to use Tim's term) lets them see some greater truth.

A similar phenomenon has been studied with respect to the UFO genre of fringe claims.  An east-coast neuroscientist whose name escapes me found there is a neurochemical payoff from the belief that one knows or has discovered a secret.  I think that plays into the notion that people believe they are using superior intuition to discover a secret few if any others know.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 05, 2018, 12:07:57 PM
Our friend here showed his true colours in the end, the anti-government, sheeple argument finally surfaced.

It came in relatively early, before I commented for the first time certainly.  I definitely noticed the "sheeple" in that section.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 05, 2018, 12:21:54 PM
Yes, there were aspects of the Manhattan Project that were compartmentalised where workers in industry made components for the bomb blissfully unaware of their function and final destination.

Regarding the entire "compartmentalization" theory, those that compare it to the Manhatten Project (despite the many obvious differences) are just as clueless regarding its actual secrecy as they are the scientific analysis of the Apollo Program.  When they throw down that claim, I like to send them this link - https://io9.gizmodo.com/secrets-of-the-manhattan-project-were-leaked-a-staggeri-1626524763
The title alone gives you the meat of the article, as well as the proof of the irrelevance of their argument: "Secrets of the Manhattan Project Leaked 1500 Times During World War II".

It is just darn hard to keep a secret, even under the strictest of conditions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 05, 2018, 12:34:51 PM
Our friend here showed his true colours in the end, the anti-government, sheeple argument finally surfaced.

It came in relatively early, before I commented for the first time certainly.  I definitely noticed the "sheeple" in that section.

I didn't notice, good spot. It became more prominent with increasing frequency towards the end. The thread followed the same line as most threads of this nature.

1) Claim is made.
2) Polite discourse between all.
3) Claim is slowly picked apart, realisation that claimant lacks expertise in the field.
4) Gish gallop as more 'evidence' is thrown at the wall in the hope it sticks.
5) Personal attacks (in this case  more of a patronising tone).
6) Increasing level of anti-government stance.
7) Flounce

All so predictable. I do believe Fattydash and Awe130 ignored you too, so we could add that to the list of predictability.  :P
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 05, 2018, 12:40:01 PM
It is just darn hard to keep a secret, even under the strictest of conditions.

When Stalin was told that the US has a new secret weapon at Potsdam, he was hardly surprised if accounts are to be believed. The Soviets knew, but I understand when Truman was brief upon taking office he did not understand the full extent of the bomb. Go figure that, the US Vice President was kept in the dark, but Stalin knew.

I might be corrected here by those with a better understanding of history.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 05, 2018, 01:56:35 PM
To those that downloaded the CRaTER data: it would be interesting to find stretches of time where the dose rate (of at least one or even all six) detectors is always below the magic 0.22mGy/d. Are there continuous stretches longer than the Apollo 11 mission duration?

A little bit of Unix awk magic might not convince our hardcore math talent, but it would make for some cool facts to point at.

Played around with this a little.  Attached graph shows the daily combined D1&2 readings (blue dots), the average D1&2 reading over the entire set (grey horizontal line), and the .22 mGy/day threshold (gold line).  Scale is logarithmic.

Will play around with the other columns, but I think this one graph pretty definitively destroy's Tim's arguments (and shows why you shouldn't apply the average readings over the entire data set against a one-week mission). 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 05, 2018, 02:07:13 PM
Played around with this a little.  Attached graph shows the daily combined D1&2 readings (blue dots), the average D1&2 reading over the entire set (grey horizontal line), and the .22 mGy/day threshold (gold line).  Scale is logarithmic.

Will play around with the other columns, but I think this one graph pretty definitively destroy's Tim's arguments (and shows why you shouldn't apply the average readings over the entire data set against a one-week mission).

Unless I am being a bit thick here, the grey line is the average dose from 1 and 2 detectors which is above the 0.22 mGy/day threshold. Does the grey line include the SPE events in the average?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 05, 2018, 02:25:51 PM
All so predictable. I do believe Fattydash and Awe130 ignored you too, so we could add that to the list of predictability.  :P

It does tend to happen.  And you know, I freely admit that I'm not particularly versed in the science.  It's not my area of expertise.  But so many of the arguments fit within things that I do know a thing or two about, and they still don't listen to me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 05, 2018, 02:46:14 PM
All so predictable. I do believe Fattydash and Awe130 ignored you too, so we could add that to the list of predictability.  :P

It does tend to happen.  And you know, I freely admit that I'm not particularly versed in the science.  It's not my area of expertise.  But so many of the arguments fit within things that I do know a thing or two about, and they still don't listen to me.

I made a point eluding to this after the feeding frenzy was over. Maybe we should start with the arguments that pertain to the less scientific points, such as how the hoax could be perpetrated in the first place. Jason makes a good point that you have to give someone a chance and discover whether they are misguided and ready to learn.

Jason's point reflects my own experience. When I was 17-18 ish, the UK were running a lot of conspiracy documentaries on TV. JFK was the main one. My friend told me about the moon hoax. I wasn't that interested at the time. Anyway, I watched Apollo 13 when it was released, and felt I ought to know more about the moon landings. Of course, I found material about the hoax so I thought best to look at both side of the coin. A couple of arguments made me look at it more closely, the photographic anomalies mainly. Of course, I found Clavius, BAUT and Bob's site, along with the Apollo Journals. A little effort on my part and I cast the hoax aside as folly and became more interested in Ralph Rene's alternative physics. The one thing that really nagged at me though  was the radiation issue, partly because Rene was obsessed by that issue. As a physicist I'm relatively well versed in ionising radiation and space weather, but I felt compelled to understand how the engineering overcame the problems. That's where I became more interested in Apollo as whole and became more active here. I dug even deeper into the physics of space radiation and have managed to accumulate numerous papers and books on the topic; and as a result have developed considerably in the area.

I digress. Of course, the predictability plays out as the 'science types' wade in, and the water become shark infested. Your voice of reason and alternative angle gets lost. I don't think its personal, as I've waded into these threads half way through, and I'm ignored. Usually the person that brings the claim becomes engrossed with those that they have debated heavily over the course of the thread. The other issue is the Jay obsession, and then we all get ignored.

I did see you made a comment about you 4 year old and log scales. Where has that time gone? I hope you are still enjoying motherhood.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 05, 2018, 04:49:45 PM
Played around with this a little.  Attached graph shows the daily combined D1&2 readings (blue dots), the average D1&2 reading over the entire set (grey horizontal line), and the .22 mGy/day threshold (gold line).  Scale is logarithmic.

Will play around with the other columns, but I think this one graph pretty definitively destroy's Tim's arguments (and shows why you shouldn't apply the average readings over the entire data set against a one-week mission).

Unless I am being a bit thick here, the grey line is the average dose from 1 and 2 detectors which is above the 0.22 mGy/day threshold. Does the grey line include the SPE events in the average?

The grey line is the average of all the combined D1&2 readings; I basically created a new column in the spreadsheet and filled all the entries with average(H$2:H$67919)1.  IOW, I did a very naive computation a la Tim - I took a rather complicated time series and reduced it to a single number that has almost no explanatory value.  It's not useful as a predictive model, and it's not useful for any kind of analysis. 

Note that most of the daily readings straddle the .22 mGy/day line.  It's those spikes in 2014, 2015, and 2017 that skew the average way up. 



1.  Which is Not The Way To Do It - thought the macbook was going to have a heart attack.  Should have computed it once and replicated the value, but I was being lazy.  I would rather use R, but I don't have R on the mac side. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Rob48 on April 05, 2018, 05:12:27 PM
I would have thought the median value would have been a lot more useful than the mean.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 05, 2018, 05:29:19 PM
Note that most of the daily readings straddle the .22 mGy/day line.  It's those spikes in 2014, 2015, and 2017 that skew the average way up.

That's what I thought, the peaks cause the average to rise. This really does highlight the point that you simply cannot use a reported average other than in order of magnitude calculations. Tim's second set of data showed an average that was cited at 0.24 and 0.60 mGr/day for the solar cycle extremes.

The CRaTER data has produced a debate between ourselves and the best way to represent the data, and we have access to the complete data set from CRaTER. Rob48's post about using a median is also a valid point.

Regardless, it really is anybody's guess how the 0.24-0.60 mGr/day was derived and the spread of that data set due to day-to-day fluctuations. Your grey line really drives home the point that averages can be quite useless (that's meant with respect for you). One really need to understand the distribution of the data in all its complexity before we can truly apply the data in a meaningful way to reality.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 05, 2018, 05:47:40 PM
I would have thought the median value would have been a lot more useful than the mean.

Somewhat, yes.  But Tim didn't compute the median, he computed the mean, and used that to argue his point.  It was a naive, simplistic analysis that did not accurately reflect the reality of the CRaTER data as it would have applied to a lunar mission. 

IOW, the point of my graph is to show that Tim's analysis was deeply flawed. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 05, 2018, 05:53:39 PM
I digress. Of course, the predictability plays out as the 'science types' wade in, and the water become shark infested. Your voice of reason and alternative angle gets lost. I don't think its personal, as I've waded into these threads half way through, and I'm ignored. Usually the person that brings the claim becomes engrossed with those that they have debated heavily over the course of the thread. The other issue is the Jay obsession, and then we all get ignored.

It's only very rarely that I think, "Oh.  This is because I don't have a Y chromosome, isn't it?"  Though that happens.  And I didn't get to this one as quickly as I might, because as established, I was off having a life instead.  By the time I got into it, he'd already decided who was worth his time, and newcomers didn't get much of it.  That's fine; my anniversary celebration was more important.  And really, is it fair of Jay to be so incredibly knowledgeable and such a good writer?  I ask you!

Quote
I did see you made a comment about you 4 year old and log scales. Where has that time gone? I hope you are still enjoying motherhood.

He starts kindergarten next year!  And, yeah, it's going pretty well for us.  The baby isn't a baby anymore; she turned fourteen months this week.  Still not talking, but she's expressing herself quite clearly and let me know this afternoon that it was time to put her down for a nap, and I love it when that happens.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 05, 2018, 05:55:28 PM
Somewhat, yes.  But Tim didn't compute the median, he computed the mean, and used that to argue his point.

I wasn't aware Tim computed anything. He visually inspected the graph and misread the log scale. The issue being that Tim didn't accept the data once it was handed on a plate to him.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 05, 2018, 05:58:50 PM
The baby isn't a baby anymore; she turned fourteen months this week.  Still not talking, but she's expressing herself quite clearly and let me know this afternoon that it was time to put her down for a nap, and I love it when that happens.

I haven't been around here properly for 18 months, with a hiatus of 10 months. I do vaguely remember there being a second child on the way, but didn't want to impose questions on that front. I'm glad it is going so well for you all.  ;)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 05, 2018, 07:18:21 PM
Somewhat, yes.  But Tim didn't compute the median, he computed the mean, and used that to argue his point.

I wasn't aware Tim computed anything. He visually inspected the graph and misread the log scale. The issue being that Tim didn't accept the data once it was handed on a plate to him.

Actually, I got it wrong - he averaged across all the detectors, not across the date range.  In which case, we get the attached graph, which pretty much shows the same thing as previous graphs - the bulk of the daily readings were below the .22 mGy/day threshold. 

To be honest, he did enough gish galloping that I'm not even sure what his arguments wrt CRaTER were anymore, other than that they proved people didn't walk on the moon. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: inconceivable on April 05, 2018, 08:09:00 PM
The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years about craters on the moon using computer models and analyzing newer data.  Many unknowns that they weren't aware of back then.  Amazed that they were just so lucky for instance with no threatening solar flares during the missions?  Driving buggies around not concerned with the density or the properties of the regolith?  Hitting golf balls, not concerned with static discharge?  Not knowing that the leading edges of craters could potentially have 100s of volts of electricity created by the solar wind, waiting to be discharged.  Potentially damaging suits, buggies, shorting out equipment.  It's probable that a lot of the data from these instruments was inaccurate to begin with.   It's amazing they picked all the right areas to avoid the dangerous affects of solar radiation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 05, 2018, 08:23:07 PM
Amazed that they were just so lucky for instance with no threatening solar flares during the missions?

They indeed were, but now we refer to them as solar storms or SPEs produced by shock driven CMEs.

Quote
Driving buggies around not concerned with the density or the properties of the regolith?

Surveyor probes were sent before the landings, these provided insight into the regolith depth. The regolith was a concern, but as I say, they sent the Surveyors.

Quote
Hitting golf balls, not concerned with static discharge?

You need to explain that one a bit more. I'm not sure why they would get the discharge. A heath Robinson golf club falling apart and hitting the LM was probably a bigger problem

Quote
Not knowing that the leading edges of craters could potentially have 100s of volts of electricity created by the solar wind, waiting to be discharged.  Potentially damaging suits, buggies, shorting out equipment.

Volts don't discharge, current does. Objects can be at 100s of volts and the current discharged will be micro-ammeters and less. Hardly noticeable. A table top van de Graaf used in school demos and science fairs can have potentials in the 1000s of volts. School children play with them all the time.

https://extkits.co.uk/product/mini-van-de-graaff-generator/

Quote
It's probable that a lot of the data from these instruments was inaccurate to begin with.   It's amazing they picked all the right areas to avoid the dangerous affects of solar radiation.

What areas, and what dangerous effects?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 05, 2018, 08:41:02 PM
The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years about craters on the moon using computer models and analyzing newer data.  Many unknowns that they weren't aware of back then.  Amazed that they were just so lucky for instance with no threatening solar flares during the missions?  Driving buggies around not concerned with the density or the properties of the regolith?  Hitting golf balls, not concerned with static discharge?  Not knowing that the leading edges of craters could potentially have 100s of volts of electricity created by the solar wind, waiting to be discharged.  Potentially damaging suits, buggies, shorting out equipment.  It's probable that a lot of the data from these instruments was inaccurate to begin with.   It's amazing they picked all the right areas to avoid the dangerous affects of solar radiation.

Imagine where we'd be as a civilization if we had not explored the Earth out of fear of the unknown.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 05, 2018, 11:24:56 PM
Hell, I just watched Planet Earth II with the kids this week, and all of life everywhere is all about danger.  The known is dangerous, too; we've just all agreed to treat that danger as normal.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 06, 2018, 04:48:42 AM
The thing that gets me about moon mission

The thing that gets me about your posts, inconceivable, is why you make them. You drop in, post stuff like this, then utterly fail to return to it before dropping in randomly later and posting another comment like this. What are your reasons for being here?

Quote
are the unknowns that have come to light over the years about craters on the moon using computer models and analyzing newer data.

Yes, amazing how science keeps finding new things, isn't it?  ::)

Quote
Amazed that they were just so lucky for instance with no threatening solar flares during the missions?

That was not just dumb luck, that was a calculated risk. What exactly is the frequency of major, life-threatening solar flares that are directed right at us? How does that compare to minor flares, or those that don't blast us directly? And how does that fit with a two-week mission duration?

Not that I expect an answer. You have a pretty consistent record of failure to respond.

Quote
Driving buggies around not concerned with the density or the properties of the regolith?

How exactly do you conclude they were 'not concerned'? They had several lunar landings, manned or otherwise, under their belt by the time the first rover was used. Properties of the regolith were well known.

Quote
Hitting golf balls, not concerned with static discharge?

Why would static discharge be a problem for anyone encased in a spacesuit? They're not exactly conductive. What would provide the route to earth the static charge?

Quote
Not knowing that the leading edges of craters could potentially have 100s of volts of electricity created by the solar wind, waiting to be discharged.

Again, what would it discharge through? And is hundreds of volts actually a problem? A simple static shock of the kind you get touching a doorknob is on the order of thousands of volts.  And that's the voltage required to allow the charge to travel across the air between the thing with the accumulated charge and your finger. What would the voltage need to be to allow discharge across a vacuum? In any case, it's not the voltage that is an issue, it's the current.

Quote
It's amazing they picked all the right areas to avoid the dangerous affects of solar radiation.

This is why I don't actually believe you are anything but a rather mild example of a troll. This entire thread is literally devoted to this subject. They didn't 'pick the right areas', the radiation a) wasn't at a damaging background level anyway for someone in a spacecraft or spacesuit, and b) the chance of a damaging flare was calculated and considered an acceptable risk for the mission goal. Everything you just said about static discharge is meaningless because, like the radiation, it is a) not high enough to be of concern and b) unlikely to discharge anyway.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 06, 2018, 06:59:47 AM
The Apollo 14 astronauts used a wheeled cart to carry their equipment. I'm sure that they reported back to NASA how it performed in the regolith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Equipment_Transporter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Equipment_Transporter)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 06, 2018, 11:36:10 AM
The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years about craters on the moon using computer models and analyzing newer data.

Yeah, that's what exploration is for.  You find out what you didn't previously know.  Duh.

Quote
Amazed that they were just so lucky for instance with no threatening solar flares during the missions?

The statistical basis for predicting solar weather goes back to the early 1800s.  What makes you think that they relied entirely on luck?  They relied on statistics, but that's something different.

Quote
Driving buggies around not concerned with the density or the properties of the regolith?

What makes you think they were not concerned?  What makes you think that by the fourth manned mission studying the surface on foot they did not have sufficient understanding of the physics of lunar regolith to consider a wheeled vehicle an acceptable risk.

Quote
Hitting golf balls, not concerned with static discharge?

Now you're just reaching.

Quote
Not knowing that the leading edges of craters could potentially have 100s of volts of electricity created by the solar wind, waiting to be discharged.

100 volts of static electricity is negligible.  Regular discharges from shuffling your feet across the floor and touching a doorknob can reach thousands of volts.  You're still reaching.

Quote
It's amazing they picked all the right areas to avoid the dangerous affects of solar radiation.

Science is amazing that way.

To put this in perspective, Utah highways have a mortality rate of about 350 per year.  Meaning that my morning commute exposes me to that risk twice a day.  Yet it's amazing I get to work every day.  The question is not whether Apollo was risky.  It was, and that's why it deserves so much attention.  But there's no reason to question its validity because it was risky.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: mako88sb on April 06, 2018, 12:53:29 PM
The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years....

Well, microbursts were not identified as an aviation hazard until the mid 70's. All those decades before that with people flying about close to airports putting themselves at risk not knowing about the potential for disaster.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 06, 2018, 01:31:33 PM
The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years....

Well, microbursts were not identified as an aviation hazard until the mid 70's. All those decades before that with people flying about close to airports putting themselves at risk not knowing about the potential for disaster.

Ah yes I remember AA flight 181 2 Aug 85 near DFW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_191
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 06, 2018, 04:06:07 PM
The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years....

Well, microbursts were not identified as an aviation hazard until the mid 70's. All those decades before that with people flying about close to airports putting themselves at risk not knowing about the potential for disaster.

Ah yes I remember AA flight 181 2 Aug 85 near DFW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_191
It feels weird that we only knew about that after we finished* landing humans on the moon.
As for inconceivable's claims, don't really have anything to add that hasn't been said, except they show a typical lack of knowledge.
*As of 2018
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 06, 2018, 05:45:39 PM
It wouldn't help.  You're thinking of laminated armor that uses alternate layers of dense and sparse material.  It's actually how the micrometeoroid shield on the Apollo LM was designed, and to a lesser extent the space suits.  It works for ballistic particles where "particle" here means dust, not some exotic thing ending in -on.  The theory behind laminated armor is that the collisions with the hard outer layers fragment (in a mechanical, not subatomic, way) both the injectile and the armor.  The soft inner layers (if they aren't just empty space) attenuate the velocity, but what they really do is provide distance for the collision products to fan out and vent their energy on the next hard layer across a broader surface area.

Pretty much how modern tank armour works, along with the angle of the armour. A trip to Bovington Tank Museum is well worth a trip to see the WW1 tanks if anyone is in the Dorset area of England. The first tanks were built with metal plate, the issue being that when a bullet hit the plate, it would blister the metal on the inside as there was no laminating. The little blister could produce a shard that would ping around the inside of the tank. The other issue being the crew were pretty much choked by the exhaust gases from the engine.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on April 07, 2018, 01:58:45 AM
The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years....

Well, microbursts were not identified as an aviation hazard until the mid 70's. All those decades before that with people flying about close to airports putting themselves at risk not knowing about the potential for disaster.

Oh yes. I remember the stuff we did flying in the 1980s. We were not trying to be unsafe but now when we look back, we are amazed that we actually lived through some stuff.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 09:30:40 AM
FYI.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 09:40:01 AM
FYI.

Good, so after a thread that has run over 1000 replies you finally calculated the median, which show the dose falls below your arbitrary threshold levels. I congratulate your honesty.

Now explain why the mean average and median are very different. The clue might be in the standard deviation and the SPEs. If I have a very large number that appears a few times, and lots of very little numbers, would you expect the mean to be skewed compared to the median?

Calculate the average of 1000    1      1      1      1      1      1     1      1

Now, calculate the median for the same data.

An 8th grader will do this and understand why the answers are very different.

Further, why not take the average and mean over part of the cycle that is nearer to solar maximum where Apollo missions too place.

This is rather academic anyway, as you need to look at the data for solar cycle 20.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 09:47:14 AM
FYI
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 09:52:07 AM
KREEP
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.

The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.

KREEP is concentrated in the Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) and Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains) with a major concentration south of Crater Copernicus. This region covers about 40% of the Earth-facing side of the Moon. Based on the small number of lunar samples returned, low KREEP regions measure 8% or less of the radioactive elements in their dust compared to the high KREEP regions. With current technology, the entire high KREEP region is not acceptable for any long-term human settlement or manned mining operation.

The high KREEP region contains many sites of interest to science, particularly those of volcanic origin. Even short scientific expeditions there will require special procedures to prevent ingestion of dust and the removal of dust from all returning equipment.

Radon Gas
Another source of dangerous radiation is the radon gas that is created in the decay of trace amounts of uranium found naturally in lunar rocks. This gas is very heavy and concentrates in low areas. This type of radiation is easily stopped by even a thin layer of material, but radon is carcinogenic if ingested directly into the body.

Even though sensitive scientific equipment has been able to detect radon on Luna, the quantity of radon gas is such that it can be ignored. The lunar atmosphere is so thin that the most massive component, Argon, is present in only 30,000 particles per cubic centimeter, that is 2 trillionths of a gram per cubic meter. Radon is so scarce that it is not even mentioned in the list of components in the lunar atmosphere article. See the Moon Fact Sheet from NASA.

Radon has also been detected from lunar outgassing events.

http://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Radiation_Problem
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 09:58:54 AM
Abstract
During a stay on the moon humans are exposed to elevated radiation levels due to the lack of substantial atmospheric and magnetic shielding compared to the Earth's surface. The absence of magnetic and atmospheric shielding allows cosmic rays of all energies to impinge on the lunar surface. Beside the continuous exposure to galactic cosmic rays (GCR), which increases the risk of cancer mortality, exposure through particles emitted in sudden nonpredictable solar particle events (SPE) may occur. SPEs show an enormous variability in particle flux and energy spectra and have the potential to expose space crew to life threatening doses. On Earth, the contribution to the annual terrestrial dose of natural ionizing radiation of 2.4 mSv by cosmic radiation is about 1/6, whereas the annual exposure caused by GCR on the lunar surface is roughly 380 mSv (solar minimum) and 110 mSv (solar maximum). The analysis of worst case scenarios has indicated that SPE may lead to an exposure of about 1 Sv. The only efficient measure to reduce radiation exposure is the provision of radiation shelters. Measurements on the lunar surface performed during the Apollo missions cover only a small energy band for thermal neutrons and are not sufficient to estimate the exposure. Very recently some data were added by the Radiation Dose Monitoring (RADOM) instrument operated during the Indian Chandrayaan Mission and the Cosmic Ray Telescope (CRaTER) instrument of the NASA LRO (Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter) mission. These measurements need to be complemented by surface measurements. Models and simulations that exist describe the approximate radiation exposure in space and on the lunar surface. The knowledge on the radiation exposure at the lunar surface is exclusively based on calculations applying radiation transport codes in combination with environmental models. Own calculations are presented using Monte-Carlo simulations to calculate the radiation environment on the moon and organ doses on the surface of the moon for an astronaut in an EVA suit and are compared with measurements. Since it is necessary to verify/validate such calculations with measurement on the lunar surface, a description is given of a radiation detector for future detailed surface measurements. This device is proposed for the ESA Lunar Lander Mission and is capable to characterize the radiation field concerning particle fluencies, dose rates and energy transfer spectra for ionizing particles and to measure the dose contribution of secondary neutrons.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012P%26SS...74...78R
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 10:04:40 AM
KREEP
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.

The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.

KREEP is concentrated in the Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) and Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains) with a major concentration south of Crater Copernicus. This region covers about 40% of the Earth-facing side of the Moon. Based on the small number of lunar samples returned, low KREEP regions measure 8% or less of the radioactive elements in their dust compared to the high KREEP regions. With current technology, the entire high KREEP region is not acceptable for any long-term human settlement or manned mining operation.

The high KREEP region contains many sites of interest to science, particularly those of volcanic origin. Even short scientific expeditions there will require special procedures to prevent ingestion of dust and the removal of dust from all returning equipment.

Radon Gas
Another source of dangerous radiation is the radon gas that is created in the decay of trace amounts of uranium found naturally in lunar rocks. This gas is very heavy and concentrates in low areas. This type of radiation is easily stopped by even a thin layer of material, but radon is carcinogenic if ingested directly into the body.

Even though sensitive scientific equipment has been able to detect radon on Luna, the quantity of radon gas is such that it can be ignored. The lunar atmosphere is so thin that the most massive component, Argon, is present in only 30,000 particles per cubic centimeter, that is 2 trillionths of a gram per cubic meter. Radon is so scarce that it is not even mentioned in the list of components in the lunar atmosphere article. See the Moon Fact Sheet from NASA.

Radon has also been detected from lunar outgassing events.

http://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Radiation_Problem

All taken from an article that discusses using the rocks and regolith as a shelter for prolonged missions, so naturally the hazard will be discussed for a very important reason:

You do know that approx 50% of natural background radiation on Earth is attributed to rocks. In some areas of the UK, where the bedrock is mainly granite, radioactive radon is produced when radioisotopes in the atoms of rocks decay. There is a small increases in the lung cancer incidence on those areas. It is believed it may be due to the radon emitting alpha particle in the lungs during inhalation and exhalation. So if you are going to build a shelter from the moon's regolith, you are naturally going to want to understand the risks.

No one said that the moon was not radioactive, we were explaining to you that the influx of GCR does not turn the moon into a radioactive wasteland. The activity, duration of the missions and accumulated dose all play a part in total dose.

Interesting you article discusses alpha particles. How well do you think an astronaut in a suit will be protected from alpha exposure?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 10:15:51 AM
FYI

You've hung yourself by your own petard here haven't you? The doses are measured using the data from a neutron ground based monitor. By inspection, I make the ground dose around 0.35 - 0.50 mGr/day. Again, this is taken in solar cycle 24, which is less active than 20.

Further, can you directly compare the detectors between this these ground based monitors and monitors and CRaTER? They use different materials.

I'm going to throw this out for others on the forum, but is it possible for the dose on the Earth's surface to be greater than the moon's surface. The GCR has a thick layer of atmosphere to traverse, increasing the number of secondary neutrons and mesons produced? Just a thought.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 10:17:23 AM
In 1972, Apollo astronaut Harrison Schmitt sniffed the air in his Lunar Module, the Challenger. "[It] smells like gunpowder in here," he said. His commander Gene Cernan agreed. "Oh, it does, doesn't it?"

The two astronauts had just returned from a long moonwalk around the Taurus-Littrow valley, near the Sea of Serenity. Dusty footprints marked their entry into the spaceship. That dust became airborne--and smelly.


see caption

Right: Moonwalking astronaut Harrison Schmitt. [More]
Later, Schmitt felt congested and complained of "lunar dust hay fever." His symptoms went away the next day; no harm done. He soon returned to Earth and the anecdote faded into history.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/22apr_dontinhale
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 10:19:47 AM
In 1972, Apollo astronaut Harrison Schmitt sniffed the air in his Lunar Module, the Challenger. "[It] smells like gunpowder in here," he said. His commander Gene Cernan agreed. "Oh, it does, doesn't it?

Are you suggesting that radioactive dust smells more than a non-radioactive counterpart, or that they were simply exposed to dust?

Again, provide a figure for the activity of the dust. being exposed to GCR does not make the dust radioactive to the point that it affords a hazard.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 10:22:22 AM
Copying and pasting swathes of text that you do not understand does not support an argument. You need to begin to answer questions that are posed and address your understanding of the text you are cutting and pasting. I'm very patient. There are others here who frown on this intellectual cowardice.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 10:45:19 AM
Abstract
A gross survey of data on Van Allen belt radiations, galactic cosmic radiation, and solar cosmic radiation is presented. On the basis of these data that are, in part, fragmentary and uncertain, upper and lower limits of rad doses under different amounts of mass shielding are estimated. The estimates are preliminary especially in the cases of chance encounter with solar flare protons. Generally, the relative biological effectiveness of the high energetic space radiations and their secondaries appear insufficiently known to give detailed biological or rem doses. The overall ionization dosage of the low level galactic cosmic radiation in free space is estimated to be even in solar minimum years equivalent to less than 50 rem/year or 1 rem/week. Mass shielding up to 80 g/cm2 would not reduce the ionization dosage but would shield against heavy primaries and heavy ionizing secondaries, thus reducing the biological dose. The flux of energetic protons in the maximum intensity zone of the inner Van Allen belt is by about four orders of magnitude higher, their energy and penetration power, of course, lower. A shield of 25 g/cm2 would reduce the dose rate from 20 rad/hour under 2 g/cm2 to 5 rad/hour. These proton dose rates and also the electron and X-radiation dose rates under some g/cm2 shielding of low z-number material will not constitute a radiation hazard for flights straight through the inner and outer belt in about two hours. Staying within the maximum of the inner belt for two days would, however, lead even within 25 g/cm2 depth of outer shield and body itself to a dose of 200 rad which is on the permissible limit. Extreme solar cosmic ray events or proton showers of high intensity and a duration of days occurred with a frequency of 1-4 per year during the last highly active cycle. For the penetrating, most intense high energy event of February 23, 1956, the dose within 25 g/cm2 is estimated to have been in the order of 50 rad. In most cases the dose decreased more rapidly with penetration depth and would have been even in multiple events with such high shielding below critical levels, especially on inner organs. On the surface of the body and in a lightly shielded space vehicle or protected by a space suit only the dose can, especially in multiple events, reach values of 1000 rad and more.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12056428
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 10:48:28 AM
FYI
Hi genius, is the attached a log or linear graph?

Do tell.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 10:58:25 AM
Abstract
A gross survey of data on Van Allen belt radiations, galactic cosmic radiation, and solar cosmic radiation is presented. On the basis of these data that are, in part, fragmentary and uncertain, upper and lower limits of rad doses under different amounts of mass shielding are estimated. The estimates are preliminary especially in the cases of chance encounter with solar flare protons. Generally, the relative biological effectiveness of the high energetic space radiations and their secondaries appear insufficiently known to give detailed biological or rem doses. The overall ionization dosage of the low level galactic cosmic radiation in free space is estimated to be even in solar minimum years equivalent to less than 50 rem/year or 1 rem/week. Mass shielding up to 80 g/cm2 would not reduce the ionization dosage but would shield against heavy primaries and heavy ionizing secondaries, thus reducing the biological dose. The flux of energetic protons in the maximum intensity zone of the inner Van Allen belt is by about four orders of magnitude higher, their energy and penetration power, of course, lower. A shield of 25 g/cm2 would reduce the dose rate from 20 rad/hour under 2 g/cm2 to 5 rad/hour. These proton dose rates and also the electron and X-radiation dose rates under some g/cm2 shielding of low z-number material will not constitute a radiation hazard for flights straight through the inner and outer belt in about two hours. Staying within the maximum of the inner belt for two days would, however, lead even within 25 g/cm2 depth of outer shield and body itself to a dose of 200 rad which is on the permissible limit. Extreme solar cosmic ray events or proton showers of high intensity and a duration of days occurred with a frequency of 1-4 per year during the last highly active cycle. For the penetrating, most intense high energy event of February 23, 1956, the dose within 25 g/cm2 is estimated to have been in the order of 50 rad. In most cases the dose decreased more rapidly with penetration depth and would have been even in multiple events with such high shielding below critical levels, especially on inner organs. On the surface of the body and in a lightly shielded space vehicle or protected by a space suit only the dose can, especially in multiple events, reach values of 1000 rad and more.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12056428
Irrelevant. You have been told why repeatedly.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:07:04 AM
FYI
Hi genius, is the attached a log or linear graph?

Do tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_scale
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 11:10:11 AM
FYI
Hi genius, is the attached a log or linear graph?

Do tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_scale
I asked you, not wiki.

Is that a log or linear graph?

You don't know, do you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 07, 2018, 11:12:35 AM
FYI
Hi genius, is the attached a log or linear graph?

Do tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_scale
I asked you, not wiki.

Is that a log or linear graph?

You don't know, do you?

*Raises Hand Quickly*

I know, I know.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:21:33 AM
http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.html
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 11:25:03 AM
http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.html
I asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.

What is YOUR answer?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 11:38:55 AM
FYI
Hi genius, is the attached a log or linear graph?

Do tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_scale
I asked you, not wiki.

Is that a log or linear graph?

You don't know, do you?

*Raises Hand Quickly*

I know, I know.
Now, now. Let timfinch demonstrate his knowledge.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 11:39:31 AM
Tim

You're now behaving like a petulant child that couldn't make his point so sulked for a couple of days. Your cutting and pasting is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, and disregarding everyone else in the room.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:42:31 AM
http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.html
I asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.

What is YOUR answer?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 11:52:13 AM
http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.html
I asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.

What is YOUR answer?
That is NOT an answer. I didn't ask you to post other random graphs, I asked you about the one I posted.

What is YOUR answer?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 07, 2018, 11:58:26 AM
In 1972, Apollo astronaut Harrison Schmitt sniffed the air in his Lunar Module, the Challenger. "[It] smells like gunpowder in here," he said. His commander Gene Cernan agreed. "Oh, it does, doesn't it?"

The two astronauts had just returned from a long moonwalk around the Taurus-Littrow valley, near the Sea of Serenity. Dusty footprints marked their entry into the spaceship. That dust became airborne--and smelly.


see caption

Right: Moonwalking astronaut Harrison Schmitt. [More]
Later, Schmitt felt congested and complained of "lunar dust hay fever." His symptoms went away the next day; no harm done. He soon returned to Earth and the anecdote faded into history.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/22apr_dontinhale

So now you're using quotations from astronauts that went to the Moon to support your claim that no astronauts went to the Moon.  ::)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d2/2a/a3/d22aa359cf6bd1f231cd10e673ff6a9a.jpg)
 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 07, 2018, 11:59:02 AM
Abstract

<snipped for conciseness>

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12056428
Published in 1963, five years before the first mission beyond LEO, and, as it says in the title and notes in the abstract, is discussing estimates of likely doses.  What additional information was available by the time Apollo 8 was launched, and what conclusions were drawn from it?  Have you looked in detail at the refinement of measurements and modelling of the radiation environment since the beginning of space flight?

Also, on my reading of the abstract, it implies that with proper shielding and routing, missions beyond LEO should not present unsurvivable hazards.  I'll leave discussion of the actual estimated doses and shielding to people who understand these things better than I do.

I would also ask, what further detail is provided in the full paper?  You shouldn't base any discussion or conclusions purely on the abstract.  Again, not being an expert in this area I won't go through it myself, but if you're going to be discussing estimates, measurements and analysis of the radiation in space, you need to do more than copy a few abstracts or selected graphs - you need to do a proper literature search and take the time to read, understand, and where necessary, analyse the data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 12:05:10 PM
So now you're using quotations from astronauts that went to the Moon to support your claim that no astronauts went to the Moon.  ::)

I missed that, even though I asked him whether he thought they was exposed to the dust. Duh!

It reminds me of a user called stalkervision over at YT many years ago. He was arguing the line 'they could never leave Earth's orbit radiation is bad' argument. Then is his next breath he claimed that they never left Earth's orbit because on Apollo 8 the crew saw aliens, so NASA did not want to send manned missions.  ??? :o :-\
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 12:16:36 PM
That was a bit of a drive by.  :o
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 07, 2018, 12:19:59 PM
That was a bit of a drive by.  :o

A pigeon post!!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 12:58:16 PM
Alrighty then. We have definitively nailed certain facts.

Timfinch cannot read graphs, cannot tell the difference between log and linear scales and cannot fathom 3D spatial reasoning.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 01:10:38 PM
http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.html
I asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.

What is YOUR answer?
That is NOT an answer. I didn't ask you to post other random graphs, I asked you about the one I posted.

What is YOUR answer?

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 01:24:50 PM
Timfinch cannot read graphs, cannot tell the difference between log and linear scales and cannot fathom 3D spatial reasoning.

... and is now pigeon posting.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 01:27:31 PM
Tim

When the astronauts were exposed to the lunar regolith that smelled like gunpowder, what was their location to have been exposed to the regolith?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 01:29:29 PM
LEO?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 01:31:27 PM
http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.html
I asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.

What is YOUR answer?
That is NOT an answer. I didn't ask you to post other random graphs, I asked you about the one I posted.

What is YOUR answer?


Still not an answer, timfinch.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 01:31:34 PM
LEO?

Where must they have been to pick up lunar regolith, which is found on the surface of the moon?

(a) The surface of the moon.
(b) The surface of the moon.

or

(c) The surface of the moon.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 01:34:20 PM
I thought it was obvious but let me spell it out for you.  The lunar lander had no means of decontamination of the astronauts reentering the lander.  It would not have been possible for them not to have inhaled lunar dust and been exposed to the alpha laden particles therein.  They would have known of the dangers and would never expose the astronauts to such a risk if they had indeed landed on the moon.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 01:36:44 PM
I thought it was obvious but let me spell it out for you.  The lunar lander had no means of decontamination of the astronauts reentering the lander.  It would not have been possible for them not to have inhaled lunar dust and been exposed to the alpha laden particles therein.  They would have known of the dangers and would never expose the astronauts to such a risk if they had indeed landed on the moon.

...but you're citing astronauts telling you they were exposed to regolith they picked up from the surface of the moon, to prove... they didn't go to the moon. That's circular reasoning.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 01:42:05 PM
It is definitive proof that they never landed on the moon.  It is all a fabrication and a mental slip on their part.  They would never openly admit to inhaling radioactive moon dust voluntarily.  If they had indeed taken samples of moon dust prior to the landing then they would have been aware that is was a radioactive hazard.  You don't have to read between the lines.  They spelled the deceit out in bold capitalized letters.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 01:49:49 PM
You guys are being disingenuous.  You have provided not a single fact or data to support your position that cislunar background radiation was low enough to justify Apollo 11's .22 mgy/day exposure level.  You insist they they found a low radiation path through the VAB but cannot provide any data to reflect such a path exist.  You refuse to accept the verifiable data that proves the surface of the moon is more radioactive than cislunar space and that lunar orbit is more radioactive than cislunar space.  You have all the evidence you need to arrive at a logical conclusion yet you distract yourself with the definition of log graphs and my technical competence.  I expected better from you and I am sorely disappointed.  I am embarrassed for you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 01:52:01 PM
It is definitive proof that they never landed on the moon.  It is all a fabrication and a mental slip on their part.  They would never openly admit to inhaling radioactive moon dust voluntarily.

That old chestnut of they couldn't keep a consistent story. Heard it all before. The only problem with this argument is every part of their story is corroborated with photos, transcripts of communication that came from the moon (proven by HAM radio enthusiasts), photographs, film evidence of them working in a lunar environment.

We've explained to you that the moon is not prohibitively radioactive to humans due to GCR irradiation. Please tell us the proportion of radioisotopes produced by the GCR and the half life of each of those radioisotopes.

I've also explained to you that scientists that work in particle accelerators work with proton energies typical of GCR, with fluxes much greater than GCR. Does their equipment become radioactive? No it does not. Irradiation from particles does not make other stuff radioactive. You cannot be more wrong with this illusion of the GCR making the moon's surface a radioactive wasteland.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 01:56:01 PM
You guys are being disingenuous.  You have provided not a single fact or data to support your position that cislunar background radiation was low enough to justify Apollo 11's .22 mgy/day exposure level.

Although you did it yourself by taking the median for a less active cycle than 20. You're the one being disingenuous. Even when the numbers stare you in the face and you had your fallacy of equivalence explained to you by numerous people, you cannot accept that you were wrong in the first place.

What is really galling is that you came to this forum, having examined a graph by inspection,  found you had read a log scale wrong; and then cannot even put your hand up and say I made an error. Please, save us your sermon on being disingenuous.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 01:56:59 PM
Do you not read these post.  I did not say it.  They did.  They told you it was so high that it raised lunar orbit radiation above background levels by 30 to 40%.  Why is that concept difficult to understand?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 07, 2018, 01:59:05 PM
It is definitive proof that they never landed on the moon.  It is all a fabrication and a mental slip on their part.  They would never openly admit to inhaling radioactive moon dust voluntarily.  If they had indeed taken samples of moon dust prior to the landing then they would have been aware that is was a radioactive hazard.  You don't have to read between the lines.  They spelled the deceit out in bold capitalized letters.
When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified?  i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions?  And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...

Also, what is the calculated risk from brief periods of inhaling dust, as in the typical stay of an Apollo mission, as opposed to long-term colonisation?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 02:01:33 PM
This log graph thing is beyond your pay grade.  You fail to read the definitions or embrace the concepts involved but it is not important because whatever number you derive from the graph is still too high to add to the VAB transit, lunar orbit and a lunar landing without exceeding .22 mgy/day.  The logarithmic graph is a distraction that you are using to avoid the issue.  Deal with the facts.  Show some backbone and integrity.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 02:03:03 PM
It is definitive proof that they never landed on the moon.  It is all a fabrication and a mental slip on their part.  They would never openly admit to inhaling radioactive moon dust voluntarily.  If they had indeed taken samples of moon dust prior to the landing then they would have been aware that is was a radioactive hazard.  You don't have to read between the lines.  They spelled the deceit out in bold capitalized letters.
When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified?  i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions?  And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...

Also, what is the calculated risk from brief periods of inhaling dust, as in the typical stay of an Apollo mission, as opposed to long-term colonisation?

I have no interest in spoon feeding you and doing your homework for you.  Google is your friend.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 02:07:03 PM
I have presented documented evidence.  Do me the same courtesy.  In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 02:07:56 PM
Do you not read these post.  I did not say it.  They did.  They told you it was so high that it raised lunar orbit radiation above background levels by 30 to 40%.  Why is that concept difficult to understand?

So why do you keep reiterating the point of the moon being radioactive? On one hand you talk about radioactive dust, the next you talk about radiation levels. There is a difference between radioactive and radiation. Understand that point, and then try to school me.

The radiation levels may be rise by 30 to 40%, this does not mean activity of the moon due to radioisotope activity is raised by 40%. The radiation levels rise due to secondary mesonic, electromagnetic and neutron radiation. No one ever challenged you on this point.
 
The moon rocks and the soil will have natural radioactivity. Just like the soil and rocks of Earth, Mars, Venus or any other rocky satellite. It's wrong for to suggest that they are prohibitively harmful. Even the CRaTER scientist have written that the levels are no more than a uranium miner or X-ray technician will receive in a year.

But eh? Go figure, some dude on the internet that cannot read a logarithmic scale has blown the whole shebang, but does not know the difference between radioactivity and radiation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 02:09:20 PM
I have presented documented evidence.  Do me the same courtesy.  In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.

You don't understand the documented evidence. That's the point. You don't understand the difference between radiation level and radioactivity. Do me, and others, the courtesy: go away and understand that simple point.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 07, 2018, 02:10:54 PM
It is definitive proof that they never landed on the moon.  It is all a fabrication and a mental slip on their part.  They would never openly admit to inhaling radioactive moon dust voluntarily.  If they had indeed taken samples of moon dust prior to the landing then they would have been aware that is was a radioactive hazard.  You don't have to read between the lines.  They spelled the deceit out in bold capitalized letters.
When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified?  i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions?  And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...

Also, what is the calculated risk from brief periods of inhaling dust, as in the typical stay of an Apollo mission, as opposed to long-term colonisation?

I have no interest in spoon feeding you and doing your homework for you.  Google is your friend.
Really?  That's such a lame excuse.  If you've really looked into this, and consider short-term exposure to regolith dust to be extremely dangerous, then you should have the information readily to hand.

I certainly can go and find the answers, although I expect it may take some time to find the required details.  The question is, would this data support or refute your claims???
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 07, 2018, 02:11:56 PM
I have presented documented evidence.  Do me the same courtesy.  In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.
Well, I'm glad I wasn't drinking my coffee when I read that!!  ;D
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 02:13:20 PM
Well, I'm glad I wasn't drinking my coffee when I read that!!  ;D

I was  :D
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 02:13:25 PM
This log graph thing is beyond your pay grade.  You fail to read the definitions or embrace the concepts involved but it is not important because whatever number you derive from the graph is still too high to add to the VAB transit, lunar orbit and a lunar landing without exceeding .22 mgy/day.  The logarithmic graph is a distraction that you are using to avoid the issue.  Deal with the facts.  Show some backbone and integrity.
Given that you have demonstrated that you don't understand log graphs AT ALL, you have no standing to make any such statement.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 02:14:08 PM
I have presented documented evidence.  Do me the same courtesy.  In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.
What is your opinion of the AP8/AE8 model?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 02:14:45 PM
Do you not read these post.  I did not say it.  They did.  They told you it was so high that it raised lunar orbit radiation above background levels by 30 to 40%.  Why is that concept difficult to understand?

So why do you keep reiterating the point of the moon being radioactive? On one hand you talk about radioactive dust, the next you talk about radiation levels. There is a difference between radioactive and radiation. Understand that point, and then try to school me.

The radiation levels may be rise by 30 to 40%, this does not mean activity of the moon due to radioisotope activity is raised by 40%. The radiation levels rise due to secondary mesonic, electromagnetic and neutron. No one every challenged you on this point.
 
The moon rocks and the soil will have natural radioactivity. Just like the soil and rocks of Earth, mars, Venus or any other rocket satellite. It's wrong for to suggest that they are prohibitively harmful. Even the CRaTER scientist have written that the levels are no more than a uranium miner or X-ray technician will receive in a year.

But eh? Go figure, some dude on the internet that cannot read a logarithmic scale has blown the whole shebang, but doe not know the difference between radioactivity and radiation.
Realizing radiation diminishes as a function of distance, it is safe to assume that the surface is indeed higher.  In the articles that I have posted and reposted several times, states that the GCR and Solar flux is producing a neutron flux that is elevating lunar orbital radiation.  They did not say it was from naturally occurring radioactive isotopes in moon rocks.  Do yourself a favor and read the definition  of a logarithmic graph.  This is truly difficult watching you make a fool of yourself.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 02:17:51 PM
I have presented documented evidence.  Do me the same courtesy.  In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.
I could do that, but any such documentation would contain lots of graphs and we have already established that you are unable to read those.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 02:18:01 PM
You guys have nothing.  Character assassination is the only tool you bring to the table.  Not one single documented rebuttal.  I would be ashamed of myself if I were in your shoes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 02:21:03 PM
You guys have nothing.  Character assassination is the only tool you bring to the table.  Not one single documented rebuttal.  I would be ashamed of myself if I were in your shoes.
Here you go.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Although it is extremely unlikely that you will understand it. It has graphs.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 02:23:17 PM
I have presented documented evidence.  Do me the same courtesy.  In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.
I could do that, but any such documentation would contain lots of graphs and we have already established that you are unable to read those.

Show me the data that proves cislunar space was less than .22 mgy/day at anytime during solar cycle 20..
Show me the data that prove lunar orbit was less than cislunar space during anytime.
Show me the data that proves there is a low radiation path through the VAB and include the expected dose rates for a lunar transit.
Show me the data that indicates ingestion of moon dust is not an immediate health hazard.
 

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 02:25:28 PM
Realizing radiation diminishes as a function of distance, it is safe to assume that the surface is indeed higher.  In the articles that I have posted and reposted several times, states that the GCR and Solar flux is producing a neutron flux that is elevating lunar orbital radiation.

Yet the same authors from the CRaTER team tell us that the levels at the surface are no more that that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technician in one year. Are you going to acknowledge this point?


Quote
They did not say it was from naturally occurring radioactive isotopes in moon rocks.

Yet you have been arguing the dust is radioactive, prohibitively so. Have you not?  You are the one that presented this argument in context of GCR producing fission products. Did you not? If you cannot understand the distinction between radiation and radioactivity, don't lambaste others after the event.

Quote
Do yourself a favor and read the definition of a logarithmic graph.  This is truly difficult watching you make a fool of yourself.

And despite this, you've even computed the median data yourself, and found that the value fell below your threshold that you misread from the graph. I don't think you have a right to call anyone a fool seaman Tim.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 02:28:49 PM
I have presented documented evidence.  Do me the same courtesy.  In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.
I could do that, but any such documentation would contain lots of graphs and we have already established that you are unable to read those.

Show me the data that proves cislunar space was less than .22 mgy/day at anytime during solar cycle 20..
You posted that data yourself, you simply couldn't read it correctly.
Show me the data that prove lunar orbit was less than cislunar space during anytime.
Irrelevant.
Show me the data that proves there is a low radiation path through the VAB and include the expected dose rates for a lunar transit.
Done, but you are incapable of understanding it.
Show me the data that indicates ingestion of moon dust is not an immediate health hazard.
Wow. There is such a thing as a stupid question. Your claim is that lunar regolith is sufficiently toxic so as to cause instant death. We know that is a load of rot.
 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 02:29:51 PM
Here you go.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm


... and there was I trying to get past the point radiation versus radioactivity, and you throw this into the mix. Thanks  ;)


Quote
Although it is extremely unlikely that you will understand it. It has graphs.

That's blown it. We're going to spend the next 2000000 posts explaining the graphs to him now.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 02:30:59 PM
You guys have nothing.  Character assassination is the only tool you bring to the table.  Not one single documented rebuttal.  I would be ashamed of myself if I were in your shoes.
Here you go.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Although it is extremely unlikely that you will understand it. It has graphs.

This is government produced propaganda that I have read thoroughly.  Consider this statement from your referenced material   ****If SPAN detected that a large solar flare was imminent, there was a few hours' advance notice of the particle flux. This was adequate time for the astronauts on the Moon to get back to the LM, take off, rendezvous with the CSM, and take cover as best they could. While in lunar orbit, the Moon would protect the astronauts for half of each orbit. At other times the spacecraft would be turned so the bulk of the service module was between the astronauts and the incoming particles. The astronauts had a handheld Geiger counter so they could find the safest spot in the command module cabin should they have to ride out a solar flare.****  Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 02:34:05 PM
You guys have nothing.  Character assassination is the only tool you bring to the table.  Not one single documented rebuttal.  I would be ashamed of myself if I were in your shoes.
Here you go.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Although it is extremely unlikely that you will understand it. It has graphs.

This is government produced propaganda that I have read thoroughly.  Consider this statement from your referenced material   ****If SPAN detected that a large solar flare was imminent, there was a few hours' advance notice of the particle flux. This was adequate time for the astronauts on the Moon to get back to the LM, take off, rendezvous with the CSM, and take cover as best they could. While in lunar orbit, the Moon would protect the astronauts for half of each orbit. At other times the spacecraft would be turned so the bulk of the service module was between the astronauts and the incoming particles. The astronauts had a handheld Geiger counter so they could find the safest spot in the command module cabin should they have to ride out a solar flare.****  Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth.
The light perhaps, but how long does it take for the particles to arrive? I know and you clearly do not.

ETA: And besides, there were no significant flares on any Apollo mission so your objection is moot.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 07, 2018, 02:35:58 PM
You guys have nothing.  Character assassination is the only tool you bring to the table.  Not one single documented rebuttal.  I would be ashamed of myself if I were in your shoes.
I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but I think you are wrong on all points.  The major contributors to this thread have provided extensive information and corroborating data to refute your claims.

There has been very little in the way of attacks on your character (as opposed to pointing out your lack of expertise, which is not "character assassination"!) while you have indulged in numerous ad-hom attacks on people.

Like many people here, I have strengths and weaknesses, and the reason I'm not getting into discussions about radiation levels, dose rates or the like is because I am not an expert.  However, I'm willing to acknowledge that fact, and more than willing to learn.  I can't obviously convince you that you're wrong, but it might be worth you actually considering that possibility, and taking the opportunity to learn from some of the people here who are experts in these areas.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 02:37:55 PM
What is this but a damn lie?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 02:38:09 PM
This is government produced propaganda that I have read thoroughly.  Consider this statement from your referenced material   ****If SPAN detected that a large solar flare was imminent, there was a few hours' advance notice of the particle flux. This was adequate time for the astronauts on the Moon to get back to the LM, take off, rendezvous with the CSM, and take cover as best they could. While in lunar orbit, the Moon would protect the astronauts for half of each orbit. At other times the spacecraft would be turned so the bulk of the service module was between the astronauts and the incoming particles. The astronauts had a handheld Geiger counter so they could find the safest spot in the command module cabin should they have to ride out a solar flare.****  Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth.

The point being the word imminent. There are warning signs of shock generated SPEs. There is lead prior to the main flux being detected - a little similar to minor tremors prior to volcanic eruptions. So yes, you could take evasive action before the main flux of protons arrives. Have you ever studied the proton flux during a solar storm? There are also other indicators prior to the SPE. Do you know what they are?

Despite this, there were no recorded SPEs during the Apollo missions. There was a major SPE between missions. I guess the NASA guys were pretty good with their risk analysis.

You're an expert on plasma physics now then?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 02:38:28 PM
What is this but a damn lie?

Why is it a lie?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 02:42:09 PM
You guys have nothing.  Character assassination is the only tool you bring to the table.  Not one single documented rebuttal.  I would be ashamed of myself if I were in your shoes.
I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but I think you are wrong on all points.  The major contributors to this thread have provided extensive information and corroborating data to refute your claims.

There has been very little in the way of attacks on your character (as opposed to pointing out your lack of expertise, which is not "character assassination"!) while you have indulged in numerous ad-hom attacks on people.

Like many people here, I have strengths and weaknesses, and the reason I'm not getting into discussions about radiation levels, dose rates or the like is because I am not an expert.  However, I'm willing to acknowledge that fact, and more than willing to learn.  I can't obviously convince you that you're wrong, but it might be worth you actually considering that possibility, and taking the opportunity to learn from some of the people here who are experts in these areas.

I could and would learn if their arguments had substance.  They spend their time distracting and deflecting rather than engaging.  They have nothing more than rhetoric and in their heart they can see the truth if they can read the written word.  Remember I did not write these articles.  I simply posted them.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 07, 2018, 02:42:27 PM
What is this but a damn lie?
Ummm, why do you think that?

Looking at the launch, orbit and TLI trajectory in three dimensions shows a straightforward path which avoids the most dangerous parts of the VAB.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 02:42:35 PM
What is this but a damn lie?
3D spatial reasoning. You simply cannot figure it out, can you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 02:44:49 PM
What is this but a damn lie?

Why is it a lie?

The deception is obvious.  The Braeunig graph implies the path skirted the radiation area when in fact the path was <10^6 radiation for the entirety of the transit (or thereabouts)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 02:45:44 PM
What is this but a damn lie?
3D spatial reasoning. You simply cannot figure it out, can you?

So the two graphs are different? and one shows a 3D rendering?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 02:53:26 PM
What is this but a damn lie?
3D spatial reasoning. You simply cannot figure it out, can you?

So the two graphs are different? and one shows a 3D rendering?
Nope. I mean you are unable to figure out a three dimensional trajectory represented in a two dimensional illustration.
 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 02:55:03 PM
Realizing radiation diminishes as a function of distance, it is safe to assume that the surface is indeed higher.  In the articles that I have posted and reposted several times, states that the GCR and Solar flux is producing a neutron flux that is elevating lunar orbital radiation.

Yet the same authors from the CRaTER team tell us that the levels at the surface are no more that that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technician in one year. Are you going to acknowledge this point?


Quote
They did not say it was from naturally occurring radioactive isotopes in moon rocks.

Yet you have been arguing the dust is radioactive, prohibitively so. Have you not?  You are the one that presented this argument in context of GCR producing fission products. Did you not? If you cannot understand the distinction between radiation and radioactivity, don't lambaste others after the event.

Quote
Do yourself a favor and read the definition of a logarithmic graph.  This is truly difficult watching you make a fool of yourself.

And despite this, you've even computed the median data yourself, and found that the value fell below your threshold that you misread from the graph. I don't think you have a right to call anyone a fool seaman Tim.

Were you not the one that said Solar Cycle data was not applicable and was to be disregarded.  Why is it such a point of contention?  Why do you continue to use this distraction?  I have told you repeatedly that any value you get is to high to justify a .22 mgy/day exposure.  If cislunar space were zero, the transit through the vab and lunar orbit and lunar landing would have caused it to exceed .22 mgy/day.  Don't you see that?  Do the math.  I brought this point up to demonstrate that cislunar space is the lowest radiation area a lunar transit experiences and if you remained in LEO you would get as high a dose rate as demonstrated by the leo missions of the Space Shuttle and Apollo.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 02:55:21 PM
I simply posted them.

No truer word said. You simply posted them, but have complete disregard, understanding or context for their content. You clearly don't understand the difference between radiation level, radioactivity and secondary radiation. You misread a graph which was the basis of your argument. Your argument was refuted very quickly based on your error. You've brought data to the table based on a less active cycle, yet fail to understand how you are making a fallacy or equivalence. You have cited average data, data that was taken prior to the missions, data from ground based monitors, and have had it carefully explained why you cannot use averages. The most laughable aspect of this whole thread, is the data you first brought to the table should illustrate this point to you when you presented your analysis earlier today.

The fact you are stubborn, inept at analysis, cannot interpret graphs and do not understand the source materiel you cut and paste, is your responsibility. It is for you to carry out your homework diligently. You fell short of that mark when pressed by people that have expertise.

Your moan that we refute your argument without presenting data ourselves. That is not how science works. We are examining your case based on the scrutiny of your hypothesis and expertise. We can only make judgement based on the data you present and the way you present your understanding of the relevant science and engineering. That is the scientific process. You have presented an hypothesis, and we reject is based on your arguments. You cannot lay the burden of proof on others if your argument does not hold water.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 02:57:59 PM
TLI for the hard of thinking.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 02:58:18 PM
I simply posted them.

No truer word said. You simply posted them, but have complete disregard, understanding or context for their content. You clearly don't understand the difference between radiation level, radioactivity and secondary radiation. You misread a graph which was the basis of your argument. Your argument was refuted very quickly based on your error. You've brought data to the table based on a less active cycle, yet fail to understand how you are making a fallacy or equivalence. You have cited average data, data that was taken prior to the missions, data from ground based monitors, and have had it carefully explained why you cannot use averages. The most laughable aspect of this whole thread, is the data you first brought to the table should illustrate this point to you when you presented your analysis earlier today.

The fact you are stubborn, inept at analysis, cannot interpret graphs and do not understand the source materiel you cut and paste, is your responsibility. It is for you to carry out your homework diligently. You fell short of that mark when pressed by people that have expertise.

Your moan that we refute your argument without presenting data ourselves. That is not how it science works. We are examining your case based on the scrutiny of your hypothesis and expertise. We can only make judgement based on the data you present and the way you present your understanding of the relevant science and engineering. That is the scientific process. You have presented an hypothesis, and we reject is based on your arguments. You cannot lay the burden of proof on others if your argument does not hold water.

You sir, are dishonest, disingenuous and an intellectual coward.  I am done with you and will no longer respond to your comments.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 03:03:38 PM
Were you not the one that said Solar Cycle data was not applicable and was to be disregarded.  Why is it such a point of contention?

No. I said you cannot extrapolate data from one solar cycle to another, I did not say you can disregard the solar cycle data. The second bolding doesn't even make sense. It's a point of contention as it's a fallacy of equivalence.

The solar cycle modulates the GCR flux. The greater the solar activity the less the GCR flux in the inner solar system. So, the data from cycle 20 (Apollo missions) is likely to be lower than you CRaTER data as that cycle was more active than the current cycle (24). Hence your CRaTER data may be even lower. Several people have addressed this with you a multitude of times.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 03:06:56 PM
You sir, are dishonest, disingenuous and an intellectual coward.  I am done with you and will no longer respond to your comments.

I thank you for partaking. I've managed to get to Uranus with this thread. I never thought I'd say those words in public.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 03:17:04 PM
You sir, are dishonest, disingenuous and an intellectual coward.  I am done with you and will no longer respond to your comments.

I thank you for partaking. I've managed to get to Uranus with this thread. I never thought I'd say those words in public.
He is getting so badly spanked I almost feel sorry for him. Almost.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 03:22:15 PM
He is getting so badly spanked I almost feel sorry for him. Almost.

Just as you think that he understands a point one makes, he goes back on it. He did say that the moon is made radioactive by the GCR flux, he did didn't he? Yet in his last few posts he seemed to dismiss this notion and even made reference to the authors 'didn't say that moon was made radioactive.' Yet two day ago he was talking about nuclear fission. Somehow, he managed to go back and turn it on me as though I was building a strawman.

Then there was the comment that I said we can dismiss the solar cycle data. That doesn't even make sense. I, and several others, said you can't use data taken in solar cycle 24 in an attempt to prove something did not happen almost 50 years ago. Was that point made clear to you and others? I need to check my sanity at this point.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 07, 2018, 03:31:39 PM
You sir, are dishonest, disingenuous and an intellectual coward.  I am done with you and will no longer respond to your comments.

I thank you for partaking. I've managed to get to Uranus with this thread. I never thought I'd say those words in public.

ROTFLMAO :o
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 07, 2018, 03:51:01 PM
You guys are being disingenuous.  You have provided not a single fact or data to support your position that cislunar background radiation was low enough to justify Apollo 11's .22 mgy/day exposure level.  You insist they they found a low radiation path through the VAB but cannot provide any data to reflect such a path exist.  You refuse to accept the verifiable data that proves the surface of the moon is more radioactive than cislunar space and that lunar orbit is more radioactive than cislunar space.  You have all the evidence you need to arrive at a logical conclusion yet you distract yourself with the definition of log graphs and my technical competence.  I expected better from you and I am sorely disappointed.  I am embarrassed for you.

Ahem.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 03:58:51 PM
You guys are being disingenuous.  You have provided not a single fact or data to support your position that cislunar background radiation was low enough to justify Apollo 11's .22 mgy/day exposure level.  You insist they they found a low radiation path through the VAB but cannot provide any data to reflect such a path exist.  You refuse to accept the verifiable data that proves the surface of the moon is more radioactive than cislunar space and that lunar orbit is more radioactive than cislunar space.  You have all the evidence you need to arrive at a logical conclusion yet you distract yourself with the definition of log graphs and my technical competence.  I expected better from you and I am sorely disappointed.  I am embarrassed for you.

Ahem.

It has been pointed out that is data is not applicable to the apollo missions but I am willing to use it as the basis of my assertion if you are willing to accept the consequences.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 04:03:34 PM
I know Tim is shunning me now, but this is for the rest for the forum:

You refuse to accept the verifiable data that proves the surface of the moon is more radioactive than cislunar space and that lunar orbit is more radioactive than cislunar space.

This highlights my point about radioactivity. Tim mixes up ionising radiation with radioactivity. Tim has taken the crater data that describes radiation levels raised by 30-40% in orbit, and has managed to falsely interpret this as increased 'radioactivity' of lunar soils. Of course, the other fallacious aspect is the 'radioactivity' of the moon is prohibitive to operating safely on the lunar surface. The CRaTER scientists have stated that the hazard from secondary radiation is no more than an X-ray technician will receive in a year.

You have all the evidence you need to arrive at a logical conclusion yet you distract yourself with the definition of log graphs and my technical competence.

Rightly so. As Tim is mixing the concepts of radioactivity and radiation, he has no technical competence in this domain. It the lack of competence that ensures his argument does not meet scrutiny.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 04:08:01 PM
It has been pointed out that is data is not applicable to the apollo missions

Good, you accept that point.

Quote
but I am willing to use it as the basis of my assertion

...but your assertion was the levels cannot fall below 0.22 mGr/day, and they clearly do. Your assertion no longer has a basis. The data shows this clearly.


Quote
if you are willing to accept the consequences.

What consequences?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 07, 2018, 04:25:39 PM
Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,

The EM part yes, but the particle shower that is the real hazard, by definition, cannot travel at the speed of light. Why do you insist on ignoring this basic rule of physics?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 07, 2018, 04:29:31 PM
Show me the data that proves cislunar space was less than .22 mgy/day at anytime during solar cycle 20.

Tim, for heaven's sake, by definition it must have been. Your whole point was based on a paper that claimed the average radiaiton level in cislunar space was 0.22mGy/day. By definition that means at some period during the time over which those data were collected (which happened to be the time of the Apollo missions) it must have been either above or below that level.

Quote
Show me the data that proves there is a low radiation path through the VAB and include the expected dose rates for a lunar transit.

You have been shown, sveral times, a few examples of the path through the bet that skimmed the edges rather than going right through them. It's a 3D problem but you insist on treating the belts as some unavoidable problem.

Quote
Show me the data that indicates ingestion of moon dust is not an immediate health hazard.

No, that's not how it works. You brought it up, you provide the data that says it was an immediate hazard. Not a long term exposure hazard, and immediate one.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 07, 2018, 04:32:28 PM
http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.html
I asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.

What is YOUR answer?
That is NOT an answer. I didn't ask you to post other random graphs, I asked you about the one I posted.

What is YOUR answer?



Tim, why are you entirely unable to grasp the point of this log scale business?

Where is your example of the 'exponential' scale you claim was used? The one that goes up like a log scale but with the numbers between the powers of ten equidistant? The one where the distance between 10 and 20 is the same as the distance between 300 and 400, or 8000 and 9000, or 0.005 and 0.006? That is what you were insisting the CraTer graph was, after all.

Or, prove that the CraTer graph is not a log scale. Show us exactly what makes you conclude that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 07, 2018, 04:51:15 PM
I thought it was obvious but let me spell it out for you.  The lunar lander had no means of decontamination of the astronauts reentering the lander.  It would not have been possible for them not to have inhaled lunar dust and been exposed to the alpha laden particles therein.  They would have known of the dangers and would never expose the astronauts to such a risk if they had indeed landed on the moon.

"Alpha laden particles"? You don't know anything about the basic nature of alpha particles, do you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 04:55:22 PM
(http://)
http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.html
I asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.

What is YOUR answer?
That is NOT an answer. I didn't ask you to post other random graphs, I asked you about the one I posted.

What is YOUR answer?



Tim, why are you entirely unable to grasp the point of this log scale business?

Where is your example of the 'exponential' scale you claim was used? The one that goes up like a log scale but with the numbers between the powers of ten equidistant? The one where the distance between 10 and 20 is the same as the distance between 300 and 400, or 8000 and 9000, or 0.005 and 0.006? That is what you were insisting the CraTer graph was, after all.

Or, prove that the CraTer graph is not a log scale. Show us exactly what makes you conclude that.
Ah. See attached. Timfinch posted a graph as an example of a log graph. I reposted the exact same graph with the minor divisions removed. Timfinch was bamboozled by that. He clearly has no clue what he is talking about.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 04:56:30 PM
I thought it was obvious but let me spell it out for you.  The lunar lander had no means of decontamination of the astronauts reentering the lander.  It would not have been possible for them not to have inhaled lunar dust and been exposed to the alpha laden particles therein.  They would have known of the dangers and would never expose the astronauts to such a risk if they had indeed landed on the moon.

"Alpha laden particles"? You don't know anything about the basic nature of alpha particles, do you?
BWAHAHAHAHA. WTF?

ETA: Seriously, i missed that clanger. I am still laughing.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 05:15:40 PM
"Alpha laden particles"? You don't know anything about the basic nature of alpha particles, do you?

I saw it, but by that point I couldn't be bothered. Thanks for bringing it up. I was trying to imagine a particle that was carrying alpha particles. That's the only mental image I could picture in my head.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 05:19:28 PM
Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,

The EM part yes, but the particle shower that is the real hazard, by definition, cannot travel at the speed of light. Why do you insist on ignoring this basic rule of physics?

There are many kinds of eruptions on the sun. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections both involve gigantic explosions of energy, but are otherwise quite different. The two phenomena do sometimes occur at the same time – indeed the strongest flares are almost always correlated with coronal mass ejections – but they emit different things, they look and travel differently, and they have different effects near planets.

Both eruptions are created when the motion of the sun’s interior contorts its own magnetic fields. Like the sudden release of a twisted rubber band, the magnetic fields explosively realign, driving vast amounts of energy into space. This phenomenon can create a sudden flash of light -- a solar flare. Flares can last minutes to hours and they contain tremendous amounts of energy. Traveling at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth. Some of the energy released in the flare also accelerates very high energy particles that can reach Earth in tens of minutes.

The magnetic contortions can also create a different kind of explosion that hurls solar matter into space. These are the coronal mass ejections, also known as CMEs. One can think of the explosions using the physics of a cannon. The flare is like the muzzle flash, which can be seen anywhere in the vicinity. The CME is like the cannonball, propelled forward in a single, preferential direction, this mass ejected from the barrel only affecting a targeted area. This is the CME—an immense cloud of magnetized particles hurled into space. Traveling over a million miles per hour, the hot material called plasma takes up to three days to reach Earth. The differences between the two types of explosions can be seen through solar telescopes, with flares appearing as a bright light and CMEs appearing as enormous fans of gas swelling into space.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 05:21:20 PM
(http://)
http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.html
I asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.

What is YOUR answer?
That is NOT an answer. I didn't ask you to post other random graphs, I asked you about the one I posted.

What is YOUR answer?



Tim, why are you entirely unable to grasp the point of this log scale business?

Where is your example of the 'exponential' scale you claim was used? The one that goes up like a log scale but with the numbers between the powers of ten equidistant? The one where the distance between 10 and 20 is the same as the distance between 300 and 400, or 8000 and 9000, or 0.005 and 0.006? That is what you were insisting the CraTer graph was, after all.

Or, prove that the CraTer graph is not a log scale. Show us exactly what makes you conclude that.
Ah. See attached. Timfinch posted a graph as an example of a log graph. I reposted the exact same graph with the minor divisions removed. Timfinch was bamboozled by that. He clearly has no clue what he is talking about.

Try reading this out loud, slowly.  You can do it, I know you can.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 05:23:51 PM
Traveling over a million miles per hour, the hot material called plasma takes up to three days to reach Earth. The differences between the two types of explosions can be seen through solar telescopes, with flares appearing as a bright light and CMEs appearing as enormous fans of gas swelling into space.

In which time the EM component of the CME has reached the Earth, because that has travelled at the speed of light. This EM component provides the warning. The plasma component that takes 3 days is the dangerous plasma proton flux. This give the astronauts 3 days - 8 and a it minutes to take evasive action.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 05:24:58 PM
KREEP
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.

The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.

KREEP is concentrated in the Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) and Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains) with a major concentration south of Crater Copernicus. This region covers about 40% of the Earth-facing side of the Moon. Based on the small number of lunar samples returned, low KREEP regions measure 8% or less of the radioactive elements in their dust compared to the high KREEP regions. With current technology, the entire high KREEP region is not acceptable for any long-term human settlement or manned mining operation.

The high KREEP region contains many sites of interest to science, particularly those of volcanic origin. Even short scientific expeditions there will require special procedures to prevent ingestion of dust and the removal of dust from all returning equipment.

Radon Gas
Another source of dangerous radiation is the radon gas that is created in the decay of trace amounts of uranium found naturally in lunar rocks. This gas is very heavy and concentrates in low areas. This type of radiation is easily stopped by even a thin layer of material, but radon is carcinogenic if ingested directly into the body.

Even though sensitive scientific equipment has been able to detect radon on Luna, the quantity of radon gas is such that it can be ignored. The lunar atmosphere is so thin that the most massive component, Argon, is present in only 30,000 particles per cubic centimeter, that is 2 trillionths of a gram per cubic meter. Radon is so scarce that it is not even mentioned in the list of components in the lunar atmosphere article. See the Moon Fact Sheet from NASA.

Radon has also been detected from lunar outgassing events.

http://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Radiation_Problem
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 07, 2018, 05:25:49 PM
Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,

The EM part yes, but the particle shower that is the real hazard, by definition, cannot travel at the speed of light. Why do you insist on ignoring this basic rule of physics?

There are many kinds of eruptions on the sun. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections both involve gigantic explosions of energy, but are otherwise quite different. The two phenomena do sometimes occur at the same time – indeed the strongest flares are almost always correlated with coronal mass ejections – but they emit different things, they look and travel differently, and they have different effects near planets.

Both eruptions are created when the motion of the sun’s interior contorts its own magnetic fields. Like the sudden release of a twisted rubber band, the magnetic fields explosively realign, driving vast amounts of energy into space. This phenomenon can create a sudden flash of light -- a solar flare. Flares can last minutes to hours and they contain tremendous amounts of energy. Traveling at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth. Some of the energy released in the flare also accelerates very high energy particles that can reach Earth in tens of minutes.

The magnetic contortions can also create a different kind of explosion that hurls solar matter into space. These are the coronal mass ejections, also known as CMEs. One can think of the explosions using the physics of a cannon. The flare is like the muzzle flash, which can be seen anywhere in the vicinity. The CME is like the cannonball, propelled forward in a single, preferential direction, this mass ejected from the barrel only affecting a targeted area. This is the CME—an immense cloud of magnetized particles hurled into space. Traveling over a million miles per hour, the hot material called plasma takes up to three days to reach Earth. The differences between the two types of explosions can be seen through solar telescopes, with flares appearing as a bright light and CMEs appearing as enormous fans of gas swelling into space.

You need to post your sources

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/the-difference-between-flares-and-cmes

and read them.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 05:28:16 PM
With current technology, the entire high KREEP region is not acceptable for any long-term human settlement or manned mining operation.

Apollo missions were short term. This article is about long term missions to the moon.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 05:29:39 PM
Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,

The EM part yes, but the particle shower that is the real hazard, by definition, cannot travel at the speed of light. Why do you insist on ignoring this basic rule of physics?

There are many kinds of eruptions on the sun. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections both involve gigantic explosions of energy, but are otherwise quite different. The two phenomena do sometimes occur at the same time – indeed the strongest flares are almost always correlated with coronal mass ejections – but they emit different things, they look and travel differently, and they have different effects near planets.

Both eruptions are created when the motion of the sun’s interior contorts its own magnetic fields. Like the sudden release of a twisted rubber band, the magnetic fields explosively realign, driving vast amounts of energy into space. This phenomenon can create a sudden flash of light -- a solar flare. Flares can last minutes to hours and they contain tremendous amounts of energy. Traveling at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth. Some of the energy released in the flare also accelerates very high energy particles that can reach Earth in tens of minutes.

The magnetic contortions can also create a different kind of explosion that hurls solar matter into space. These are the coronal mass ejections, also known as CMEs. One can think of the explosions using the physics of a cannon. The flare is like the muzzle flash, which can be seen anywhere in the vicinity. The CME is like the cannonball, propelled forward in a single, preferential direction, this mass ejected from the barrel only affecting a targeted area. This is the CME—an immense cloud of magnetized particles hurled into space. Traveling over a million miles per hour, the hot material called plasma takes up to three days to reach Earth. The differences between the two types of explosions can be seen through solar telescopes, with flares appearing as a bright light and CMEs appearing as enormous fans of gas swelling into space.

You need to post your sources

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/the-difference-between-flares-and-cmes

and read them.

I am confused.  Are you implying the solar flares are harmless and it is the CME's that pose the greatest danger to astronauts?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 07, 2018, 05:32:32 PM
What is this but a damn lie?

Why is it a lie?

The deception is obvious.  The Braeunig graph implies the path skirted the radiation area when in fact the path was <10^6 radiation for the entirety of the transit (or thereabouts)

Actually, the only deception comes from you.  The graph was presented as a general illustration to convey the mission's flight path as it circumvented the most intense portions of the VABs.  Because you found a graph that contains more detail than the one provided has nothing to do with the actual information used for computation.  You claim to have read the article thoroughly, yet seem to have missed, disregarded or completely whiffed at the understanding of this snippet prior to the table and graphs:

"There is no need to show all the data in this article. An abridged version is shown below, which includes electron fluxes for the first 30 minutes of flight following translunar injection (TLI). This is enough data to allow demonstration of the procedures used in this analysis. The actual analysis used matrices that contained a total of over 8,000 flux values."

P.S.  He also has a link earlier that allows you to gather all the data he used.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 05:33:59 PM
I am confused.  Are you implying the solar flares are harmless and it is the CME's that pose the greatest danger to astronauts?

No, but there is a difference between flares and CMEs that is worth noting.

Only those CMEs that have speeds above a certain threshold are considered hazardous, as they produce shock driven plasma by separation of electrons and protons. This causes an SPE. Then it's mainly the halo-CMEs that are the impinge on the Earth with an SPE. These CMEs face directly towards the Earth, for the want of a better description.

Solar flares are like gunshots from the Sun. They are highly directional, so particle components very rarely enter the moon-Earth system owning to their position on the Sun and the magnetic field of the Sun.

Historically, flares and SPE events were referred to equally in the literature. More has been learned about the Sun. Solar flares and CMEs are different.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 05:38:28 PM
What is this but a damn lie?

Why is it a lie?

The deception is obvious.  The Braeunig graph implies the path skirted the radiation area when in fact the path was <10^6 radiation for the entirety of the transit (or thereabouts)

Actually, the only deception comes from you.  The graph was presented as a general illustration to convey the mission's flight path as it circumvented the most intense portions of the VABs.  Because you found a graph that contains more detail than the one provided has nothing to do with the actual information used for computation.  You claim to have read the article thoroughly, yet seem to have missed, disregarded or completely whiffed at the understanding of this snippet prior to the table and graphs:

"There is no need to show all the data in this article. An abridged version is shown below, which includes electron fluxes for the first 30 minutes of flight following translunar injection (TLI). This is enough data to allow demonstration of the procedures used in this analysis. The actual analysis used matrices that contained a total of over 8,000 flux values."

P.S.  He also has a link earlier that allows you to gather all the data he used.

So you can provide the mission dose of a lunar transit through the VAB that can be used as the basis of a claim that a low radiation path was traveled?  I would love to see that calculation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 05:40:34 PM
So you can provide the mission dose of a lunar transit through the VAB that can be used as the basis of a claim that a low radiation path was traveled?  I would love to see that calculation.

So you could dismiss it out of hand and argue about log scales?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 07, 2018, 05:44:52 PM
What is this but a damn lie?

Why is it a lie?

The deception is obvious.  The Braeunig graph implies the path skirted the radiation area when in fact the path was <10^6 radiation for the entirety of the transit (or thereabouts)

Actually, the only deception comes from you.  The graph was presented as a general illustration to convey the mission's flight path as it circumvented the most intense portions of the VABs.  Because you found a graph that contains more detail than the one provided has nothing to do with the actual information used for computation.  You claim to have read the article thoroughly, yet seem to have missed, disregarded or completely whiffed at the understanding of this snippet prior to the table and graphs:

"There is no need to show all the data in this article. An abridged version is shown below, which includes electron fluxes for the first 30 minutes of flight following translunar injection (TLI). This is enough data to allow demonstration of the procedures used in this analysis. The actual analysis used matrices that contained a total of over 8,000 flux values."

P.S.  He also has a link earlier that allows you to gather all the data he used.

So you can provide the mission dose of a lunar transit through the VAB that can be used as the basis of a claim that a low radiation path was traveled?  I would love to see that calculation.

It was provided in the Braeunig article.  Total dose from the VABs were computed to be <1/10th of the total mission dose received.  It helps if you can understand part of his article considered unshielded astronauts (outside any spacecraft with no suit) and then the SHIELDED dose due to the known composition of the spacecraft (with acknowledgement that many other components would only increase the shielding dependent on a variety of factors).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 05:45:16 PM
Several factors make accurate prediction of SPEs difficult. First, solar flares occur without much warning. The magnitude and intensity of a flare are difficult to determine until the event is in progress. The directional emission of particles from the sun further complicates predictions. Since SPEs are relatively directional, SPEs sensed by a terrestrial network may not threaten a Martian transit mission, and conversely, a flare injection of energetic solar particles that threatens a Martian transit mission may not produce particles at Earth.
SPEs pose the greatest threat to unprotected crews in polar, geostationary or interplanetary orbits. To date, the greatest threat to significant exposures to astronauts existed during the Apollo Program. Figure 10. illustrates the variation in timing and magnitude of SPEs that occurred during the course of the Apollo Program. The calculated dose for crewmembers within the command module, within the lunar module or in a space suit performing EVA is represented for each flare. As can be seen in the figure, it is only fortuitous that no significant SPEs occurred during the lunar missions.
Fortunately, most SPEs are relatively short-lived (less than 1-2 days), which allows for relatively small volume "storm shelters" to be feasible. To minimize exposure, the crew would be restricted to the storm shelter during the most intense portion of the SPE, which may last for several hours. Storm shelters with shielding of approximately with 20 g/cm2 or more of water equivalent material will provide sufficient shielding to protect the crew.

https://srag.jsc.nasa.gov/Publications/TM104782/techmemo.htm
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 05:47:58 PM
It was provided in the Braeunig article.  Total dose from the VABs were computed to be <1/10th of the total mission dose received.  It helps if you can understand part of his article considered unshielded astronauts (outside any spacecraft with no suit) and then the SHIELDED dose due to the known composition of the spacecraft (with acknowledgement that many other components would only increase the shielding dependent on a variety of factors).

Someone posted a link to that from the wayback site recently. That link is no longer working me. I cannot find the link in the thread. Do you, or anybody else, have the link?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 07, 2018, 05:48:59 PM
You guys are being disingenuous.  You have provided not a single fact or data to support your position that cislunar background radiation was low enough to justify Apollo 11's .22 mgy/day exposure level.  You insist they they found a low radiation path through the VAB but cannot provide any data to reflect such a path exist.  You refuse to accept the verifiable data that proves the surface of the moon is more radioactive than cislunar space and that lunar orbit is more radioactive than cislunar space.  You have all the evidence you need to arrive at a logical conclusion yet you distract yourself with the definition of log graphs and my technical competence.  I expected better from you and I am sorely disappointed.  I am embarrassed for you.

Ahem.

It has been pointed out that is data is not applicable to the apollo missions but I am willing to use it as the basis of my assertion if you are willing to accept the consequences.

And, just to make sure we are on the same page, your assertion is that the CRaTER data show that the cislunar radiation environment never gets below .22 mGy/day, correct? 

Yet, when I take the average dose across all 6 detectors, and plot those readings against a .22 mGy/day reference, we can find large spans of time where the readings fall below that .22 mGy/day threshold (pretty much all of 2013, for example).  I make that pretty explicit in the chart.

You don't like the non-linear y-axis, here's the same data plotted linearly (max capped at .5 mGy/day):

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 07, 2018, 05:49:21 PM
https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 05:51:24 PM
https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Thanks. That should keep Tim happy chewing through the calculations he would like to see.

Over to you Tim. Any comment on the calculations?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 07, 2018, 05:52:58 PM
https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Thanks. That should keep Tim happy chewing through the calculations he would like to see.

The sad part is Timmy is the one who just brought that site into the fray.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 05:56:01 PM
What is this but a damn lie?

Why is it a lie?

The deception is obvious.  The Braeunig graph implies the path skirted the radiation area when in fact the path was <10^6 radiation for the entirety of the transit (or thereabouts)

Actually, the only deception comes from you.  The graph was presented as a general illustration to convey the mission's flight path as it circumvented the most intense portions of the VABs.  Because you found a graph that contains more detail than the one provided has nothing to do with the actual information used for computation.  You claim to have read the article thoroughly, yet seem to have missed, disregarded or completely whiffed at the understanding of this snippet prior to the table and graphs:

"There is no need to show all the data in this article. An abridged version is shown below, which includes electron fluxes for the first 30 minutes of flight following translunar injection (TLI). This is enough data to allow demonstration of the procedures used in this analysis. The actual analysis used matrices that contained a total of over 8,000 flux values."

P.S.  He also has a link earlier that allows you to gather all the data he used.

So you can provide the mission dose of a lunar transit through the VAB that can be used as the basis of a claim that a low radiation path was traveled?  I would love to see that calculation.

It was provided in the Braeunig article.  Total dose from the VABs were computed to be <1/10th of the total mission dose received.  It helps if you can understand part of his article considered unshielded astronauts (outside any spacecraft with no suit) and then the SHIELDED dose due to the known composition of the spacecraft (with acknowledgement that many other components would only increase the shielding dependent on a variety of factors).

Let's work with 1/10th mission dosage.  We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.  Now 1/10 of .22 mgy/day is .022.  Now if we add 1.35 times .24 we get .324 mgy/day while in lunar orbit assuming they spent two days in lunar orbit or on the surface of the moon you can see the total mission dosage comes up short, don't you think?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 05:57:07 PM
https://srag.jsc.nasa.gov/Publications/TM104782/techmemo.htm

Thanks. I've even saved that to may favourites as it has a lovely diagram of SPE events which neatly shows there were no SPE events during a single Apollo mission. So we can ignore SPEs in the discussion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 06:00:46 PM
You guys are being disingenuous.  You have provided not a single fact or data to support your position that cislunar background radiation was low enough to justify Apollo 11's .22 mgy/day exposure level.  You insist they they found a low radiation path through the VAB but cannot provide any data to reflect such a path exist.  You refuse to accept the verifiable data that proves the surface of the moon is more radioactive than cislunar space and that lunar orbit is more radioactive than cislunar space.  You have all the evidence you need to arrive at a logical conclusion yet you distract yourself with the definition of log graphs and my technical competence.  I expected better from you and I am sorely disappointed.  I am embarrassed for you.

Ahem.

It has been pointed out that is data is not applicable to the apollo missions but I am willing to use it as the basis of my assertion if you are willing to accept the consequences.

And, just to make sure we are on the same page, your assertion is that the CRaTER data show that the cislunar radiation environment never gets below .22 mGy/day, correct? 

Yet, when I take the average dose across all 6 detectors, and plot those readings against a .22 mGy/day reference, we can find large spans of time where the readings fall below that .22 mGy/day threshold (pretty much all of 2013, for example).  I make that pretty explicit in the chart.

You don't like the non-linear y-axis, here's the same data plotted linearly (max capped at .5 mGy/day):

I have got to ask the question.  Does it make sense that averaging in the SPE induced spikes would result in an average below .22 mgy/day?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 07, 2018, 06:04:39 PM
Let's work with 1/10th mission dosage.  We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.  Now 1/10 of .22 mgy/day is .022.  Now if we add 1.35 times .24 we get .324 mgy/day while in lunar orbit assuming they spent two days in lunar orbit or on the surface of the moon you can see the total mission dosage comes up short, don't you think?

No, let's work with the actual data.  Your values for their exposures have been shown to be inconsistent with the data you did use, and irrelevant as they were from either average doses over a long time span, or taken from measurements of less intense solar cycle.  Try again. 

The actual data from Apollo is taken from their dosimeters.  Their dosimeters (as long as they functioned properly, and they would know this during their read-out) are their official, legal record for the exposure received.  An ex-nuc should already know this.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 06:07:12 PM
Let's work with 1/10th mission dosage.  We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.  Now 1/10 of .22 mgy/day is .022.  Now if we add 1.35 times .24 we get .324 mgy/day while in lunar orbit assuming they spent two days in lunar orbit or on the surface of the moon you can see the total mission dosage comes up short, don't you think?


2.4 mGr/day. Where are you getting this value from? Here is your initial post.

Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface. These values are expected to double at the low point in the 11-year cycle of solar-flare activity (solar minimum) because of decreased solar magnetic shielding of the central planets. The effect of high-energy cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years. Experimental evidence of the effects of these radiations is dependent on the development of highly advanced particle accelerators or the advent of long-term manned missions outside the Earth's geomagnetic influence.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

I am not sure but I think 1 millirad/hour is equal to .24 mgy/day.  Correct me if I am wrong.  This article was written back in the seventies.

But again, this was an average. By definition the values could be lower than 0.24 and higher than 0.24.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 06:09:39 PM
Let's work with 1/10th mission dosage.  We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.  Now 1/10 of .22 mgy/day is .022.  Now if we add 1.35 times .24 we get .324 mgy/day while in lunar orbit assuming they spent two days in lunar orbit or on the surface of the moon you can see the total mission dosage comes up short, don't you think?

No, let's work with the actual data.  Your values for their exposures have been shown to be inconsistent with the data you did use, and irrelevant as they were from either average doses over a long time span, or taken from measurements of less intense solar cycle.  Try again. 

The actual data from Apollo is taken from their dosimeters.  Their dosimeters (as long as they functioned properly, and they would know this during their read-out) are their official, legal record for the exposure received.  An ex-nuc should already know this.
That is like defining a word by using the word.  No, if you truly want to prove the deception you can't use the liars words.  You have to corroborate the data external to the claim.  Show me the corroborating data for the apollo claims.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 06:11:05 PM
The fact that they disregard all of the apollo data should tell you all you need to know.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 06:11:25 PM
I have got to ask the question.  Does it make sense that averaging in the SPE induced spikes would result in an average below 0.22 mgy/day?

You really are clutching at straws. The plots that you have been shown clearly show the data regularly falls below the floor level you set, thus refuting your initial claim. If you remove the SPEs events it will decrease the mean and median. However, you have been shown in the abscence of SPE events the GCR dose falls below your threshold of 0.22 mGr/day for large periods of the solar cycle.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 06:14:21 PM
The fact that they disregard all of the apollo data should tell you all you need to know.

No one disregards it. The Apollo era data is an average, so it has values above and below the value you cite. You cannot simply use average data to compare a real mission profile, as you will always have some form of discrepancy. By using an average we could present calculations that authenticate Apollo, but you will dismiss them, if we present calculations that support your claims you will embrace them. We are in a no win situation with you, as you want to make this a simple case of using an average. You want to make this problem simple, we are addressing the true complexity of the problem.

Quite frankly, coming from someone that cannot interpret a simple graph and confused radioactivity with radiation, I find it very difficult to actually take you seriously now.

Any comment on the van Allen dose calculations. I'm waiting with great interest to see you critique the method and the science behind those calculations.  :o
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 06:22:05 PM
Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,

The EM part yes, but the particle shower that is the real hazard, by definition, cannot travel at the speed of light. Why do you insist on ignoring this basic rule of physics?

There are many kinds of eruptions on the sun. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections both involve gigantic explosions of energy, but are otherwise quite different. The two phenomena do sometimes occur at the same time – indeed the strongest flares are almost always correlated with coronal mass ejections – but they emit different things, they look and travel differently, and they have different effects near planets.

Both eruptions are created when the motion of the sun’s interior contorts its own magnetic fields. Like the sudden release of a twisted rubber band, the magnetic fields explosively realign, driving vast amounts of energy into space. This phenomenon can create a sudden flash of light -- a solar flare. Flares can last minutes to hours and they contain tremendous amounts of energy. Traveling at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth. Some of the energy released in the flare also accelerates very high energy particles that can reach Earth in tens of minutes.

The magnetic contortions can also create a different kind of explosion that hurls solar matter into space. These are the coronal mass ejections, also known as CMEs. One can think of the explosions using the physics of a cannon. The flare is like the muzzle flash, which can be seen anywhere in the vicinity. The CME is like the cannonball, propelled forward in a single, preferential direction, this mass ejected from the barrel only affecting a targeted area. This is the CME—an immense cloud of magnetized particles hurled into space. Traveling over a million miles per hour, the hot material called plasma takes up to three days to reach Earth. The differences between the two types of explosions can be seen through solar telescopes, with flares appearing as a bright light and CMEs appearing as enormous fans of gas swelling into space.

You need to post your sources

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/the-difference-between-flares-and-cmes

and read them.

I am confused.  Are you implying the solar flares are harmless and it is the CME's that pose the greatest danger to astronauts?
No, that is your peculiar fantasy. It is risible that you attempt to foist your crankery on others. Please stop doing it.

People who engage in that level of crackpottery usually buy a ban in short order on this site. I am hoping that this will not happen in your case. It is not often that a chew toy is thrown.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 07, 2018, 06:23:15 PM
Let's work with 1/10th mission dosage.  We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.  Now 1/10 of .22 mgy/day is .022.  Now if we add 1.35 times .24 we get .324 mgy/day while in lunar orbit assuming they spent two days in lunar orbit or on the surface of the moon you can see the total mission dosage comes up short, don't you think?

No, let's work with the actual data.  Your values for their exposures have been shown to be inconsistent with the data you did use, and irrelevant as they were from either average doses over a long time span, or taken from measurements of less intense solar cycle.  Try again. 

The actual data from Apollo is taken from their dosimeters.  Their dosimeters (as long as they functioned properly, and they would know this during their read-out) are their official, legal record for the exposure received.  An ex-nuc should already know this.
That is like defining a word by using the word.  No, if you truly want to prove the deception you can't use the liars words.  You have to corroborate the data external to the claim.  Show me the corroborating data for the apollo claims.

No, that is how things work.  If you accept the instruments aboard the radiation probes are accurate, you need to also accept that the dosimeters are accurate.  In fact they are considered more accurate overall, as this is why they are used for the legal tally of received dose.  You cannot claim one instrument works and another does not with nothing more than your own ignorance as reasoning.

You are the one who thinks their doses were too low.  Everything I have seen, INCLUDING your own source material, has not supported your position.  The data we do have is consistent with every known factor that we know can modulate those dose rates.  You refuse to accept this, and have offered NOTHING that has held up to scrutiny, but that is not my problem.  YOU made the accusation.  YOU support it, or just maybe have the integrity to admit you don't have any collaborating evidence.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 06:23:58 PM
It is not often that a chew toy is thrown.

Harsh... but fair.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 07, 2018, 06:26:30 PM
(http://)
http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.html
I asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.

What is YOUR answer?
That is NOT an answer. I didn't ask you to post other random graphs, I asked you about the one I posted.

What is YOUR answer?



Tim, why are you entirely unable to grasp the point of this log scale business?

Where is your example of the 'exponential' scale you claim was used? The one that goes up like a log scale but with the numbers between the powers of ten equidistant? The one where the distance between 10 and 20 is the same as the distance between 300 and 400, or 8000 and 9000, or 0.005 and 0.006? That is what you were insisting the CraTer graph was, after all.

Or, prove that the CraTer graph is not a log scale. Show us exactly what makes you conclude that.
Ah. See attached. Timfinch posted a graph as an example of a log graph. I reposted the exact same graph with the minor divisions removed. Timfinch was bamboozled by that. He clearly has no clue what he is talking about.

Try reading this out loud, slowly.  You can do it, I know you can.

Tim, I know what an arithmetic scale is. The point, that you seem to totally unable to grasp, is that not only is the physical distance on the scale the same for every number, so is the numerical difference. You have yet to show us that any graph exists where the marks are equidistant but the numerical difference between them is not, with the exception, as you keep missing also, of a log scale where only the powers of 10 are equidistant.

Now show us an example of your 'exponentional' scale, and prove that the CraTer graph is not a log scale, as you have been asked to do repeatedly.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 07, 2018, 06:27:41 PM
Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,

The EM part yes, but the particle shower that is the real hazard, by definition, cannot travel at the speed of light. Why do you insist on ignoring this basic rule of physics?

There are many kinds of eruptions on the sun. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections both involve gigantic explosions of energy, but are otherwise quite different. The two phenomena do sometimes occur at the same time – indeed the strongest flares are almost always correlated with coronal mass ejections – but they emit different things, they look and travel differently, and they have different effects near planets.

Both eruptions are created when the motion of the sun’s interior contorts its own magnetic fields. Like the sudden release of a twisted rubber band, the magnetic fields explosively realign, driving vast amounts of energy into space. This phenomenon can create a sudden flash of light -- a solar flare. Flares can last minutes to hours and they contain tremendous amounts of energy. Traveling at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth. Some of the energy released in the flare also accelerates very high energy particles that can reach Earth in tens of minutes.

The magnetic contortions can also create a different kind of explosion that hurls solar matter into space. These are the coronal mass ejections, also known as CMEs. One can think of the explosions using the physics of a cannon. The flare is like the muzzle flash, which can be seen anywhere in the vicinity. The CME is like the cannonball, propelled forward in a single, preferential direction, this mass ejected from the barrel only affecting a targeted area. This is the CME—an immense cloud of magnetized particles hurled into space. Traveling over a million miles per hour, the hot material called plasma takes up to three days to reach Earth. The differences between the two types of explosions can be seen through solar telescopes, with flares appearing as a bright light and CMEs appearing as enormous fans of gas swelling into space.

I know it takes 8 minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach earth. Why don't you comprehend the difference between the light and the particle shower? It has been explained many times already.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 06:27:53 PM
The fact that they disregard all of the apollo data should tell you all you need to know.
But wait, It is your claim that the Apollo data is faked and not data at all. Can you not see that there is a problem here? You cite Apollo data as real and then cite Apollo  data as evidence  of fakery.

It cannot be both.

Seems to me that you are on delusional planet sausage claiming that a carrot is a spaceship.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 07, 2018, 06:30:04 PM
KREEP
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.

The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.

KREEP is concentrated in the Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) and Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains) with a major concentration south of Crater Copernicus. This region covers about 40% of the Earth-facing side of the Moon. Based on the small number of lunar samples returned, low KREEP regions measure 8% or less of the radioactive elements in their dust compared to the high KREEP regions. With current technology, the entire high KREEP region is not acceptable for any long-term human settlement or manned mining operation.

The high KREEP region contains many sites of interest to science, particularly those of volcanic origin. Even short scientific expeditions there will require special procedures to prevent ingestion of dust and the removal of dust from all returning equipment.

Radon Gas
Another source of dangerous radiation is the radon gas that is created in the decay of trace amounts of uranium found naturally in lunar rocks. This gas is very heavy and concentrates in low areas. This type of radiation is easily stopped by even a thin layer of material, but radon is carcinogenic if ingested directly into the body.

Even though sensitive scientific equipment has been able to detect radon on Luna, the quantity of radon gas is such that it can be ignored. The lunar atmosphere is so thin that the most massive component, Argon, is present in only 30,000 particles per cubic centimeter, that is 2 trillionths of a gram per cubic meter. Radon is so scarce that it is not even mentioned in the list of components in the lunar atmosphere article. See the Moon Fact Sheet from NASA.

Radon has also been detected from lunar outgassing events.

http://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Radiation_Problem

Repeatedly quoting the same articles is not helping your case, tim. I asked for evidence that it was an immediate health hazard. In other words that taking in lunar dust in any quantity whatsoever would be immediately dangerous. Radioactive material is all around us. You have a certain percentage of radioactive material in your body already. It's not the mere existence of radioactive decay that is the probem but the intensity and duration, as we have told you over and over again.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 06:31:24 PM
Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,

The EM part yes, but the particle shower that is the real hazard, by definition, cannot travel at the speed of light. Why do you insist on ignoring this basic rule of physics?

There are many kinds of eruptions on the sun. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections both involve gigantic explosions of energy, but are otherwise quite different. The two phenomena do sometimes occur at the same time – indeed the strongest flares are almost always correlated with coronal mass ejections – but they emit different things, they look and travel differently, and they have different effects near planets.

Both eruptions are created when the motion of the sun’s interior contorts its own magnetic fields. Like the sudden release of a twisted rubber band, the magnetic fields explosively realign, driving vast amounts of energy into space. This phenomenon can create a sudden flash of light -- a solar flare. Flares can last minutes to hours and they contain tremendous amounts of energy. Traveling at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth. Some of the energy released in the flare also accelerates very high energy particles that can reach Earth in tens of minutes.

The magnetic contortions can also create a different kind of explosion that hurls solar matter into space. These are the coronal mass ejections, also known as CMEs. One can think of the explosions using the physics of a cannon. The flare is like the muzzle flash, which can be seen anywhere in the vicinity. The CME is like the cannonball, propelled forward in a single, preferential direction, this mass ejected from the barrel only affecting a targeted area. This is the CME—an immense cloud of magnetized particles hurled into space. Traveling over a million miles per hour, the hot material called plasma takes up to three days to reach Earth. The differences between the two types of explosions can be seen through solar telescopes, with flares appearing as a bright light and CMEs appearing as enormous fans of gas swelling into space.

I know it takes 8 minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach earth. Why don't you comprehend the difference between the light and the particle shower? It has been explained many times already.
Yes. Well. My humble apologies to LO, but there comes a time to call a moron a moron. I don't much like it, but reality intrudes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 07, 2018, 06:34:51 PM
We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.

Tim, wat exactly do you understand by the word 'average'? You keep citing this range but the article you pulled it from only ever calls the 2.4mGy/day value an average. Why do you insist on referring to it as the minimum? Average and minimum are not synonyms. I am genuinely utterly at a loss to explain this. Can you tell us why you think they mean the same thing?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 07, 2018, 06:43:15 PM
We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.

Tim, wat exactly do you understand by the word 'average'? You keep citing this range but the article you pulled it from only ever calls the 2.4mGy/day value an average. Why do you insist on referring to it as the minimum? Average and minimum are not synonyms. I am genuinely utterly at a loss to explain this. Can you tell us why you think they mean the same thing?


... and I add that it's been explained to you that solar cycle modulates the GCR flux. The value of 0.24 is the average when solar activity is at a maximum, and the 0.60 is the average when solar activity is at a minimum. Therefore, to even consider these values as a range would be incorrect as you can only apply the average from the solar maximum to Apollo.

Further, I'd like to know if these averages are calculated by taking account of the underlying modulation. For example, is the 0.24 value an average taken for the middle 4 years of the cycle (for example).

In any case, it's been explained to you that the CRaTER data should enable you to see that values about the average can vary considerably. So you cannot use averages to define real missions, where the dose over a few days has the potential to be lower than the average.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 07:22:23 PM
Let's work with 1/10th mission dosage.  We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.  Now 1/10 of .22 mgy/day is .022.  Now if we add 1.35 times .24 we get .324 mgy/day while in lunar orbit assuming they spent two days in lunar orbit or on the surface of the moon you can see the total mission dosage comes up short, don't you think?

No, let's work with the actual data.  Your values for their exposures have been shown to be inconsistent with the data you did use, and irrelevant as they were from either average doses over a long time span, or taken from measurements of less intense solar cycle.  Try again. 

The actual data from Apollo is taken from their dosimeters.  Their dosimeters (as long as they functioned properly, and they would know this during their read-out) are their official, legal record for the exposure received.  An ex-nuc should already know this.
That is like defining a word by using the word.  No, if you truly want to prove the deception you can't use the liars words.  You have to corroborate the data external to the claim.  Show me the corroborating data for the apollo claims.

No, that is how things work.  If you accept the instruments aboard the radiation probes are accurate, you need to also accept that the dosimeters are accurate.  In fact they are considered more accurate overall, as this is why they are used for the legal tally of received dose.  You cannot claim one instrument works and another does not with nothing more than your own ignorance as reasoning.

You are the one who thinks their doses were too low.  Everything I have seen, INCLUDING your own source material, has not supported your position.  The data we do have is consistent with every known factor that we know can modulate those dose rates.  You refuse to accept this, and have offered NOTHING that has held up to scrutiny, but that is not my problem.  YOU made the accusation.  YOU support it, or just maybe have the integrity to admit you don't have any collaborating evidence.
I think the dosimeters are accurate and reflect and LEO mission.  If the apollo truly made a lunar transit then the available data external to the mission report should corroborate it.  It doesn't.  You could silence me by showing and NASA statement anywhere that calls out a cislunar background radiation of less than .24 mgy/day.  Show me that one little piece of data and I will apologize to the lot of you and be on my merry way.  Put your data where your mouth is.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 07, 2018, 07:36:16 PM
Tim.  What would it take to get you to say the actual words, "I don't understand"?  About anything?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 07:36:24 PM
We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.

Tim, wat exactly do you understand by the word 'average'? You keep citing this range but the article you pulled it from only ever calls the 2.4mGy/day value an average. Why do you insist on referring to it as the minimum? Average and minimum are not synonyms. I am genuinely utterly at a loss to explain this. Can you tell us why you think they mean the same thing?
You have no problem with using the averages of the dosimeter readings so why would you have a problem with NASA establishing an expected range of radiation based on averages?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 07:39:04 PM
Let's work with 1/10th mission dosage.  We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.  Now 1/10 of .22 mgy/day is .022.  Now if we add 1.35 times .24 we get .324 mgy/day while in lunar orbit assuming they spent two days in lunar orbit or on the surface of the moon you can see the total mission dosage comes up short, don't you think?
Your made up numbers are made up. What part of that do you not comprehend?

No, let's work with the actual data.
Sure and let's toss the whole cloth you simply made up

Your values for their exposures have been shown to be inconsistent with the data you did use, and irrelevant as they were from either average doses over a long time span, or taken from measurements of less intense solar cycle.  Try again. 
What, we should all chuck the actual measured values just on your sat so? get bent. The values were measured. Deal with it without your invented nonsense.

The actual data from Apollo is taken from their dosimeters.  Their dosimeters (as long as they functioned properly, and they would know this during their read-out) are their official, legal record for the exposure received.  An ex-nuc should already know this.
That is hilariously toast.

To rein in your Gish Gallop, have you changed your opinion? Or are you going to jump from topic to topic like all of the cranks before you? Are you conceding that you cannot refute the  graph issue? or are you simply going to pretend it never happened?

Enquiring minds want to know.
That is like defining a word by using the word.  No, if you truly want to prove the deception you can't use the liars words.  You have to corroborate the data external to the claim.  Show me the corroborating data for the apollo claims.

No, that is how things work.  If you accept the instruments aboard the radiation probes are accurate, you need to also accept that the dosimeters are accurate.  In fact they are considered more accurate overall, as this is why they are used for the legal tally of received dose.  You cannot claim one instrument works and another does not with nothing more than your own ignorance as reasoning.

You are the one who thinks their doses were too low.  Everything I have seen, INCLUDING your own source material, has not supported your position.  The data we do have is consistent with every known factor that we know can modulate those dose rates.  You refuse to accept this, and have offered NOTHING that has held up to scrutiny, but that is not my problem.  YOU made the accusation.  YOU support it, or just maybe have the integrity to admit you don't have any collaborating evidence.
I think the dosimeters are accurate and reflect and LEO mission.  If the apollo truly made a lunar transit then the available data external to the mission report should corroborate it.  It doesn't.  You could silence me by showing and NASA statement anywhere that calls out a cislunar background radiation of less than .24 mgy/day.  Show me that one little piece of data and I will apologize to the lot of you and be on my merry way.  Put your data where your mouth is.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 07:39:40 PM
Tim.  What would it take to get you to say the actual words, "I don't understand"?  About anything?
I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.  I don't understand how anyone can believe you can make a lunar transit  at .22 mgy/day and finally I don't understand why anyone could support the deception in face of such overwhelming evidence.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 07:43:50 PM
I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.  Come on, send the loud mouth packing.  Put him in his place.  Teach him humility.  Produce the data!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 07:47:39 PM
Tim.  What would it take to get you to say the actual words, "I don't understand"?  About anything?
I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.
Really? So why can you not?
I don't understand how anyone can believe you can make a lunar transit  at .22 mgy/day
I cannot concieve of anyone who can display such ignorance.

and finally I don't understand why anyone could support the deception in face of such overwhelming evidence.
Yet you have failed to present any evidence of such. Strange, no?

You claim a frankly insane conspiracy on the basis of no evidence at all and expect everyone to fall over. Tough luck.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 07:48:31 PM
I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.  Come on, send the loud mouth packing.  Put him in his place.  Teach him humility.  Produce the data!
Lie.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 07:53:44 PM
Tim.  What would it take to get you to say the actual words, "I don't understand"?  About anything?
I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.  I don't understand how anyone can believe you can make a lunar transit  at .22 mgy/day and finally I don't understand why anyone could support the deception in face of such overwhelming evidence.
But you clearly do not. Are we to conclude that you couldn't graduate high school? Are you that LCD?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 08:01:44 PM
I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[
Lie. You simply didn't read anything.
Come on, send the loud mouth packing.  Put him in his place.  Teach him humility.  Produce the data!
Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 08:18:23 PM
I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[
Lie. You simply didn't read anything.
Come on, send the loud mouth packing.  Put him in his place.  Teach him humility.  Produce the data!
Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.

What I really want is to be proven wrong.  It is lonely being the smartest man in any group.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 07, 2018, 08:29:21 PM
I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[
Lie. You simply didn't read anything.
Come on, send the loud mouth packing.  Put him in his place.  Teach him humility.  Produce the data!
Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.

What I really want is to be proven wrong.  It is lonely be the smartest man in any group.

Again,  you need to cite your sources.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 08:31:58 PM
I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[
Lie. You simply didn't read anything.
Come on, send the loud mouth packing.  Put him in his place.  Teach him humility.  Produce the data!
Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.

What I really want is to be proven wrong.  It is lonely be the smartest man in any group.

Again,  you need to cite your sources.
Or you could show me the error of my ways.  It only takes one data point.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 08:34:01 PM
I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[
Lie. You simply didn't read anything.
Come on, send the loud mouth packing.  Put him in his place.  Teach him humility.  Produce the data!
Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.

What I really want is to be proven wrong.  It is lonely be the smartest man in any group.
Super. You have been proven wrong.

But that is not what you want in any way shape or form. When you were proven to be wrong, you immediately launched the comical Gish Gallop.

At this point, you are simply a charicture crank. And you have no way out of that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 08:36:21 PM
I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[
Lie. You simply didn't read anything.
Come on, send the loud mouth packing.  Put him in his place.  Teach him humility.  Produce the data!
Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.

What I really want is to be proven wrong.  It is lonely be the smartest man in any group.

Again,  you need to cite your sources.
Or you could show me the error of my ways.  It only takes one data point.
We did. You didn't care. By now, I am unsure if you could find your own butt.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 08:38:14 PM
I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[
Lie. You simply didn't read anything.
Come on, send the loud mouth packing.  Put him in his place.  Teach him humility.  Produce the data!
Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.

What I really want is to be proven wrong.  It is lonely being the smartest man in any group.
I am certain that such a thing has never happened.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 08:39:20 PM
You are all talk and no data.  Do you not know shame?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 07, 2018, 08:46:11 PM
I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[
Lie. You simply didn't read anything.
Come on, send the loud mouth packing.  Put him in his place.  Teach him humility.  Produce the data!
Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.

What I really want is to be proven wrong.  It is lonely being the smartest man in any group.


You made an argument that, based on the CRaTER data, it was impossible for the cislunar background radiation to fall below .22 mGy/day.  I presented two plots that showed extended periods of time where readings from the CRaTER sensors fell below that threshold.

Let’s set aside whether or not the CRaTER data are relevant to the Apollo missions; you made an argument based on that data, and I showed that your interpretation of that data was not correct.  You have a problem interpreting data.  I won’t speculate as to why (at least, not any more than I have so far).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 07, 2018, 08:48:35 PM
You are all talk and no data.  Do you not know shame?
LOL you funny.

You have been provided with all of that and you ignore it. At this point you are an object of outright mockery. I sincerely hope that the owner does not ban you. The comedy is precious.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 07, 2018, 09:09:01 PM
We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.

Tim, wat exactly do you understand by the word 'average'? You keep citing this range but the article you pulled it from only ever calls the 2.4mGy/day value an average. Why do you insist on referring to it as the minimum? Average and minimum are not synonyms. I am genuinely utterly at a loss to explain this. Can you tell us why you think they mean the same thing?
You have no problem with using the averages of the dosimeter readings so why would you have a problem with NASA establishing an expected range of radiation based on averages?

I actually believe you know the differences, as well as the fact that the data you presented actually proves your original premise to be incorrect.  Still, for the fun of it all, I have no problem using averages where appropriate, but to use them as a baseline for a precise time frame, is fundamentally flawed, logically and mathematically. And speaking of average, the average doses provided in the chart of the Apollo missions are just that - averages.  The individual doses were as much as 20% different.  But, once more, that's how such things work.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 07, 2018, 09:15:08 PM
Long cut-and-paste omitted.

Oh, dear, dear. Do you not understand how bad it looks when you do this? When others in the thread are able to write extempore, summarizing an understanding in a way that makes it obvious they have years of study behind them, and you -- unable to even follow a statement with a citation -- can only paste in blocks of hastily-uncovered text?

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 09:18:43 PM
Long cut-and-paste omitted.

Oh, dear, dear. Do you not understand how bad it looks when you do this? When others in the thread are able to write extempore, summarizing an understanding in a way that makes it obvious they have years of study behind them, and you -- unable to even follow a statement with a citation -- can only paste in blocks of hastily-uncovered text?
Impress me with the data and not your rhetoric.  It merely takes a single data point to have me running with my tail between my legs.  Either you have the data or you don't but guess what, neither does NASA because it would be damning.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 07, 2018, 09:31:51 PM
Data has been presented, linked to, sorted, graphed, calculated, extrapolated...by over a half-dozen posters.

Which also doesn't look good on you. You are squinting over a single graph, arguing over and over about how your non-standard interpretation is somehow the correct one -- OTHER people have grappled with the actual underlying data, showing their ability to create that graph, or subject it to other analysis.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 09:37:00 PM
Data has been presented, linked to, sorted, graphed, calculated, extrapolated...by over a half-dozen posters.

Which also doesn't look good on you. You are squinting over a single graph, arguing over and over about how your non-standard interpretation is somehow the correct one -- OTHER people have grappled with the actual underlying data, showing their ability to create that graph, or subject it to other analysis.
I'm sorry did I miss where you posted an official or even not official statement that said cislunar GCR radiation was less than .24 mgy/day during anytime of the apollo missions?  Maybe you could highlight and repost it because I am eager to move on.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 09:49:08 PM
A single data point is all I am asking.  It is not like I am asking you to pull credible data from your butthole.  Just link me to a NASA Document.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 07, 2018, 10:00:49 PM
Data has been presented, linked to, sorted, graphed, calculated, extrapolated...by over a half-dozen posters.

Which also doesn't look good on you. You are squinting over a single graph, arguing over and over about how your non-standard interpretation is somehow the correct one -- OTHER people have grappled with the actual underlying data, showing their ability to create that graph, or subject it to other analysis.
I'm sorry did I miss where you posted an official or even not official statement that said cislunar GCR radiation was less than .24 mgy/day during anytime of the apollo missions?  Maybe you could highlight and repost it because I am eager to move on.

Oh, dear boy, you think I'm going to post one? After the last dozen, posted by people who have already spent the time to do the work, have been ignored?

Or it is you still don't understand how graphs work?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 07, 2018, 10:02:03 PM
I demand someone link me with an official NASA document which explains the Moon isn't made of antimatter. Nothing? Bueller? Then the Moon Landings are an obvious fake.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 10:27:27 PM
As much substance as smoke. You bandy your opinion around like a sledge hammer but as soon as something real and hard is asked for you have nothing.  Not even a single data point to satisfy an inquiring mind.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 07, 2018, 10:38:31 PM
What are alpha particles, Tim?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 07, 2018, 10:43:37 PM
Tim,

It's clear that you're just trolling (ie. trying to provoke anger by refusing to acknowledge responses to your questions/claims), so I have issued a warning. That places you on the "watched" list. Continuing this behaviour may result in another warning, which will place you under moderation, requiring my approval before your posts can appear in the forum. A third warning may result in a temporary or permanent ban.

If you want to have a serious discussion then you're more than welcome to. But if you're only here to troll then you might as well just leave now.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 10:48:56 PM
Tim,

It's clear that you're just trolling (ie. trying to provoke anger by refusing to acknowledge responses to your questions/claims), so I have issued a warning. That places you on the "watched" list. Continuing this behaviour may result in another warning, which will place you under moderation, requiring my approval before your posts can appear in the forum. A third warning may result in a temporary or permanent ban.

If you want to have a serious discussion then you're more than welcome to. But if you're only here to troll then you might as well just leave now.
I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest.  I m the one that is being left unanswered.  I have asked for one data point.  A single one and yet no answers me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 10:50:50 PM
What are alpha particles, Tim?

Is this question designed to test the knowledge of an ex-nuke or are you actually in search of knowledge?  It is a helium ion (no electrons, net positive charge).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 07, 2018, 10:51:26 PM
As much substance as smoke. You bandy your opinion around like a sledge hammer but as soon as something real and hard is asked for you have nothing.  Not even a single data point to satisfy an inquiring mind.

Ah, yes. "Ignoring" is taking the time to re-read and summarize an article from the 60's that refuted two of your various and scattered claims. Or three; it is difficult to be precise here because your nomenclature diverges so greatly from standard practice.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 07, 2018, 10:51:55 PM
I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest.  I m the one that is being left unanswered.  I have asked for one data point.  A single one and yet no answers me.

Several people have repeated shown you how you're misinterpreting the radiation data. They have asked you to look at the data instead of the graph. They have asked you to import the data into Excel and generate a graph yourself, just like they have done. You have refused to do that. Why?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 10:55:34 PM
I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest.  I m the one that is being left unanswered.  I have asked for one data point.  A single one and yet no answers me.

Several people have repeated shown you how you're misinterpreting the radiation data. They have asked you to look at the data instead of the graph. They have asked you to import the data into Excel and generate a graph yourself, just like they have done. You have refused to do that. Why?

Maybe you should follow the thread.  I have actually did that and posted the results.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 07, 2018, 10:58:34 PM
What are alpha particles, Tim?

Is this question designed to test the knowledge of an ex-nuke or are you actually in search of knowledge?  It is a helium ion (no electrons, net positive charge).


So how can there be "alpha laden particles" on lunar dust?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 10:59:16 PM
Here is the results of my data download for your perusal.  The same people insisted that the data was inapplicable because it was in a different solar cycle so what actually would be the point in duplicating a graph the web site produced on demand for people who refuse to accept the data as valid?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:00:35 PM
What are alpha particles, Tim?

Is this question designed to test the knowledge of an ex-nuke or are you actually in search of knowledge?  It is a helium ion (no electrons, net positive charge).


So how can there be "alpha laden particles" on lunar dust?

Did you not read the post where the article stated that?  I didn't say it, I simply posted and referenced the article.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:05:58 PM
KREEP
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.

The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.

KREEP is concentrated in the Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) and Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains) with a major concentration south of Crater Copernicus. This region covers about 40% of the Earth-facing side of the Moon. Based on the small number of lunar samples returned, low KREEP regions measure 8% or less of the radioactive elements in their dust compared to the high KREEP regions. With current technology, the entire high KREEP region is not acceptable for any long-term human settlement or manned mining operation.

The high KREEP region contains many sites of interest to science, particularly those of volcanic origin. Even short scientific expeditions there will require special procedures to prevent ingestion of dust and the removal of dust from all returning equipment.

Radon Gas
Another source of dangerous radiation is the radon gas that is created in the decay of trace amounts of uranium found naturally in lunar rocks. This gas is very heavy and concentrates in low areas. This type of radiation is easily stopped by even a thin layer of material, but radon is carcinogenic if ingested directly into the body.

Even though sensitive scientific equipment has been able to detect radon on Luna, the quantity of radon gas is such that it can be ignored. The lunar atmosphere is so thin that the most massive component, Argon, is present in only 30,000 particles per cubic centimeter, that is 2 trillionths of a gram per cubic meter. Radon is so scarce that it is not even mentioned in the list of components in the lunar atmosphere article. See the Moon Fact Sheet from NASA.

Radon has also been detected from lunar outgassing events.

http://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Radiation_Problem
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:08:48 PM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 07, 2018, 11:10:16 PM
What are alpha particles, Tim?

Is this question designed to test the knowledge of an ex-nuke or are you actually in search of knowledge?  It is a helium ion (no electrons, net positive charge).


So how can there be "alpha laden particles" on lunar dust?

Did you not read the post where the article stated that?  I didn't say it, I simply posted and referenced the article.


So you repeated something that was wrong. Didn't you know it was wrong? Shouldn't your ex-nuke knowledge tell you it was wrong?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 07, 2018, 11:10:22 PM
KREEP
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.

The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.

KREEP is concentrated in the Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) and Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains) with a major concentration south of Crater Copernicus. This region covers about 40% of the Earth-facing side of the Moon. Based on the small number of lunar samples returned, low KREEP regions measure 8% or less of the radioactive elements in their dust compared to the high KREEP regions. With current technology, the entire high KREEP region is not acceptable for any long-term human settlement or manned mining operation.

The high KREEP region contains many sites of interest to science, particularly those of volcanic origin. Even short scientific expeditions there will require special procedures to prevent ingestion of dust and the removal of dust from all returning equipment.

Radon Gas
Another source of dangerous radiation is the radon gas that is created in the decay of trace amounts of uranium found naturally in lunar rocks. This gas is very heavy and concentrates in low areas. This type of radiation is easily stopped by even a thin layer of material, but radon is carcinogenic if ingested directly into the body.

Even though sensitive scientific equipment has been able to detect radon on Luna, the quantity of radon gas is such that it can be ignored. The lunar atmosphere is so thin that the most massive component, Argon, is present in only 30,000 particles per cubic centimeter, that is 2 trillionths of a gram per cubic meter. Radon is so scarce that it is not even mentioned in the list of components in the lunar atmosphere article. See the Moon Fact Sheet from NASA.

Radon has also been detected from lunar outgassing events.

http://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Radiation_Problem

You have confused "Alpha particles", which exist, with "Alpha laden particles", which don't.  Perhaps you meant to say "laden with Alpha particles", as that makes sense, at least in the terms of physics.

NOTE: Edited to add quotation mark.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 07, 2018, 11:10:29 PM
I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest.  I m the one that is being left unanswered.  I have asked for one data point.  A single one and yet no answers me.

Several people have repeated shown you how you're misinterpreting the radiation data. They have asked you to look at the data instead of the graph. They have asked you to import the data into Excel and generate a graph yourself, just like they have done. You have refused to do that. Why?

Maybe you should follow the thread.  I have actually did that and posted the results.


Maybe you should be careful about the kind of attitude you direct at me. I'll let the people asking you the questions decide whether you responded adequately.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 07, 2018, 11:13:40 PM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?

Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:15:37 PM
I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest.  I m the one that is being left unanswered.  I have asked for one data point.  A single one and yet no answers me.

Several people have repeated shown you how you're misinterpreting the radiation data. They have asked you to look at the data instead of the graph. They have asked you to import the data into Excel and generate a graph yourself, just like they have done. You have refused to do that. Why?

Maybe you should follow the thread.  I have actually did that and posted the results.


Maybe you should be careful about the kind of attitude you direct at me. I'll let the people asking you the questions decide whether you responded adequately.
Maybe you should be careful in how you accuse me.  We wouldn't want everyone to think that you are not impartial and are trying to railroad me out of here now would we?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:16:51 PM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?

Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:19:20 PM
Once again we try to distract from the real issue.  The fact that the astronauts were breathing radioactive dust.  Throw up all the smoke screens you want.  Create any diversion you can.  It won't alter the fact that it is proof of a hoax.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 07, 2018, 11:20:57 PM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?

Proof of what?

That's the problem with arguing by copy-paste; it doesn't include an actual statement followed by a relevant citation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 07, 2018, 11:21:49 PM
timfinch, I have provided data from the source you claimed as your evidence, and showed you exactly where that data from each and every detector was well below .22mGy/day, which is obviously less than .24mGy/day (I believe that was around post # 486).  Since that data directly contradicts your claims, AND since it was during a solar cycle that is documented to be less intense than cycle 20, which was during Apollo 11's journey, it also directly correlates that the relative radiation levels were even lower for Apollo.  You have yet to respond directly to this fact.  I ask that you do so now.  Do you accept that the data you provided shows time frames where the daily average dose rate was less than .22mGy/day?  Do you understand the concept that that a more active solar cycle results in lower radiation levels in cislunar space?  These are direct questions, please answer them in a like manner.

NOTE:  Edited to insert a question mark.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:21:57 PM
So let me guess.  The eight lunar missions just happened to land in the only safe places on the moon.  Places were the neutron radiation and the radioactive kreep were non-existent.  Is that what I should believe?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 07, 2018, 11:28:47 PM
Ah, cross post.

I was off munching on a handful of potassium 40. No, I'm not concerned about negative outcome. I made sure to get unsalted peanuts.  (I've also had a gamma emitter injected into my blood, but never mind that).

I will admit the article doesn't claim short visits to the Moon are healthy. It also does not claim they are not. It is entirely concerned with not just long duration stays, but long-duration stays with unusual exposure to what it calls "High KREEP" regions (aka more active materials.)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 07, 2018, 11:29:07 PM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?


Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.


Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:32:01 PM
timfinch, I have provided data from the source you claimed as your evidence, and showed you exactly where that data from each and every detector was well below .22mGy/day, which is obviously less than .24mGy/day (I believe that was around post # 486).  Since that data directly contradicts your claims, AND since it was during a solar cycle that is documented to be less intense than cycle 20, which was during Apollo 11's journey, it also directly correlates that the relative radiation levels were even lower for Apollo.  You have yet to respond directly to this fact.  I ask that you do so now.  Do you accept that the data you provided shows time frames where the daily average dose rate was less than .22mGy/day.  Do you understand the concept that that a more active solar cycle results in lower radiation levels in cislunar space?  These are direct questions, please answer them in a like manner.
Why you continue chasing after Crater data when you won't accept is as proof I can't imagine.  Most assuredly you can find isolated patches but I am sure you are aware that the detectors are sensitized to different types of radiation and I am sure you are aware that only a compilation of data would reflect the biological damage an astronaut would be exposed to.  Now if you can find a 10 day window that averages less than .22 mgy/day that would be interesting but it would mean nothing because you still have to account for the transit through the VAB, the lunar orbit and lunar surface radiation.  To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in.  If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA.  But I digress as NASA stated a range of .24 to 6.0 for the apollo mission and we believe everything NASA say's don't we?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 07, 2018, 11:34:32 PM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?


Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.


Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.

Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but I believe an interstellar cloud of helium atoms stripped of their electrons could be considered to be "laden with Alpha particles".
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:34:39 PM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?


Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?

I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.


Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.

I am starting to believe you are not reading these articles because the article specifically states the elements that decay to produce the alpha particles.  Words do have meaning but they have less meaning when you don't read them or comprehend them.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 07, 2018, 11:35:28 PM
Incidentally, I hope you aren't calling that gif table generated from Crater data a "graph," or claiming it is in any way substantial analysis of the data set. Especially since the gif leaves off the units.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:36:16 PM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?


Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.


Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.

Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but I believe an interstellar cloud of helium atoms stripped of their electrons could be considered to be "laden with Alpha particles".

I believe there is no limit that you will not exceed in trying to deflect from the issue.  Let the semantics occupy your attention, why don't you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:37:04 PM
Incidentally, I hope you aren't calling that gif table generated from Crater data a "graph," or claiming it is in any way substantial analysis of the data set.
Do I need to explain the data table to you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 07, 2018, 11:39:02 PM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?


Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?

I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.


Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.

I am starting to believe you are not reading these articles because the article specifically states the elements that decay to produce the alpha particles.  Words do have meaning but they have less meaning when you don't read them or comprehend them.

Right. Alpha particles do not exist until the decay events occur. Then they are gone. Nothing is "laden". You should have known that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 07, 2018, 11:40:46 PM
Incidentally, I hope you aren't calling that gif table generated from Crater data a "graph," or claiming it is in any way substantial analysis of the data set.
Do I need to explain the data table to you?

Nay -- it was funny the first time but it has lost its humor value.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 07, 2018, 11:46:09 PM
timfinch, I have provided data from the source you claimed as your evidence, and showed you exactly where that data from each and every detector was well below .22mGy/day, which is obviously less than .24mGy/day (I believe that was around post # 486).  Since that data directly contradicts your claims, AND since it was during a solar cycle that is documented to be less intense than cycle 20, which was during Apollo 11's journey, it also directly correlates that the relative radiation levels were even lower for Apollo.  You have yet to respond directly to this fact.  I ask that you do so now.  Do you accept that the data you provided shows time frames where the daily average dose rate was less than .22mGy/day.  Do you understand the concept that that a more active solar cycle results in lower radiation levels in cislunar space?  These are direct questions, please answer them in a like manner.
Why you continue chasing after Crater data when you won't accept is as proof I can't imagine.  Most assuredly you can find isolated patches but I am sure you are aware that the detectors are sensitized to different types of radiation and I am sure you are aware that only a compilation of data would reflect the biological damage an astronaut would be exposed to.  Now if you can find a 10 day window that averages less than .22 mgy/day that would be interesting but it would mean nothing because you still have to account for the transit through the VAB, the lunar orbit and lunar surface radiation.  To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in.  If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA.  But I digress as NASA stated a range of .24 to 6.0 for the apollo mission and we believe everything NASA say's don't we?

I provided a 5 day window with the additional comment that it was a random sample during 2013 with similar data for long stretches before and after the data I quoted.  Other people have graphed and analyzed the data in even more detail with the same conclusions my post came to.  I didn't post more data as my point was made and verifiable and to prevent clutter.  Would you feel better if I posted 30 days of consecutive data that falls within the range I noted?

I have already noted that the Apollo 11 mission (as well as the other Apollo missions, with Apollo 11 being closest to the peak) corresponded to the solar maximum of cycle 20, just as the data I picked from cycle 24 corresponds to the solar maximum of that cycle.  You are making false statements while neglecting to recall the ones that were actually made.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 07, 2018, 11:46:14 PM
Actually, though...even without units or context that table is very interesting. Compare the median with the average. Then note the SD. Those three numbers alone describe a pattern of scattered high-magnitude spikes against a background of much lower activity.

Now if only someone here had chosen to calculate the mean average instead of the median....oh, wait. It's been done, but you can't read graphs.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:48:16 PM
While there is a lull in the action, let's do a quick recap.

1.  Background radiation is to high to support the belief that Apollo 11 left LEO
2.  Moon dust or Kreep is radioactive and is and ingestion carcinogen.
3.  Lunar orbit radiation levels are 30 to 40% higher than expected (GCR) due to the neutron flux coming from the surface of the moon.
4.  Neutrons are best shielded by water and or hydrogenous material.
5.  SPE's are unpredictable and unshieldable ( At least using 1969 technology)
6.  The Moon landing is a hoax.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:51:01 PM
Actually, though...even without units or context that table is very interesting. Compare the median with the average. Then note the SD. Those three numbers alone describe a pattern of scattered high-magnitude spikes against a background of much lower activity.

Now if only someone here had chosen to calculate the mean average instead of the median....oh, wait. It's been done, but you can't read graphs.
That must have hurt.  Correct me if I am wrong but mean and average are the same thing and saying mean average is redundant to the point of stuttering.  Aren't there three rows in that table, average, median and standard deviation?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 07, 2018, 11:53:00 PM
Actually, though...even without units or context that table is very interesting. Compare the median with the average. Then note the SD. Those three numbers alone describe a pattern of scattered high-magnitude spikes against a background of much lower activity.

Now if only someone here had chosen to calculate the mean average instead of the median....oh, wait. It's been done, but you can't read graphs.
That must have hurt.  Correct me if I am wrong but mean and average are the same thing and saying mean average is redundant to the point of stuttering.  Aren't there three rows in that table, average, median and standard deviation?

I spelled it out to be sure you'd get it.

And, actually, no. All means are an average but not all averages are mean.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 07, 2018, 11:54:03 PM
Actually, though...even without units or context that table is very interesting. Compare the median with the average. Then note the SD. Those three numbers alone describe a pattern of scattered high-magnitude spikes against a background of much lower activity.

Now if only someone here had chosen to calculate the mean average instead of the median....oh, wait. It's been done, but you can't read graphs.
That must have hurt.  Correct me if I am wrong but mean and average are the same thing and saying mean average is redundant to the point of stuttering.  Aren't there three rows in that table, average, median and standard deviation?

I spelled it out to be sure you'd get it.

And, actually, no. All means are an average but not all averages are mean.

He may not, but I get what you mean... :P
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 07, 2018, 11:54:24 PM
I have said it before.  Pick any 10 day window of your choice from the CraTer data and we will used it to set our minimum baseline.  I am convinced that you can't find a group low enough to make a difference.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 07, 2018, 11:55:30 PM
Actually, though...even without units or context that table is very interesting. Compare the median with the average. Then note the SD. Those three numbers alone describe a pattern of scattered high-magnitude spikes against a background of much lower activity.

Now if only someone here had chosen to calculate the mean average instead of the median....oh, wait. It's been done, but you can't read graphs.
That must have hurt.  Correct me if I am wrong but mean and average are the same thing and saying mean average is redundant to the point of stuttering.  Aren't there three rows in that table, average, median and standard deviation?

Don't know anything about statistics either, eh?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 07, 2018, 11:59:08 PM
I have said it before.  Pick any 10 day window of your choice from the CraTer data and we will used it to set our minimum baseline.  I am convinced that you can't find a group low enough to make a difference.
 

True, as you have just said it a handful of posts ago, but not in the previous days.

One (at least) 10 day window coming up...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 12:00:24 AM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?


Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?

I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.


Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
So what you are saying is the Kreep is safe if you hold it in your mouth for a couple of seconds?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 08, 2018, 12:03:05 AM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?


Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?

I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.


Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
So what you are saying is the Kreep is safe if you hold it in your mouth for a couple of seconds?

No, I'm saying that kreep is not LADEN with alpha particles.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 12:04:20 AM
timfinch, I have provided data from the source you claimed as your evidence, and showed you exactly where that data from each and every detector was well below .22mGy/day, which is obviously less than .24mGy/day (I believe that was around post # 486).  Since that data directly contradicts your claims, AND since it was during a solar cycle that is documented to be less intense than cycle 20, which was during Apollo 11's journey, it also directly correlates that the relative radiation levels were even lower for Apollo.  You have yet to respond directly to this fact.  I ask that you do so now.  Do you accept that the data you provided shows time frames where the daily average dose rate was less than .22mGy/day.  Do you understand the concept that that a more active solar cycle results in lower radiation levels in cislunar space?  These are direct questions, please answer them in a like manner.
Why you continue chasing after Crater data when you won't accept is as proof I can't imagine.  Most assuredly you can find isolated patches but I am sure you are aware that the detectors are sensitized to different types of radiation and I am sure you are aware that only a compilation of data would reflect the biological damage an astronaut would be exposed to.  Now if you can find a 10 day window that averages less than .22 mgy/day that would be interesting but it would mean nothing because you still have to account for the transit through the VAB, the lunar orbit and lunar surface radiation.  To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in.  If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA.  But I digress as NASA stated a range of .24 to 6.0 for the apollo mission and we believe everything NASA say's don't we?

I provided a 5 day window with the additional comment that it was a random sample during 2013 with similar data for long stretches before and after the data I quoted.  Other people have graphed and analyzed the data in even more detail with the same conclusions my post came to.  I didn't post more data as my point was made and verifiable and to prevent clutter.  Would you feel better if I posted 30 days of consecutive data that falls within the range I noted?

I have already noted that the Apollo 11 mission (as well as the other Apollo missions, with Apollo 11 being closest to the peak) corresponded to the solar maximum of cycle 20, just as the data I picked from cycle 24 corresponds to the solar maximum of that cycle.  You are making false statements while neglecting to recall the ones that were actually made.
So you picked five days during solar peak and averaged all the detectors and came up with what value?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 12:06:04 AM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?




Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?

I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.


Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
So what you are saying is the Kreep is safe if you hold it in your mouth for a couple of seconds?

No, I'm saying that kreep is not LADEN with alpha particles.
Point blank.  Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts?  Either it is or it isn't.  Why play the "laden" game?  Call it what it is.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 08, 2018, 12:09:47 AM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?




Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?

I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.


Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
So what you are saying is the Kreep is safe if you hold it in your mouth for a couple of seconds?

No, I'm saying that kreep is not LADEN with alpha particles.
Point blank.  Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts?  Either it is or it isn't.  Why play the "laden" game?  Call it what it is.

Because words have meaning. Your words indicate a poor understanding of the subject you are discussing.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 08, 2018, 12:24:02 AM
So you picked five days during solar peak and averaged all the detectors and came up with what value?

I posted the data for each detector, as compiled in the auxiliary link included in your reference (http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/doserates_nospe.txt)

# Dose rate units in cGy/day
# Julian Date   Year   DOY   Frac Year   H2Ofac   altfac   gefac   D1&2 dose rate   D3&4 dose rate   D5&6 dose rate   D1 dose rate   D2 dose rate   D3 dose rate   D4 dose rate   D5 dose rate   D6 dose rate

2456612.062500   2013   319   2013.8727740   1.333   0.758   1.000   1.6672e-02   1.4004e-02   1.4790e-02   9.7421e-03   1.3774e-02   6.8878e-03   1.2753e-02   7.2694e-03   1.3252e-02
2456612.104166   2013   319   2013.8728881   1.333   0.737   1.000   1.5050e-02   1.3837e-02   1.5019e-02   8.4817e-03   1.3836e-02   6.7472e-03   1.2519e-02   7.6893e-03   1.3017e-02
2456612.145833   2013   319   2013.8730023   1.333   0.753   1.000   1.6070e-02   1.4339e-02   1.4151e-02   9.4531e-03   1.3286e-02   7.3482e-03   1.2507e-02   6.8902e-03   1.3073e-02
2456612.187500   2013   319   2013.8731164   1.333   0.742   1.000   1.5074e-02   1.4546e-02   1.4428e-02   8.3745e-03   1.3398e-02   7.4625e-03   1.2646e-02   7.1348e-03   1.3092e-02
2456612.229166   2013   319   2013.8732306   1.333   0.748   1.000   1.7351e-02   1.4883e-02   1.4932e-02   1.0524e-02   1.3567e-02   7.6752e-03   1.2795e-02   7.5054e-03   1.2859e-02
2456612.270833   2013   319   2013.8733447   1.333   0.746   1.000   1.5637e-02   1.4974e-02   1.5286e-02   9.1411e-03   1.3508e-02   7.6725e-03   1.2906e-02   7.7770e-03   1.3010e-02
2456612.312500   2013   319   2013.8734589   1.333   0.743   1.000   1.7000e-02   1.5148e-02   1.4913e-02   1.0218e-02   1.3609e-02   7.9476e-03   1.3103e-02   7.6339e-03   1.2725e-02
2456612.354166   2013   319   2013.8735731   1.333   0.751   1.000   1.5945e-02   1.4580e-02   1.5096e-02   9.0193e-03   1.3408e-02   7.2859e-03   1.3086e-02   7.7118e-03   1.3352e-02
2456612.395833   2013   319   2013.8736872   1.333   0.739   1.000   1.5068e-02   1.4528e-02   1.4989e-02   8.4285e-03   1.2994e-02   7.4329e-03   1.2405e-02   7.6243e-03   1.2972e-02
2456612.437500   2013   319   2013.8738014   1.333   0.756   1.000   1.6707e-02   1.4283e-02   1.5069e-02   9.9087e-03   1.3396e-02   7.0890e-03   1.3072e-02   7.6048e-03   1.3440e-02
2456612.479166   2013   319   2013.8739155   1.333   0.735   1.000   1.5881e-02   1.4422e-02   1.5494e-02   9.0948e-03   1.3096e-02   7.4726e-03   1.2276e-02   8.3299e-03   1.2993e-02
2456612.520833   2013   320   2013.8740297   1.333   0.762   1.000   1.5531e-02   1.4222e-02   1.5637e-02   8.6075e-03   1.3301e-02   6.9263e-03   1.2831e-02   8.0296e-03   1.3491e-02
2456612.562500   2013   320   2013.8741438   1.333   0.731   1.000   1.5674e-02   1.4893e-02   1.3901e-02   8.9217e-03   1.3649e-02   7.6095e-03   1.2804e-02   6.6013e-03   1.3035e-02
2456612.604166   2013   320   2013.8742580   1.333   0.767   1.000   1.4814e-02   1.4949e-02   1.6342e-02   8.0272e-03   1.3601e-02   7.6801e-03   1.3199e-02   8.8146e-03   1.3354e-02
2456612.645833   2013   320   2013.8743721   1.333   0.727   1.000   1.5052e-02   1.5639e-02   1.4539e-02   8.3838e-03   1.3087e-02   8.4977e-03   1.2830e-02   7.3017e-03   1.2819e-02
2456612.687500   2013   320   2013.8744863   1.333   0.773   1.000   1.6379e-02   1.5499e-02   1.4430e-02   9.2781e-03   1.3685e-02   8.0123e-03   1.3486e-02   6.7471e-03   1.3722e-02
2456612.729166   2013   320   2013.8746005   1.333   0.724   1.000   1.5391e-02   1.4141e-02   1.5610e-02   8.6774e-03   1.3373e-02   6.9658e-03   1.2922e-02   8.2759e-03   1.3141e-02
2456612.770833   2013   320   2013.8747146   1.333   0.778   1.000   1.6728e-02   1.4983e-02   1.4535e-02   9.7102e-03   1.3994e-02   7.3603e-03   1.3450e-02   6.8596e-03   1.3397e-02
2456612.812500   2013   320   2013.8748288   1.333   0.721   1.000   1.5482e-02   1.5003e-02   1.5188e-02   8.9143e-03   1.2916e-02   8.0064e-03   1.2336e-02   7.8956e-03   1.3018e-02
2456612.854166   2013   320   2013.8749429   1.333   0.784   1.000   1.5920e-02   1.5000e-02   1.5097e-02   8.8985e-03   1.3612e-02   7.5217e-03   1.3300e-02   7.5027e-03   1.3649e-02
2456612.895833   2013   320   2013.8750571   1.333   0.719   1.000   1.4891e-02   1.4098e-02   1.4500e-02   8.4285e-03   1.2714e-02   7.0238e-03   1.2464e-02   7.2957e-03   1.3106e-02
2456612.937500   2013   320   2013.8751712   1.333   0.789   1.000   1.6585e-02   1.4311e-02   1.6274e-02   9.2534e-03   1.3866e-02   6.8888e-03   1.2967e-02   8.5268e-03   1.3874e-02
2456612.979166   2013   320   2013.8752854   1.333   0.716   1.000   1.5577e-02   1.4662e-02   1.4161e-02   8.7507e-03   1.3115e-02   7.6676e-03   1.2615e-02   6.8273e-03   1.2773e-02
2456613.020833   2013   320   2013.8753995   1.333   0.795   1.000   1.6067e-02   1.6188e-02   1.5270e-02   8.7872e-03   1.3978e-02   8.7187e-03   1.3527e-02   7.5052e-03   1.4008e-02
2456613.062500   2013   320   2013.8755137   1.333   0.714   1.000   1.4018e-02   1.4570e-02   1.4845e-02   7.3906e-03   1.2387e-02   7.5258e-03   1.2874e-02   7.6591e-03   1.3117e-02
2456613.104166   2013   320   2013.8756279   1.333   0.800   1.000   1.5722e-02   1.6375e-02   1.5304e-02   8.5107e-03   1.3475e-02   8.6628e-03   1.3785e-02   7.4227e-03   1.3720e-02
2456613.145833   2013   320   2013.8757420   1.333   0.712   1.000   1.3958e-02   1.4536e-02   1.4555e-02   7.4401e-03   1.2660e-02   7.4519e-03   1.2590e-02   7.4525e-03   1.3005e-02
2456613.187500   2013   320   2013.8758562   1.333   0.805   1.000   1.6818e-02   1.5758e-02   1.4283e-02   9.4488e-03   1.4012e-02   7.9209e-03   1.3650e-02   6.4708e-03   1.3506e-02
2456613.229166   2013   320   2013.8759703   1.333   0.710   1.000   1.4333e-02   1.5191e-02   1.3770e-02   7.6234e-03   1.2831e-02   8.1860e-03   1.2882e-02   6.6318e-03   1.2655e-02
2456613.270833   2013   320   2013.8760845   1.333   0.810   1.000   1.5619e-02   1.5718e-02   1.5519e-02   8.1670e-03   1.4023e-02   8.0914e-03   1.3378e-02   7.5770e-03   1.4332e-02
2456613.312500   2013   320   2013.8761986   1.333   0.709   1.000   1.5263e-02   1.4222e-02   1.4125e-02   8.5618e-03   1.2629e-02   7.3348e-03   1.2402e-02   7.0684e-03   1.2625e-02
2456613.354166   2013   320   2013.8763128   1.333   0.814   1.000   1.7005e-02   1.4859e-02   1.6546e-02   9.7001e-03   1.3844e-02   7.2368e-03   1.3465e-02   8.5498e-03   1.4095e-02
2456613.395833   2013   320   2013.8764269   1.333   0.708   1.000   1.4216e-02   1.3924e-02   1.4232e-02   7.5497e-03   1.2548e-02   6.9095e-03   1.2281e-02   7.1650e-03   1.2810e-02
2456613.437500   2013   320   2013.8765411   1.333   0.819   1.000   1.5445e-02   1.5903e-02   1.6861e-02   8.1097e-03   1.3771e-02   8.1002e-03   1.3620e-02   8.9676e-03   1.3883e-02
2456613.479166   2013   320   2013.8766553   1.333   0.706   1.000   1.5278e-02   1.4566e-02   1.4470e-02   8.4531e-03   1.3274e-02   7.5086e-03   1.2692e-02   7.1868e-03   1.3087e-02
2456613.520833   2013   321   2013.8767694   1.333   0.822   1.000   1.5223e-02   1.5945e-02   1.5545e-02   7.7096e-03   1.3515e-02   8.2118e-03   1.4270e-02   7.6736e-03   1.3958e-02
2456613.562500   2013   321   2013.8768836   1.333   0.705   1.000   1.4289e-02   1.4837e-02   1.4738e-02   7.5226e-03   1.2794e-02   7.8613e-03   1.2287e-02   7.5430e-03   1.2492e-02
2456613.604166   2013   321   2013.8769977   1.333   0.826   1.000   1.6331e-02   1.5438e-02   1.5951e-02   8.8146e-03   1.3736e-02   7.7885e-03   1.3991e-02   7.9626e-03   1.4533e-02
2456613.645833   2013   321   2013.8771119   1.333   0.705   1.000   1.5537e-02   1.3358e-02   1.4067e-02   8.7772e-03   1.2825e-02   6.5735e-03   1.2263e-02   6.8768e-03   1.2787e-02
2456613.687500   2013   321   2013.8772260   1.333   0.828   1.000   1.5667e-02   1.5570e-02   1.6529e-02   8.1800e-03   1.3911e-02   7.9062e-03   1.3616e-02   8.7314e-03   1.3881e-02
2456613.729166   2013   321   2013.8773402   1.333   0.704   1.000   1.5399e-02   1.4637e-02   1.3746e-02   8.5840e-03   1.3074e-02   7.7591e-03   1.2657e-02   6.6767e-03   1.2481e-02
2456613.770833   2013   321   2013.8774543   1.333   0.830   1.000   1.7011e-02   1.6175e-02   1.5912e-02   9.4192e-03   1.4528e-02   8.4261e-03   1.3548e-02   7.7936e-03   1.4168e-02
2456613.812500   2013   321   2013.8775685   1.333   0.704   1.000   1.4842e-02   1.4412e-02   1.4769e-02   8.0096e-03   1.2970e-02   7.2793e-03   1.2534e-02   7.6151e-03   1.2987e-02
2456613.854166   2013   321   2013.8776826   1.333   0.831   1.000   1.6391e-02   1.4853e-02   1.6363e-02   8.7695e-03   1.4225e-02   7.1449e-03   1.3334e-02   8.4269e-03   1.4392e-02
2456613.895833   2013   321   2013.8777968   1.333   0.704   1.000   1.4842e-02   1.3937e-02   1.4624e-02   7.9844e-03   1.2757e-02   6.9543e-03   1.2292e-02   7.5244e-03   1.2919e-02
2456613.937500   2013   321   2013.8779110   1.333   0.831   1.000   1.6096e-02   1.5851e-02   1.6222e-02   8.6156e-03   1.3890e-02   8.1063e-03   1.4080e-02   8.1392e-03   1.4255e-02
2456613.979166   2013   321   2013.8780251   1.333   0.704   1.000   1.4545e-02   1.5180e-02   1.4083e-02   7.7910e-03   1.3014e-02   8.2259e-03   1.2536e-02   6.9342e-03   1.2492e-02
2456614.020833   2013   321   2013.8781393   1.333   0.831   1.000   1.6565e-02   1.6397e-02   1.6175e-02   8.9117e-03   1.3976e-02   8.4236e-03   1.4022e-02   8.2970e-03   1.4108e-02
2456614.062500   2013   321   2013.8782534   1.333   0.704   1.000   1.4407e-02   1.4086e-02   1.4820e-02   7.7380e-03   1.2357e-02   7.1454e-03   1.2896e-02   7.6964e-03   1.2863e-02
2456614.104166   2013   321   2013.8783676   1.333   0.829   1.000   1.6117e-02   1.5650e-02   1.6113e-02   8.6579e-03   1.3501e-02   7.9167e-03   1.3595e-02   7.9716e-03   1.4294e-02
2456614.145833   2013   321   2013.8784817   1.333   0.704   1.000   1.4683e-02   1.4393e-02   1.4610e-02   7.8072e-03   1.2969e-02   7.4070e-03   1.2850e-02   7.5311e-03   1.3152e-02
2456614.187500   2013   321   2013.8785959   1.333   0.827   1.000   1.5838e-02   1.6640e-02   1.5567e-02   8.4516e-03   1.4168e-02   8.7540e-03   1.4069e-02   7.5098e-03   1.4260e-02
2456614.229166   2013   321   2013.8787100   1.333   0.705   1.000   1.4031e-02   1.4368e-02   1.3904e-02   7.0650e-03   1.2617e-02   7.4856e-03   1.2369e-02   6.9429e-03   1.2576e-02
2456614.270833   2013   321   2013.8788242   1.333   0.825   1.000   1.6698e-02   1.5419e-02   1.5778e-02   9.0765e-03   1.4373e-02   7.7235e-03   1.3449e-02   7.7316e-03   1.3943e-02
2456614.312500   2013   321   2013.8789384   1.333   0.706   1.000   1.6219e-02   1.4509e-02   1.4910e-02   9.3072e-03   1.3100e-02   7.4886e-03   1.2607e-02   7.8709e-03   1.3006e-02
2456614.354166   2013   321   2013.8790525   1.333   0.821   1.000   1.6430e-02   1.6412e-02   1.5898e-02   8.8580e-03   1.4210e-02   8.6984e-03   1.3860e-02   7.8029e-03   1.4088e-02
2456614.395833   2013   321   2013.8791667   1.333   0.707   1.000   1.4299e-02   1.3116e-02   1.4534e-02   7.5335e-03   1.2822e-02   6.1264e-03   1.2627e-02   7.5109e-03   1.2827e-02
2456614.437500   2013   321   2013.8792808   1.333   0.817   1.000   1.5516e-02   1.5659e-02   1.5121e-02   8.1718e-03   1.3875e-02   7.9527e-03   1.3817e-02   7.1264e-03   1.3574e-02
2456614.479166   2013   321   2013.8793950   1.333   0.708   1.000   1.5166e-02   1.4427e-02   1.4504e-02   8.2736e-03   1.2925e-02   7.4171e-03   1.3026e-02   7.2945e-03   1.2918e-02
2456614.520833   2013   322   2013.8795091   1.333   0.813   1.000   1.7123e-02   1.5654e-02   1.4682e-02   9.6401e-03   1.4431e-02   7.8579e-03   1.3612e-02   6.8476e-03   1.4015e-02
2456614.562500   2013   322   2013.8796233   1.333   0.709   1.000   1.5418e-02   1.4296e-02   1.4266e-02   8.5394e-03   1.2746e-02   7.2270e-03   1.2800e-02   7.1626e-03   1.2985e-02

So there are over 60 consecutive days where every single detector read less than .22mGy/day, every day.  Are you going to live up to your promise, now?

My apologies to other members for the extended data post, but let's see if he is a man of his word (I doubt it).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 08, 2018, 12:37:37 AM
Yikes!  I just realized the data I supplied is done in hourly increments, not daily, so that last post was just under 3 days worth of readings.  I won't bother to post any expounded tables, as that was already done in Excel posts by other members (I do not have Excel), and most importantly, the data is in the supplied link for any and all to inspect and that data still documents the facts I have previously stated regarding the less than ,22mGy/day exposures.

I will now punish myself and go on a short time out...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 01:23:42 AM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?




Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?

I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.


Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
So what you are saying is the Kreep is safe if you hold it in your mouth for a couple of seconds?

No, I'm saying that kreep is not LADEN with alpha particles.
Point blank.  Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts?  Either it is or it isn't.  Why play the "laden" game?  Call it what it is.

Because words have meaning. Your words indicate a poor understanding of the subject you are discussing.

Man up and answer the question.  Is Moon dust (Kreep) radioactive and an ingestion hazard to astronauts?  Stop deflecting and make a stand.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 08, 2018, 01:28:53 AM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?




Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?

I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.


Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
So what you are saying is the Kreep is safe if you hold it in your mouth for a couple of seconds?

No, I'm saying that kreep is not LADEN with alpha particles.
Point blank.  Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts?  Either it is or it isn't.  Why play the "laden" game?  Call it what it is.

Because words have meaning. Your words indicate a poor understanding of the subject you are discussing.

Man up and answer the question.  Is Moon dust (Kreep) radioactive and an ingestion hazard to astronauts?  Stop deflecting and make a stand.

"Alpha laden particles". That issue hasn't been settled yet. You haven't explained why you used that erroneous term.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 08, 2018, 01:34:35 AM
Point blank.  Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts?  Either it is or it isn't.  Why play the "laden" game?  Call it what it is.
Over what time period? A coal miner doesn't develop coalworker's pneumoconiosis, commonly known as black lung, over only a couple shifts, but it's still a significant occupational hazard that kills thousands.  Just because something might be a potential danger to ISS length stays or longer in a future manned base or colony does not mean it was a danger to the weekend camping trip stays on the lunar surface of Apollo.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 01:35:56 AM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?




Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?

I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.


Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
So what you are saying is the Kreep is safe if you hold it in your mouth for a couple of seconds?

No, I'm saying that kreep is not LADEN with alpha particles.
Point blank.  Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts?  Either it is or it isn't.  Why play the "laden" game?  Call it what it is.

Because words have meaning. Your words indicate a poor understanding of the subject you are discussing.

Man up and answer the question.  Is Moon dust (Kreep) radioactive and an ingestion hazard to astronauts?  Stop deflecting and make a stand.

"Alpha laden particles". That issue hasn't been settled yet. You haven't explained why you used that erroneous term.
I used it because it was appropriate but I don't have to.  If it is a road block to you acknowledging that kreep is radioactive then by all means, I withdraw the term.  Consider it unsaid.  Now what have you got?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 01:37:59 AM
Point blank.  Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts?  Either it is or it isn't.  Why play the "laden" game?  Call it what it is.
Over what time period? A coal miner doesn't develop coalworker's pneumoconiosis, commonly known as black lung, over only a couple shifts, but it's still a significant occupational hazard that kills thousands.  Just because something might be a potential danger to ISS length stays or longer in a future manned base or colony does not mean it was a danger to the weekend camping trip stays on the lunar surface of Apollo.
Shouldn't you be asking about an amount of kreep?  Is any amount not a carcinogen?  How much would you be willing to ingest?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 01:41:29 AM
KREEP
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.

The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.

KREEP is concentrated in the Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) and Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains) with a major concentration south of Crater Copernicus. This region covers about 40% of the Earth-facing side of the Moon. Based on the small number of lunar samples returned, low KREEP regions measure 8% or less of the radioactive elements in their dust compared to the high KREEP regions. With current technology, the entire high KREEP region is not acceptable for any long-term human settlement or manned mining operation.

The high KREEP region contains many sites of interest to science, particularly those of volcanic origin. Even short scientific expeditions there will require special procedures to prevent ingestion of dust and the removal of dust from all returning equipment.

Radon Gas
Another source of dangerous radiation is the radon gas that is created in the decay of trace amounts of uranium found naturally in lunar rocks. This gas is very heavy and concentrates in low areas. This type of radiation is easily stopped by even a thin layer of material, but radon is carcinogenic if ingested directly into the body.

Even though sensitive scientific equipment has been able to detect radon on Luna, the quantity of radon gas is such that it can be ignored. The lunar atmosphere is so thin that the most massive component, Argon, is present in only 30,000 particles per cubic centimeter, that is 2 trillionths of a gram per cubic meter. Radon is so scarce that it is not even mentioned in the list of components in the lunar atmosphere article. See the Moon Fact Sheet from NASA.

Radon has also been detected from lunar outgassing events.

http://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Radiation_Problem
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 01:46:45 AM
The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.5 billion years, uranium-235 about 700 million years, and uranium-234 about 25 thousand years. Uranium atoms decay into other atoms, or radionuclides, that are also radioactive and commonly called "decay products.  Although thorium (90Th) has 6 naturally occurring isotopes, none of these isotopes are stable; however, one isotope, 232Th, is relatively stable, with a half-life of 1.405×1010 years, considerably longer than the age of the Earth, and even slightly longer than the generally accepted age of the universe.  I think you should be able to pick up radioactivity of a lunar space suit after only 50 years, what do you think?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 08, 2018, 01:46:51 AM
Man up and answer the question.  Is Moon dust (Kreep) radioactive and an ingestion hazard to astronauts?  Stop deflecting and make a stand.

This coming from a person who complained about semantics.  The answer is yes.  The relation to the Apollo missions is fairly innocuous.  The radioactivity in lunar soil itself is too low to be considered a significant contributor to the total dose and/or dose rates on the surface.  It is definitely too low to be considered a hazard on Earth (save for chance concentrations of materials naturally occurring, which has not been the case for any samples to date).  The same low risk is associated with the Kreep (and not all Moon dust is Kreep).  Your body contains arsenic right now, but not in quantities large enough to be a concern.  There are carcinogens in fried foods, yet many people eat them regularly.

There are risks involved with every aspect of life.  There were risks involved with every aspect of the Apollo missions.  The ones you just brought up are minimal.  You are just trying to change the subject, again.  This time to even more ridiculous levels. 

The facts remain that your original idea that Apollo 11 experienced constant radiation exposures of at least .22mGy/day has been shown to have no factual footing, and the data brought to this discussion actually supports the alternate conclusion.  You are trying to dance away from that poorly thought-out strategy you originally had without admitting your failures.  I don't expect you to, because that would take actual integrity.  You can even fool yourself into thinking you are fooling people on this forum - that's your prerogative.  But just like the data provided in your link - the truth is obvious to everyone else.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 01:46:56 AM
Point blank.  Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts?  Either it is or it isn't.  Why play the "laden" game?  Call it what it is.
Over what time period? A coal miner doesn't develop coalworker's pneumoconiosis, commonly known as black lung, over only a couple shifts, but it's still a significant occupational hazard that kills thousands.  Just because something might be a potential danger to ISS length stays or longer in a future manned base or colony does not mean it was a danger to the weekend camping trip stays on the lunar surface of Apollo.
Shouldn't you be asking about an amount of kreep?  Is any amount not a carcinogen?  How much would you be willing to ingest?

Are we to re-writing Paracelsus, then? Most keyboard warriors are satisfied enough with o'erturning Einstein.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 01:56:42 AM
Man up and answer the question.  Is Moon dust (Kreep) radioactive and an ingestion hazard to astronauts?  Stop deflecting and make a stand.

This coming from a person who complained about semantics.  The answer is yes.  The relation to the Apollo missions is fairly innocuous.  The radioactivity in lunar soil itself is too low to be considered a significant contributor to the total dose and/or dose rates on the surface.  It is definitely too low to be considered a hazard on Earth (save for chance concentrations of materials naturally occurring, which has not been the case for any samples to date).  The same low risk is associated with the Kreep (and not all Moon dust is Kreep).  Your body contains arsenic right now, but not in quantities large enough to be a concern.  There are carcinogens in fried foods, yet many people eat them regularly.

There are risks involved with every aspect of life.  There were risks involved with every aspect of the Apollo missions.  The ones you just brought up are minimal.  You are just trying to change the subject, again.  This time to even more ridiculous levels. 

The facts remain that your original idea that Apollo 11 experienced constant radiation exposures of at least .22mGy/day has been shown to have no factual footing, and the data brought to this discussion actually supports the alternate conclusion.  You are trying to dance away from that poorly thought-out strategy you originally had without admitting your failures.  I don't expect you to, because that would take actual integrity.  You can even fool yourself into thinking you are fooling people on this forum - that's your prerogative.  But just like the data provided in your link - the truth is obvious to everyone else.
Maybe you can explain what they mean when they say "Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited."?  Does that mean suck up as much as you can hold?  You have no corroborating data from solar cycle 20.  The data you do have list is as .24 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.  If you have something that you have concealed then please share it with the group.  If you insist on using CraTer data then I am good with that also.  I have said I will accept any 10 day averaged window that you are anyone else will choose.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 08, 2018, 01:57:03 AM
Point blank.  Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts?  Either it is or it isn't.  Why play the "laden" game?  Call it what it is.
Over what time period? A coal miner doesn't develop coalworker's pneumoconiosis, commonly known as black lung, over only a couple shifts, but it's still a significant occupational hazard that kills thousands.  Just because something might be a potential danger to ISS length stays or longer in a future manned base or colony does not mean it was a danger to the weekend camping trip stays on the lunar surface of Apollo.
Shouldn't you be asking about an amount of kreep?  Is any amount not a carcinogen?  How much would you be willing to ingest?
Lots of things are carcinogens. Some forms (https://www.westfraser.com/sites/default/files/certifications/Wood%20Dust%20SDS%202016_0.pdf) (see page 4 of 5 of the pdf) of sawdust are  carcinogens or suspected carcinogens, but I swept out a wood working shop as part of a summer job with no protection, and I don't yet have lung cancer. Just because something is a carcinogen does not mean  any level of exposure equals 'Gonna get Big C for certain like'.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 02:00:15 AM
I did mention because the detectors are sensitized for specific types of radiation then it seems logical that a summation of the detectors would be representative of biological effect.  So add them up and average out the 10 day window and tell me how much you like me now.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 02:04:02 AM
Point blank.  Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts?  Either it is or it isn't.  Why play the "laden" game?  Call it what it is.
Over what time period? A coal miner doesn't develop coalworker's pneumoconiosis, commonly known as black lung, over only a couple shifts, but it's still a significant occupational hazard that kills thousands.  Just because something might be a potential danger to ISS length stays or longer in a future manned base or colony does not mean it was a danger to the weekend camping trip stays on the lunar surface of Apollo.
Shouldn't you be asking about an amount of kreep?  Is any amount not a carcinogen?  How much would you be willing to ingest?
Lots of things are carcinogens. Some forms (https://www.westfraser.com/sites/default/files/certifications/Wood%20Dust%20SDS%202016_0.pdf) (see page 4 of 5 of the pdf) of sawdust are  carcinogens or suspected carcinogens, but I swept out a wood working shop as part of a summer job with no protection, and I don't yet have lung cancer. Just because something is a carcinogen does not mean  any level of exposure equals 'Gonna get Big C for certain like'.
So how do you think they should work in the presence of moon dust.  Do you think they would enter into the people compartment and take dust "laden" space suits off without first decontaminating or removing them in a decontamination chamber?  Or do you think that astronauts are expendable so they didn't worry about it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 08, 2018, 02:05:31 AM
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?




Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?

I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.


Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
So what you are saying is the Kreep is safe if you hold it in your mouth for a couple of seconds?

No, I'm saying that kreep is not LADEN with alpha particles.
Point blank.  Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts?  Either it is or it isn't.  Why play the "laden" game?  Call it what it is.

Because words have meaning. Your words indicate a poor understanding of the subject you are discussing.

Man up and answer the question.  Is Moon dust (Kreep) radioactive and an ingestion hazard to astronauts?  Stop deflecting and make a stand.

"Alpha laden particles". That issue hasn't been settled yet. You haven't explained why you used that erroneous term.
I used it because it was appropriate but I don't have to.  If it is a road block to you acknowledging that kreep is radioactive then by all means, I withdraw the term.  Consider it unsaid.  Now what have you got?

I don't want you to withdraw the term , I want you to explain why you used it, especially since you still think that it was appropriate.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 08, 2018, 02:18:00 AM
Off topic, but the nested quotes remind me of a Star Wars-esque opening crawl.
Let's call it . . .  Episode 4F: A New Dope.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 02:30:39 AM
AtomicDog, and you are like a dog with a bone.  Let's not concentrate on the box rather let us examine the contents.  If you have any appreciation for radcon procedures then you know in you heart and mind that you would never expose the astronauts to an internal radiation hazard.  You know this so why don't you admit either they didn't know it was radioactive at the time or they never went.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 02:45:16 AM
You could silence me by showing and NASA statement anywhere that calls out a cislunar background radiation of less than .24 mgy/day.

In a reasoned debate with educated people, why should I have to show you data lower than 0.24mGy/day to prove the point that if an average[/quote] level of 0.24mGy/day exists there must by definition have been periods below and above that level?

What you're asking us to do is provide supporting data to uphold the definition of a word. Why should we do that when you are the one misusing the word?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 02:47:40 AM
You have no problem with using the averages of the dosimeter readings so why would you have a problem with NASA establishing an expected range of radiation based on averages?

Nowhere in the document you cite does NASA say they have established a range with a minimum of 0.24mGy/day. What they say is that is the average level recorded during solar max and that it may be expected to be higher during solar min. You are the one adding all sorts of misinterpretation to the statement.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 02:49:59 AM
I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.

Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 02:51:45 AM
You could silence me by showing and NASA statement anywhere that calls out a cislunar background radiation of less than .24 mgy/day.

In a reasoned debate with educated people, why should I have to show you data lower than 0.24mGy/day to prove the point that if an average
level of 0.24mGy/day exists there must by definition have been periods below and above that level?

What you're asking us to do is provide supporting data to uphold the definition of a word. Why should we do that when you are the one misusing the word?
[/quote]
The article cited a range of 1 rem/day at solar maximum to 2.5 times that at solar minimum.  Although it is reasonable to expect to go below that range in some instances it also reasonable that you would go above that limit occasionally.  It all smoothes out over the averages.  If perchance there existed an article that stated a measured reading below this value during the apollo 11 mission then I might be able to justify the low mission dosages.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 02:53:52 AM
To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in.  If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA.

It has already been pointed out by several people, including the document you cited to keep pulling out your average GCR lelevs, that the Apollo missions happened during solar max.

Things like this don't help your case either.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 03:02:44 AM
I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.

Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
This thing just won't die.  The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used.  In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced.  The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph.  I hope this puts an end to this.  As an aside, back in the day a log graph was used to convert data to logarithms.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 03:05:35 AM
The article cited a range of 1 rem/day at solar maximum to 2.5 times that at solar minimum.  Although it is reasonable to expect to go below that range in some instances it also reasonable that you would go above that limit occasionally.

In fact it is reasonable to concude that half the data would be above and half below. That is how these calculations work, after all.

Quote
It all smoothes out over the averages.

Yes, it does, but the point you seem determined to miss is that no information is given about the actual recorded range or the time over which any data above or below the average was recorded, or the time over which the average was calculated.

In simpler terms, you have no information as to whether the data looked like this:

0.22, 0.26, 0.21, 0.27, 0.24, 0.10, 0.38, 0.20, 0.28, 0.24, 0.25, 0.23, 0.21

Or this:

0.38, 0.28, 0.27, 0.26, 0.25, 0.24, 0.24, 0.23, 0.22, 0.21, 0.21, 0.20, 0.1

Same average, totally different impacts in terms of when you fly the mission.

Quote
If perchance there existed an article that stated a measured reading below this value during the apollo 11 mission then I might be able to justify the low mission dosages.

You're the one making the claims about what the average actually means, so you're the one responsible for providing the data. And no matter how many time you say it, you have absolutely not done so. What you're asking us to do is rovide data to disprove your baseless interpretation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 03:07:29 AM
To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in.  If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA.

It has already been pointed out by several people, including the document you cited to keep pulling out your average GCR lelevs, that the Apollo missions happened during solar max.

Things like this don't help your case either.
You did take note that I established a solar maximum GCR as the minimum mission dose possible didn't you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 03:09:13 AM
I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.

Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
This thing just won't die.  The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used.  In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced.  The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph.

That is just nonsensical. How have you determined that it is an arithmetically scaled graph? The only vaues called out on the axis are the powers of ten, which are equidistantly spaced on a log scale but not an arithmetic one. You cannot have your cake and eat it. It is one or the other.  The key difference is where you think the values, say, 20,, 30, 40, 50 etc fall between the 10 and 100 labels on the axis. Where is your evidence to answer that question?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 03:10:59 AM
The article cited a range of 1 rem/day at solar maximum to 2.5 times that at solar minimum.  Although it is reasonable to expect to go below that range in some instances it also reasonable that you would go above that limit occasionally.

In fact it is reasonable to concude that half the data would be above and half below. That is how these calculations work, after all.

Quote
It all smoothes out over the averages.

Yes, it does, but the point you seem determined to miss is that no information is given about the actual recorded range or the time over which any data above or below the average was recorded, or the time over which the average was calculated.

In simpler terms, you have no information as to whether the data looked like this:

0.22, 0.26, 0.21, 0.27, 0.24, 0.10, 0.38, 0.20, 0.28, 0.24, 0.25, 0.23, 0.21

Or this:

0.38, 0.28, 0.27, 0.26, 0.25, 0.24, 0.24, 0.23, 0.22, 0.21, 0.21, 0.20, 0.1

Same average, totally different impacts in terms of when you fly the mission.

Quote
If perchance there existed an article that stated a measured reading below this value during the apollo 11 mission then I might be able to justify the low mission dosages.

You're the one making the claims about what the average actually means, so you're the one responsible for providing the data. And no matter how many time you say it, you have absolutely not done so. What you're asking us to do is rovide data to disprove your baseless interpretation.
Does it make a difference?  It is the cumulative dose that interest us or otherwise we wouldn't record mission dosage rather they would be minute or second doses.  If it is the cumulative dose that is important then average is the way to go.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 03:11:37 AM
To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in.  If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA.

It has already been pointed out by several people, including the document you cited to keep pulling out your average GCR lelevs, that the Apollo missions happened during solar max.

Things like this don't help your case either.
You did take note that I established a solar maximum GCR as the minimum mission dose possible didn't you?

Irrelevant. The point is you suggested we'd have to do some other digging to find out when in the solar cycle the missions occurred. Clearly that is not required since the information was provided in your own source material.

ANd yes, we did note tat you established solar max as providing the minimum GCR dose, but you still don't actually have any supporting information as to what that minimum is. Only the average calculated.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 03:14:37 AM
I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.

Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
This thing just won't die.  The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used.  In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced.  The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph.

That is just nonsensical. How have you determined that it is an arithmetically scaled graph? The only vaues called out on the axis are the powers of ten, which are equidistantly spaced on a log scale but not an arithmetic one. You cannot have your cake and eat it. It is one or the other.  The key difference is where you think the values, say, 20,, 30, 40, 50 etc fall between the 10 and 100 labels on the axis. Where is your evidence to answer that question?

Two ways to be sure.  You don't convert the data to log on a logarithmic graph.  The graph does that.  The second is if you look at the CraTer graph each grid has 10 equally spaced tick marks.  If it had been a logarithmic graph then the tick marks would have been spaced at logarithmic intervals
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 03:16:36 AM
I'll catch you guys tomorrow.  It is late and I require beauty sleep to maintain my dashing good looks.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 03:27:12 AM
The article cited a range of 1 rem/day at solar maximum to 2.5 times that at solar minimum.  Although it is reasonable to expect to go below that range in some instances it also reasonable that you would go above that limit occasionally.

In fact it is reasonable to concude that half the data would be above and half below. That is how these calculations work, after all.

Quote
It all smoothes out over the averages.

Yes, it does, but the point you seem determined to miss is that no information is given about the actual recorded range or the time over which any data above or below the average was recorded, or the time over which the average was calculated.

In simpler terms, you have no information as to whether the data looked like this:

0.22, 0.26, 0.21, 0.27, 0.24, 0.10, 0.38, 0.20, 0.28, 0.24, 0.25, 0.23, 0.21

Or this:

0.38, 0.28, 0.27, 0.26, 0.25, 0.24, 0.24, 0.23, 0.22, 0.21, 0.21, 0.20, 0.1

Same average, totally different impacts in terms of when you fly the mission.

Quote
If perchance there existed an article that stated a measured reading below this value during the apollo 11 mission then I might be able to justify the low mission dosages.

You're the one making the claims about what the average actually means, so you're the one responsible for providing the data. And no matter how many time you say it, you have absolutely not done so. What you're asking us to do is rovide data to disprove your baseless interpretation.
Does it make a difference?  It is the cumulative dose that interest us or otherwise we wouldn't record mission dosage rather they would be minute or second doses.  If it is the cumulative dose that is important then average is the way to go.

Of course the cumulative dose is important. Assuming each of those numbers is a daily dose, let's see what happens if we fly a mission of five days' duration at any time during the period covered by those numbers.

First set:

Day 1-5 - 0.22+0.26+0.21+0.27+0.24 = 1.20 (mean 0.24/day)
Day 4-9 - 0.27+0.24+0.10+0.38+0.20 = 1.19 (mean 0.24/day)
Day 9-13 - 0.28+0.24+0.25+0.23+0.21 = 1.21 (mean 0.24/day)

Second set:

Day 1-5 - 0.38+0.28+0.27+0.26+0.25 = 1.44 (mean 0.29/day)
Day 4-9 - 0.26+0.25+0.24+0.24+0.23 = 1.22 (mean 0.24/day)
Day 9-13 - 0.22+0.21+0.21+0.20+0.1 = 0.94 (mean 0.19/day)

See the difference?

The fact remains you have no idea how to extrapolate the average given in your source document to any given two week lunar mission period, because there just isn't the information available to you to determine if we are looking at data more like my first or second examples. You therefore have no basis to draw your conclusion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 03:30:11 AM
Tim

With regard to the radiation issue, your initial claim was that the GCR flux made the surface more radioactive when you meant that the radiation levels increased. You initially confused radioactivity with ionising radiation. Can you see why your misunderstanding of basic scientific ideas does not help your cause?

You have finally found an article that tells us that KREEP is radioactive. We never denied the soils and rocks were radioactive when helping you understand the difference between ionising radiation and radioactivity. What levels of radiation does the KREEP present? Please provide a number that a radiologist would require to assess the hazard. At the moment your argument is that its radioactive so it must be bad. Let's put this into context of your source material.

You have found an article that discusses the incorporation of lunar soils in protective habitats for long term missions and the associated increase in radioactivity from those soils. You equated this to the Apollo astronauts being in mortal danger. The exposure from radiation (of all kinds) on a short term mission is significantly less compared with a long term mission. You are using one article to discuss exposure over a long time, and  extrapolating that to the risks for a mission that lasted a few days, all with the hand waving argument that 'radiation is bad mmmm-kay!'. It's apples and oranges again.

As for your one data point being less than 0.24 mGr/day. You brought data to the table, misinterpreted the log scale and drew an erroneous conclusion. We've explained to you that using graphs offers a visual representation but you need to look at the numbers. There are whole swathes of data points below the floor level YOU set. To add, this is for data in a less active cycle compared to the cycle pertinent to the Apollo missions.

To make matters worse, you've presented your median and mean data and don't have the slightest inkling of the difference between a median and a mean. You've even argued that saying a mean average is a little like having a stutter. I wrote in that way for your benefit, to ensure that I was being clear between a mean and a median with you. I've seen scientific material that uses the phrase 'mean average.' So please don't criticise you critics when they are doing their utmost to be clear what they mean, yet you cannot even offer and semblance of understanding scientific terms correctly.

Your initial claim was proven incorrect, and you simply aren't prepared to admit this. That's the issue. You've been caught out like every other blow hard before. You didn't think it through did you?

The really tragic aspect of this debacle, is like Jarrah White and others before you, you've make mistake after mistake with the language of science, but cannot simply put you hand up and say I was wrong. You dig further and further into a hole with your 'cut and paste' argument. Finally you throw that much material at your critics in the hope it sticks, like all the blow hards before, you finish with the refutation of your own claim. Why? Because you have no expertise in this domain, the material that you throw up in the air as your 'proof' becomes contradictory as you attempt to compare material based on different assumptions. In the end you paper over the cracks as you thrash around with scientific ideas that you cannot join together in a coherent manner. You are scientifically illiterate, that's the only conclusion I draw form this thread.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 03:31:29 AM
Two ways to be sure.  You don't convert the data to log on a logarithmic graph.  The graph does that.

And your proof of that is what? Show me any data point on that graph that is converted and not just plotted.

Quote
The second is if you look at the CraTer graph each grid has 10 equally spaced tick marks.

No, it doesn't. It has a bunch of dotted lines which line up with the major divisions on each axis. As has already been pointed out, you can see this is certainly true if you look at the 100 point on the y-axis. There are no minor divisions marked on the y-axis.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 03:37:49 AM
This thing just won't die.  The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used.  In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced.  The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph.  I hope this puts an end to this.  As an aside, back in the day a log graph was used to convert data to logarithms.

... but only a few days ago you argued the CRaTER graph was an exponential graph. Now it's arithmetic. At least be consistent with your gobbledegook.

In any case, your initial argument was there is no data below your threshold value of 0.22. You've been shown to be wrong. Are you ready to concede that you are wrong to say the data in CRaTER does not fall below 0.22?

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 03:39:34 AM
I'll catch you guys tomorrow.  It is late and I require beauty sleep to maintain my dashing good looks.

Maybe you should use the rest period to develop your cognitive reasoning. You seem to be wasting your sleep time there.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 03:45:33 AM
Does it make a difference?  It is the cumulative dose that interest us or otherwise we wouldn't record mission dosage rather they would be minute or second doses.  If it is the cumulative dose that is important then average is the way to go.

Of course cumulative dose is important, but we're debating your initial point that the CRaTER data never fell below the floor level you set and the merit of averages. Inspection of the data shows your original CRaTER assumption to be a false claim. You came to the board with this claim, are you ready to say you were wrong to make this claim?

What don't you get about these points?

1) You came to the board, said the CRaTER data did not fall below 0.22; all because you read the graph incorrectly. Your initial claim was wrong.
2) We then told you that you cannot use the CRaTER data in any case, as is does not describe Cycle 20.
3) You then cited an average for cycle 20, but you cannot use an average either as the daily dose on consecutive days can fall below the average.


Further, you presented data from ground based monitors that is above your 0.22 floor level. I don't see us all dying from neutron radiation. Does your 0.22 baseline level produce a cumulative dose that is hazardous over a 2 week period?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 04:37:56 AM
So how do you think they should work in the presence of moon dust.  Do you think they would enter into the people compartment and take dust "laden" space suits off without first decontaminating or removing them in a decontamination chamber?  Or do you think that astronauts are expendable so they didn't worry about it?

Or do you think that maybe the radiation levels are not actually significant for the short stay on the Moon? Your own body is emitting beta particles from the small percentage of carbon-14 in your body. You haven't provided any data about the amount of radioactive material in the lunar dust and how this translates to possibe health issues in a short duration mission versus a long one (which is what that KREEP article you keep quoting was actually taking about.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 04:41:08 AM
why don't you admit either they didn't know it was radioactive at the time or they never went.

False dilemma. Why don't you admit the possibility they knew and it was considered acceptably low risk?

You just don't seem to get risk analysis, do you? Eliminate if possible, control if not possible to eliminate, consider tolerability of residual risk. No activity in life is risk-free. Radiation risks aren't some special category where all exposure must be avoided, because this is simply impossible.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 04:46:32 AM
The same people insisted that the data was inapplicable because it was in a different solar cycle

Tim  do you understand the following points:

1: GCR is modulated by slar flux: higher solar activity = lower GCR
2: Solar cycle 24 (the CraTer data) was less active than solar cycle 20
3: It therefore follows that whatever the lower values in cycle 24, cycle 20 would have experienced overall lower CGR because of the higher solar flux in cycle 20?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 08, 2018, 05:04:17 AM
why don't you admit either they didn't know it was radioactive at the time or they never went.

False dilemma. Why don't you admit the possibility they knew and it was considered acceptably low risk?

You just don't seem to get risk analysis, do you? Eliminate if possible, control if not possible to eliminate, consider tolerability of residual risk. No activity in life is risk-free. Radiation risks aren't some special category where all exposure must be avoided, because this is simply impossible.
This attitude is very odd from someone who claims to have worked with nuclear vessels, but, yes, it's literally impossible avoid all radiation, given that the food we eat and therefore our bodies contains traces of radioactive isotopes. If my boyfriend spends the night, I am exposed to more radiation than if I sleep alone. Sure doesn't stop me from wanting that as frequently as feasible, and I certainly don't fear any health risks as a result.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 08, 2018, 05:07:07 AM
While we're discussing KREEP:

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_14/samples/

Quote
KREEP was first discovered on Apollo 12

Think about that Tim.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 08, 2018, 05:30:06 AM
While we're discussing KREEP:

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_14/samples/

Quote
KREEP was first discovered on Apollo 12

Think about that Tim.

Yeah, but it was recovered by the autonomous robotic landers that were launched  on the massive rockets (that no-one saw, heard or created any seismic events). These robotic landers launched the soil and rock samples (lets not forget that the US robotic sample missions were able to return three orders of magnitude more material, including rocks tens of kilograms in mass, than the USSR missions that returned a few hundred grams) back to Earth. These samples were somehow magically captured in LEO by the astronauts who were launched on the massive rockets that were seen and recorded until they reached LEO where they became invisible.

Yep, thats how it was done.  Totally plausible, not a problem with that scenario, no Sireee. ::)

Of course, the alternative is that the missions happened as described and the above nonsense is the fevered ramblings of some bloke that cant read a graph properly...
In reality, what Tim is offering is another tired variant on the old, threadbare "NASA can do anything, even the impossible, except land men on the Moon and return them as described in the historical canon"
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 08, 2018, 06:10:27 AM
...what Tim is offering is another tired variant on the old, threadbare "NASA can do anything, even the impossible, except land men on the Moon and return them as described in the historical canon"

...and at the same time, are incompetent enough to have waving flags and C-Rocks all over the place and to lie about things such as radiation which can easily be checked up on by anyone.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 08, 2018, 06:48:27 AM
...what Tim is offering is another tired variant on the old, threadbare "NASA can do anything, even the impossible, except land men on the Moon and return them as described in the historical canon"

...and at the same time, are incompetent enough to have waving flags and C-Rocks all over the place and to lie about things such as radiation which can easily be checked up on by anyone.

Indeed!
NASA is simultaneously able to create a subterfuge so fiendishly clever that it stands inspection a half-century later by technologies not even dreamed of in the 1960s, yet they were unable to prevent people leaving "false-flag" markers all over the show. I mean, imagine the ability to be able to go to the Moon and plant false footprints that would lay there for 50+ years until a foreign nation put their own Lunar imaging system into orbit (https://phys.org/news/2009-09-indian-satellite-moon-scientist.html).

They've also managed to contain all the leaks and whistleblowers over the decades, yet have never, ever once silenced the tiny number of plucky, brave people like Tim that have rumbled the whole plot.  :o ::)  I certainly know that if there was such a powerful organisation that could keep such a secret then the last thing that I would be doing would be blabbing about it all over the Internet.

I'm following, with interest, the whole implosion of the Cambridge Analytica affair and the impact of it on British democracy (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/07/christopher-wylie-why-i-broke-the-facebook-data-story-and-what-should-happen-now?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other). Here's a well funded organisation with links to multi-billionaires, undercover people with very dodgy abilities and highly-connected politicians, yet the whole thing has been exposed after 18 months by a bloke with a silly hairstyle.

Honestly, the mental gyrations that one would have to submit to to believe that Apollo is a hoax is ridiculous. I really do wonder about the mental abilities of the hoax proponents like Tim. I understand (though do not condone) charlatans like Percy, Sibrel, Rene and White et al. as they were in it for the money in their attempts to flog books, magazines and shows.


Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 08, 2018, 09:05:26 AM
Once again we try to distract from the real issue.  The fact that the astronauts were breathing radioactive dust.  Throw up all the smoke screens you want.  Create any diversion you can.  It won't alter the fact that it is proof of a hoax.

Again you post a reference that Apollo astronauts were breathing dust.  How can this be if they were only in LEO?

You don't even understand that as others have pointed out to you can't use data captured on the Moon in efforts to prove they didn't go to the Moon.  This is sad really sad.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 09:34:14 AM
Data has been presented, linked to, sorted, graphed, calculated, extrapolated...by over a half-dozen posters.

Which also doesn't look good on you. You are squinting over a single graph, arguing over and over about how your non-standard interpretation is somehow the correct one -- OTHER people have grappled with the actual underlying data, showing their ability to create that graph, or subject it to other analysis.
I'm sorry did I miss where you posted an official or even not official statement that said cislunar GCR radiation was less than .24 mgy/day during anytime of the apollo missions?  Maybe you could highlight and repost it because I am eager to move on.
Yes you did miss it despite it being posted over and over and over.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 09:42:55 AM
I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest.  I m the one that is being left unanswered.  I have asked for one data point.  A single one and yet no answers me.

Several people have repeated shown you how you're misinterpreting the radiation data. They have asked you to look at the data instead of the graph. They have asked you to import the data into Excel and generate a graph yourself, just like they have done. You have refused to do that. Why?

Maybe you should follow the thread.  I have actually did that and posted the results.


Maybe you should be careful about the kind of attitude you direct at me. I'll let the people asking you the questions decide whether you responded adequately.
Maybe you should be careful in how you accuse me.  We wouldn't want everyone to think that you are not impartial and are trying to railroad me out of here now would we?
No, you are intentionally posting abject nonsense with no aim other than to get the crank badge of honour, a ban.

That is all you are doing, no more, no less.

For your own reasons you are unaware that you are thus portraying yourself as an idiot. It is obviously an act. If, as it seems, you wish to be seen by everyone as an idiot, then have at it. Knock yourself out.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 10:19:30 AM
I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.

Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
This thing just won't die.  The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used.  In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced.  The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph.  I hope this puts an end to this.  As an aside, back in the day a log graph was used to convert data to logarithms.
Then Howcome you were utterly unable to answer my question about a simple graph?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 10:59:42 AM
Two ways to be sure.  You don't convert the data to log on a logarithmic graph.  The graph does that.

And your proof of that is what? Show me any data point on that graph that is converted and not just plotted.

Quote
The second is if you look at the CraTer graph each grid has 10 equally spaced tick marks.

No, it doesn't. It has a bunch of dotted lines which line up with the major divisions on each axis. As has already been pointed out, you can see this is certainly true if you look at the 100 point on the y-axis. There are no minor divisions marked on the y-axis.
Jason, this is really getting embarrassing.  Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph.  Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches.  Come on man!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 11:06:15 AM
While we're discussing KREEP:

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_14/samples/

Quote
KREEP was first discovered on Apollo 12

Think about that Tim.

I see were you are going.  Because Kreep had not been discovered, it was not a danger for the apollo 11 crew.  Why didn't I think of that?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 11:10:04 AM
The same people insisted that the data was inapplicable because it was in a different solar cycle

Tim  do you understand the following points:

1: GCR is modulated by slar flux: higher solar activity = lower GCR
2: Solar cycle 24 (the CraTer data) was less active than solar cycle 20
3: It therefore follows that whatever the lower values in cycle 24, cycle 20 would have experienced overall lower CGR because of the higher solar flux in cycle 20?
Did you not forget that at the first sign of CraTer Data rejection, I wanted to move on.  It is others that insist we reinvent the wheel and break the chart down.  I am a victim in this train wreck.  I am willing to use the CraTer day but I don't think anyone will like the results I provide so let's let it go.  OK?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 11:12:09 AM
why don't you admit either they didn't know it was radioactive at the time or they never went.

False dilemma. Why don't you admit the possibility they knew and it was considered acceptably low risk?

You just don't seem to get risk analysis, do you? Eliminate if possible, control if not possible to eliminate, consider tolerability of residual risk. No activity in life is risk-free. Radiation risks aren't some special category where all exposure must be avoided, because this is simply impossible.
This attitude is very odd from someone who claims to have worked with nuclear vessels, but, yes, it's literally impossible avoid all radiation, given that the food we eat and therefore our bodies contains traces of radioactive isotopes. If my boyfriend spends the night, I am exposed to more radiation than if I sleep alone. Sure doesn't stop me from wanting that as frequently as feasible, and I certainly don't fear any health risks as a result.
What is odd is you compare two unrelated things and arrive at what you believe is a sane conclusion.  Now that is just strange.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 11:15:43 AM
I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.

Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
This thing just won't die.  The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used.  In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced.  The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph.

That is just nonsensical. How have you determined that it is an arithmetically scaled graph? The only vaues called out on the axis are the powers of ten, which are equidistantly spaced on a log scale but not an arithmetic one. You cannot have your cake and eat it. It is one or the other.  The key difference is where you think the values, say, 20,, 30, 40, 50 etc fall between the 10 and 100 labels on the axis. Where is your evidence to answer that question?

Two ways to be sure. 
Really?

You don't convert the data to log on a logarithmic graph.
Correct.
The graph does that.
Wrong.
The second is if you look at the CraTer graph each grid has 10 equally spaced tick marks.
Oops, utterly wrong.

If it had been a logarithmic graph then the tick marks would have been spaced at logarithmic intervals
Wrong.

What is your answer about my graph?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 11:17:28 AM
I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest.  I m the one that is being left unanswered.  I have asked for one data point.  A single one and yet no answers me.

Several people have repeated shown you how you're misinterpreting the radiation data. They have asked you to look at the data instead of the graph. They have asked you to import the data into Excel and generate a graph yourself, just like they have done. You have refused to do that. Why?

Maybe you should follow the thread.  I have actually did that and posted the results.


Maybe you should be careful about the kind of attitude you direct at me. I'll let the people asking you the questions decide whether you responded adequately.
Maybe you should be careful in how you accuse me.  We wouldn't want everyone to think that you are not impartial and are trying to railroad me out of here now would we?
No, you are intentionally posting abject nonsense with no aim other than to get the crank badge of honour, a ban.

That is all you are doing, no more, no less.

For your own reasons you are unaware that you are thus portraying yourself as an idiot. It is obviously an act. If, as it seems, you wish to be seen by everyone as an idiot, then have at it. Knock yourself out.

I am sure you believe that I have fostered an unrelenting respect for your keen intellect and powers of reasoning, right.  Well, hang on to that thought, rare jewels are valuable.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 11:19:35 AM
Concentrations of Thorium and Uranium from Granitic Rocks in NW Spain

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969705002032

Uranium concentrations in the rock varied between 5.3 and 27.7 mg kg-1 and Thorium concentrations from 5.5 to 50.7 mg kg-1

Concentrations of radioactive elements in lunar materials

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/97JE03267

If you look at the table, there's a whole range of samples, from evolved rocks, KREEP rich impact breccias, mare basalts. This pretty much covers the lunar sample set, and lo and behold the concentration of Uranium and Thorium are quoted in units of micro grams kg-1.

There's a lovely logarithmic graph too, showing a plot of the concentrations.

Therefore, we can conclude, at least in one instance, that soils on Earth contain higher concentrations of Uranium and Thorium by mass. Looks like we are going to have to evacuate most of Cornwall and Dundee.

Tim, do you know how the moon was formed?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 11:22:24 AM
I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.

Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
This thing just won't die.  The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used.  In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced.  The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph.

That is just nonsensical. How have you determined that it is an arithmetically scaled graph? The only vaues called out on the axis are the powers of ten, which are equidistantly spaced on a log scale but not an arithmetic one. You cannot have your cake and eat it. It is one or the other.  The key difference is where you think the values, say, 20,, 30, 40, 50 etc fall between the 10 and 100 labels on the axis. Where is your evidence to answer that question?

Two ways to be sure. 
Really?

You don't convert the data to log on a logarithmic graph.
Correct.
The graph does that.
Wrong.
The second is if you look at the CraTer graph each grid has 10 equally spaced tick marks.
Oops, utterly wrong.

If it had been a logarithmic graph then the tick marks would have been spaced at logarithmic intervals
Wrong.

What is your answer about my graph?

My answer to your graph question is google up an image of a logarithmic graph and figure out why the CraTer graph does not look like that image.  I have tried to spoon feed you but you won't swallow ;-)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 11:31:17 AM
Here, I googled it for you.  Does the CraTer graph look like this?  This can't be has hard as you are making it seem.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 11:33:09 AM

My answer to your graph question is google up an image of a logarithmic graph and figure out why the CraTer graph does not look like that image.  I have tried to spoon feed you but you won't swallow ;-)
No tim, my question requires a single word answer. "Log" or "Linear".

The reason that you are incapable of providing a single word answer and resort to irrelevant google searches is that you don't know. Sure, you try to hide your abject ignorance by posting hastily googled images of no relevance, but the established fact that you have no clue what you are talking about remains for all to see. This thread will be cited everywhere you try to present such BS all over the internet.

Face it. Your credibility is not a boomerang. Once you throw it away, it isn't coming back.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 11:34:04 AM
Jason, this is really getting embarrassing.  Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph.  Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches.  Come on man!

I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 11:34:22 AM
Here, I googled it for you.  Does the CraTer graph look like this?  This can't be has hard as you are making it seem.
And this is what kind of graph?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 11:35:02 AM
Did you not forget that at the first sign of CraTer Data rejection, I wanted to move on.  It is others that insist we reinvent the wheel and break the chart down.  I am a victim in this train wreck.  I am willing to use the CraTer day but I don't think anyone will like the results I provide so let's let it go.  OK?

Evasion of questions noted, thank you. You didn't want to move on, you wanted to abandon it the moment the flaws in your interpretation were pointed out.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 11:36:10 AM
Here, I googled it for you.  Does the CraTer graph look like this?  This can't be has hard as you are making it seem.

TIm, what happens to that plot if you take out the minor gridlines and leave in only the powers of 10, as in the CraTer graph? Repeatedly posting an image of a log graph as if it proves your point is not actually answering the question.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 11:36:42 AM
Here, I googled it for you.  Does the CraTer graph look like this?  This can't be has hard as you are making it seem.

Forget the graph Tim. You can say it exponential or arithmetic (whatever, I'm beyond caring), I'll be happy with calling it logarithmic.

The simple point being you managed to misread the graph, arrived at the board telling us the CRaTER data never fell below your threshold value. That's because you misread the graph. That's the nuts and bolts of this argument? When presented with the data, you had that 'uh oh I was wrong moment' and are now trying to back pedal. That's the truth, and you've managed to dig a deeper hole as you just throw more cut and pastes in the hope that something sticks.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 11:41:54 AM
One further point: exactly what 'log' do you propose the data are converted to, Tim? You'll note much of it (all except a bunch of SPEs) is less than 1. Logarithmic conversion of a number between 0 and 1 provides a negative number. So where are these converted vaues on the CraTer graph?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 11:44:03 AM
If only they hadn't plotted that CraTer data using dotted gridlines this whole business might have been avoided. However, the point about equidistant minor tick marks remains, since a close look at where the y-axis graduations and the dots fall will show they are not actually marking off anything between the numbers, especially if you look at the poisition of the 100 mark on the y-axis.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 08, 2018, 12:13:38 PM
...

Therefore, we can conclude, at least in one instance, that soils on Earth contain higher concentrations of Uranium and Thorium by mass. Looks like we are going to have to evacuate most of Cornwall and Dundee.
Oh no!!  Do you think my boss would accept it as a reasonable excuse for not going in to work, well, ever again?  :o

Quote
Tim, do you know how the moon was formed?
Well, to quote Britain's answer to Elon Musk, after deep and careful analysis - "I don't know lad... it's like no cheese I've ever tasted..."
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 12:26:25 PM
Just for fun, let's compare the CraTer graph (top) with the one I made.

Step 1: download data
Step 2: plot the same data sets on a graph
Step 3: Format y-axis to logarithmic scale.
Step 4: Set the axis range to match the CraTer graph (0.0001 to 10000)

That is literally all I did, except change the colours to match. Now, Tim, I have done what you asked. Tell me again how the CraTer graph is not a log scale, given the near-identity observed here.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 12:28:26 PM
I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.

Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
This thing just won't die.  The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used.  In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced.  The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph.  I hope this puts an end to this.  As an aside, back in the day a log graph was used to convert data to logarithms.

Bolding mine.

Only an end to any hope of you learning how to read graphs.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 08, 2018, 12:32:07 PM
In a more serious vein, thanks for finding these Luke.
Concentrations of Thorium and Uranium from Granitic Rocks in NW Spain

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969705002032

Uranium concentrations in the rock varied between 5.3 and 27.7 mg kg-1 and Thorium concentrations from 5.5 to 50.7 mg kg-1

Concentrations of radioactive elements in lunar materials

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/97JE03267

...

Returning to my previous question :
When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified?  i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions?  And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...

Also, what is the calculated risk from brief periods of inhaling dust, as in the typical stay of an Apollo mission, as opposed to long-term colonisation?
Tim, you fobbed me off, suggesting I google the answers to these questions myself.  I admit I haven't spent much time on it - at this time of year weekends are taken up more by boat maintenance than anything else - but I haven't found the information I wanted.  Luke has provided some relevant information however.

Since you apparently do have information on the risks and likely doses from short-term dust inhalation, as opposed to the dangers of long-stay colonisation, perhaps you can indulge me and at least post the references to it?  If dust inhalation over a few days is extremely dangerous, then what medical effects would you expect to see in Apollo astronauts if they were on the moon?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 12:32:41 PM
Also I have zoomed in on the axis to show how what Tim thinks are minor tick marks on the y-axis are actually nothing of the kind. They are merely dotten gridlines corresponding to the x-axis divisions, which unfortunately in this case lie right alongside the y-axis in this presentation of the graph. That is all.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 08, 2018, 12:39:48 PM
Just for fun, let's compare the CraTer graph (top) with the one I made.

Step 1: download data
Step 2: plot the same data sets on a graph
Step 3: Format y-axis to logarithmic scale.
Step 4: Set the axis range to match the CraTer graph (0.0001 to 10000)

That is literally all I did, except change the colours to match. Now, Tim, I have done what you asked. Tell me again how the CraTer graph is not a log scale, given the near-identity observed here.

Obviously as many have pointed out to tim, the values for less than .24 or .22 (don't know which value you are bonding with) exist in roughly .5 of the time plotted.  And for a bonus, again as many have tried to tell you this data was recorded in a period of sun cycles where those value would be generally higher than those of the 69-72 time period.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 12:41:10 PM
Jason, this is really getting embarrassing.  Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph.  Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches.  Come on man!

I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.
What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic data and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.  This is not a difficult concept to embrace.  The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure.  If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever.  Why can't we let this go?  It is like a toothache.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 12:55:06 PM
In a more serious vein, thanks for finding these Luke.
Concentrations of Thorium and Uranium from Granitic Rocks in NW Spain

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969705002032

Uranium concentrations in the rock varied between 5.3 and 27.7 mg kg-1 and Thorium concentrations from 5.5 to 50.7 mg kg-1

Concentrations of radioactive elements in lunar materials

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/97JE03267

...

Returning to my previous question :
When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified?  i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions?  And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...

Also, what is the calculated risk from brief periods of inhaling dust, as in the typical stay of an Apollo mission, as opposed to long-term colonisation?
Tim, you fobbed me off, suggesting I google the answers to these questions myself.  I admit I haven't spent much time on it - at this time of year weekends are taken up more by boat maintenance than anything else - but I haven't found the information I wanted.  Luke has provided some relevant information however.

Since you apparently do have information on the risks and likely doses from short-term dust inhalation, as opposed to the dangers of long-stay colonisation, perhaps you can indulge me and at least post the references to it?  If dust inhalation over a few days is extremely dangerous, then what medical effects would you expect to see in Apollo astronauts if they were on the moon?

Does anyone ever read the articles?  It clearly states :
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.

The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.  How can it be more plainly stated.  If you are looking for an amount in grams then I have no answer but consider this article:  Apollo Chronicles: The Mysterious Smell of Moondust01.30.06
Long after the last Apollo astronaut left the moon, a mystery lingers: Why does moondust smell like gunpowder?
Moondust. "I wish I could send you some," says Apollo 17 astronaut Gene Cernan. Just a thimbleful scooped fresh off the lunar surface. "It's amazing stuff."

Feel it--it's soft like snow, yet strangely abrasive.

Taste it--"not half bad," according to Apollo 16 astronaut John Young.

Sniff it--"it smells like spent gunpowder," says Cernan.

How do you sniff moondust?

Apollo 17 astronaut Gene Cernan rests inside the lunar module Challenger. There are smudges of dust on his longjohns and forehead.
Every Apollo astronaut did it. They couldn't touch their noses to the lunar surface. But, after every moonwalk (or "EVA"), they would tramp the stuff back inside the lander. Moondust was incredibly clingy, sticking to boots, gloves and other exposed surfaces. No matter how hard they tried to brush their suits before re-entering the cabin, some dust (and sometimes a lot of dust) made its way inside.

Once their helmets and gloves were off, the astronauts could feel, smell and even taste the moon.
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/30jan_smellofmoondust.html
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 12:58:12 PM
The scale is defined by it's type and units of measure.

No it's not. The scaling is defined by the dynamic range of the data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 01:01:26 PM
Oh no!!  Do you think my boss would accept it as a reasonable excuse for not going in to work, well, ever again?  :o

I assume your refer to Dundee, the Granite City. Now known as the City of Imminent Radioactive Death.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 01:12:31 PM
I want to point out that I have been against using CraTer data ever since the first cry of foul.  For those of you unwilling to let this CraTer thing die a quick death remember this one fact.  The detector has six lenses sensitized to specific bands and types of radiation and that the effective dose is a summation and not an average of the detectors.  So does anyone still want to play with the CraTer data?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 01:17:55 PM
One other thing.  You can set the scale of your graph to exponents but if you don't convert the data first to logarithmic data then you graph will not represent anything but arithmetic data, which is fine if that is what you want.  Now should you convert the raw data into logarithmic data then you are simply doing what plotting on a logarithmic graph would do. I sometimes miss high school, don't you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 01:19:19 PM
Okay, let's try this again, this time without the arrogance.

Tim.  What would it get you to admit you don't understand an article you've Googled?  That you do not have the relevant knowledge to understand why it proves you to be wrong?  I mean, for heaven's sake, I learned the difference between mean and median in seventh grade, and I was an English major in college and have little to no scientific expertise!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 01:26:21 PM
Jason, this is really getting embarrassing.  Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph.  Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches.  Come on man!

I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.
What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic data
Lie.
and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.
Lie.
This is not a difficult concept to embrace.
Not for us, but apparently it is beyond your grasp.

The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure.  If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever.  Why can't we let this go?  It is like a toothache.
And all of a sudden when pressurized, you can't spell. Face it. You have no clue what you are talking about.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 01:28:54 PM
One other thing.  You can set the scale of your graph to exponents but if you don't convert the data first to logarithmic data then you graph will not represent anything but arithmetic data, which is fine if that is what you want.  Now should you convert the raw data into logarithmic data then you are simply doing what plotting on a logarithmic graph would do. I sometimes miss high school, don't you?

Balsamic and vinegar for me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 01:32:57 PM
Okay, let's try this again, this time without the arrogance.

Tim.  What would it get you to admit you don't understand an article you've Googled?  That you do not have the relevant knowledge to understand why it proves you to be wrong?  I mean, for heaven's sake, I learned the difference between mean and median in seventh grade, and I was an English major in college and have little to no scientific expertise!
I am truly at a loss to understand what you are going on about.  I surely know that mean is the sum divided by the quantity while median is the middle data point when all data is arranged in numerical order.  Where the distinct challenge lies in grasping the concept of a logarithmic graph and it's purpose which as an english major I am sure you did not spend a lot of time studying the concept but is is great to see you bring your journalistic prowess to bear on this sticky problem.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 01:34:03 PM
What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data...

No it's not. The numbers match the position on the log scale exactly. I can put the log divisions in and the graph is not changed.

But thank you for being exactly as predictable as expected. Asked me to plot in Excel on a log scale to prove you right, did it, proved you wrong, so you conclude Excel is doing something with the numbers that it absolutely is not.

Quote
into logarithmic data and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.

Really? See the attached graph where I've put in the log scale minor divisions too.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 01:37:11 PM
Jason, this is really getting embarrassing.  Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph.  Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches.  Come on man!

I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.
What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic data
Lie.
and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.
Lie.
This is not a difficult concept to embrace.
Not for us, but apparently it is beyond your grasp.

The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure.  If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever.  Why can't we let this go?  It is like a toothache.
And all of a sudden when pressurized, you can't spell. Face it. You have no clue what you are talking about.
I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged.  Conduct a minor experiment for yourself.  use any ten digits and plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 01:37:21 PM
Okay, let's try this again, this time without the arrogance.

Tim.  What would it get you to admit you don't understand an article you've Googled?  That you do not have the relevant knowledge to understand why it proves you to be wrong?  I mean, for heaven's sake, I learned the difference between mean and median in seventh grade, and I was an English major in college and have little to no scientific expertise!
I am truly at a loss to understand what you are going on about.  I surely now that mean is the sum divided by the quantity while median is the middle data point when all data is arranged in numerical order.  Where the distinct challenge lies in grasping the concept of a logarithmic graph and it's purpose which as an english major I am sure you did not spend a lot of time studying the concept but is is great to see you bring your journalistic prowess to bear on this sticky problem.
It isn't a "sticky" problem. You are simply wrong
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 01:39:22 PM
One other thing.  You can set the scale of your graph to exponents

DO tell me exactly how that is done in any way other than setting the scale to a log scale in Excel.

Quote
but if you don't convert the data first to logarithmic data

You say this a lot. I will say again, logs of numbers between 0 and 1 are negative values, so how exactly is this data being converted to logs without showing any negative values?

Quote
Now should you convert the raw data into logarithmic data then you are simply doing what plotting on a logarithmic graph would do.

This is simply crap. Plotting on a log graph is not at all changing the data itself, just how it is plotted. A data point at 100000 is at 100000 on an arithmetic or log scale. The only difference is where on the axis that is because of the different scales. Incidentally, the log10 of 100000 is 5. Now how could that conversion go un-noticed? What you are proposing is that the axis labels and the data don't actually match.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 01:39:37 PM
Jason, this is really getting embarrassing.  Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph.  Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches.  Come on man!

I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.
What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic data
Lie.
and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.
Lie.
This is not a difficult concept to embrace.
Not for us, but apparently it is beyond your grasp.

The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure.  If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever.  Why can't we let this go?  It is like a toothache.
And all of a sudden when pressurized, you can't spell. Face it. You have no clue what you are talking about.
I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged.  Conduct a minor experiment for yourself.  use any en digits and plot it first regularly and plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?

Is this a log or linear graph? You won't answer this simple elementary question because you are incapable of doing so.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 01:40:39 PM
Conduct a minor experiment for yourself.  use any ten digits and plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?


Are you actually serious? You can see why the shape changes: because the position of the values on the y-axis is changed. The numbers do not. It's just where they lie on an axis.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 01:41:33 PM
Plotting on a log graph is not at all changing the data itself, just how it is plotted.

I thought we got past this 700 posts ago?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 01:43:32 PM
Plotting on a log graph is not at all changing the data itself, just how it is plotted.

I thought we got part this 700 posts ago?
Oh we all got it, Timfinch doesn't.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 01:43:57 PM
I'm trying to think of any graph...of any data presentation, really....that doesn't have a label clearly stating how the points are to be interpreted. I can not comprehend why anyone would think that because the index lines have a certain pattern one must leap to the conclusion that all data is to be mathematically manipulated in some form not described in the labels of the indexes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 01:45:59 PM

I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged.  Conduct a minor experiment for yourself.  use any ten digits and plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?

You keep using this word, "Plot." I do not think it means what you seem to think it means.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 01:48:34 PM
I cannot actually understand how anyone thinks that changing a scale means the data is transformed. If you plot a log graph and an arithmetic graph of the same data, the shape of the graph changes, but the data remains the same when read against the scale.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 01:50:18 PM
Jason, this is really getting embarrassing.  Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph.  Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches.  Come on man!

I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.
What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic data
Lie.
and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.
Lie.
This is not a difficult concept to embrace.
Not for us, but apparently it is beyond your grasp.

The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure.  If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever.  Why can't we let this go?  It is like a toothache.
And all of a sudden when pressurized, you can't spell. Face it. You have no clue what you are talking about.
I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged.  Conduct a minor experiment for yourself.  use any en digits and plot it first regularly and plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?

Is this a log or linear graph? You won't answer this simple elementary question because you are incapable of doing so.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 08, 2018, 01:50:27 PM
What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data...

No it's not. The numbers match the position on the log scale exactly. I can put the log divisions in and the graph is not changed.

But thank you for being exactly as predictable as expected. Asked me to plot in Excel on a log scale to prove you right, did it, proved you wrong, so you conclude Excel is doing something with the numbers that it absolutely is not.

Quote
into logarithmic data and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.

Really? See the attached graph where I've put in the log scale minor divisions too.

For me I prefer the divisions on the graph as it helps visually to determine the approximate values.  I can see the values much lower than .2 approaching .1.  As Luke and you, perhaps others you need to interrogate the data to find the absolute low.  But for the discussion at hand the value for a good portion of the graph are below the printed average for A11, which is to be expected
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 01:52:07 PM
use any ten digits and plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?

RIght, let's do this again. Tim, look at the two graphs. Same data points, different scales. Arithmetic scale on the left, perfect straight line. Log scale on the right. Exactly the same numbers. The only difference is where the numbers lie on the axis. Look at the actual points and you can clearly see that in both cases y=x. The curve changes because of the different scales. That is all. No change to the numbers has been made, only how they are plotted.

If you still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this, or claim I have done some other weird conversion to the data, you are either incompetent or trolling.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 01:53:04 PM
Is this the Apollo Hoax site or the Math Hoax site.  Why are we not discussing the improbability of the lunar landing and instead wrangling over semantics?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 01:53:57 PM
Good lord, tim, even your own graphs clearly show the same data points without any chang or conversion whatsoever. Notice how your first example has a point at 10 that sits exactly on the line at 10 in both cases? Nothing has been changed except the scale on the axis.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 01:54:39 PM
Is this the Apollo Hoax site or the Math Hoax site.  Why are we not discussing the improbability of the lunar landing and instead wrangling over semantics?

This is not semantics, it is your inability to comprehend a graph. It is actually critical.

But again, evasion of simple quetion noted.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 01:55:13 PM
Is this the Apollo Hoax site or the Math Hoax site.  Why are we not discussing the improbability of the lunar landing and instead wrangling over semantics?

The issue is that you have now posted evidence that you think because the scaling changes and so does the shape of the graph, it means the data changes. That's what you think. You actually think this.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 01:57:03 PM
RIght, let's do this again. Tim, look at the two graphs. Same data points, different scales. Arithmetic scale on the left, perfect straight line. Log scale on the right. Exactly the same numbers. The only difference is where the numbers lie on the axis. Look at the actual points and you can clearly see that in both cases y=x. The curve changes because of the different scales. That is all. No change to the numbers has been made, only how they are plotted.

If you still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this, or claim I have done some other weird conversion to the data, you are either incompetent or trolling.
I cannot argue this.  It is correct.  The shape of the curves differ as I have contended all along.  It is merely a point of perspective.  if you keep an arithmetic scale then the data itself must be converted to log or if you have a log scale then the data is unchanged.  This is not obvious to you but if you added the tick marks to your graph it would be painfully obvious.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 01:59:01 PM
RIght, let's do this again. Tim, look at the two graphs. Same data points, different scales. Arithmetic scale on the left, perfect straight line. Log scale on the right. Exactly the same numbers. The only difference is where the numbers lie on the axis. Look at the actual points and you can clearly see that in both cases y=x. The curve changes because of the different scales. That is all. No change to the numbers has been made, only how they are plotted.

If you still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this, or claim I have done some other weird conversion to the data, you are either incompetent or trolling.
I cannot argue this.  It is correct.  The shape of the curves differ as I have contended all along.  It is merely a point of perspective.  if you keep an arithmetic scale then the data itself must be converted to log or if you have a log scale then the data is unchanged.  This is not obvious to you but if you added the tick marks to your graph it would be painfully obvious.

No, that is not what you said. You said that if the curve changes shape when you plot on a log scale the data must be converted. Those are your exact words:

Quote
plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 02:01:07 PM
I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged.  Conduct a minor experiment for yourself.  use any ten digits and plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?

Really? 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Now plot that. On anything. With meaning.

You failed to define your axes, without which you have nothing. That you failed to do so tells everyone that you are simply flailing about in a sea of abject ignorance and you like it.


Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 02:02:04 PM
You also contend that when I changed the scale of the axis on the CraTer data it must have converted the data to plot it. You have yet to explain why that would happen in that case but not in the simple example I posted.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 02:02:35 PM
Jason, this is really getting embarrassing.  Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph.  Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches.  Come on man!

I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.
What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic data
Lie.
and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.
Lie.
This is not a difficult concept to embrace.
Not for us, but apparently it is beyond your grasp.

The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure.  If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever.  Why can't we let this go?  It is like a toothache.
And all of a sudden when pressurized, you can't spell. Face it. You have no clue what you are talking about.
I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged.  Conduct a minor experiment for yourself.  use any en digits and plot it first regularly and plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?

Is this a log or linear graph? You won't answer this simple elementary question because you are incapable of doing so.
Right. You don't know at all. Thank you for admitting that you have no clue.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 02:04:41 PM
Is this the Apollo Hoax site or the Math Hoax site.  Why are we not discussing the improbability of the lunar landing and instead wrangling over semantics?
Because you chose to raise the issue and thus exposed yourself to deserved derision when you doubled down on your nonsense.

Even a child could understand that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 02:05:50 PM
I cannot actually understand how anyone thinks that changing a scale means the data is transformed. If you plot a log graph and an arithmetic graph of the same data, the shape of the graph changes, but the data remains the same when read against the scale.
Nor I.

The options are limited. Troll or moron.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 02:06:21 PM
I am truly at a loss to understand what you are going on about.  I surely know that mean is the sum divided by the quantity while median is the middle data point when all data is arranged in numerical order.  Where the distinct challenge lies in grasping the concept of a logarithmic graph and it's purpose which as an english major I am sure you did not spend a lot of time studying the concept but is is great to see you bring your journalistic prowess to bear on this sticky problem.

For the love of Gods, why does everyone assume English majors are all journalists?  Those are journalism majors.  I write nonfiction, for the most part, mostly about film--which is how I know what I've repeatedly told you about how faking the Apollo footage is literally impossible even today.

So let's do a little thought experiment, Tim.  Let's say that it is, as you've been told, impossible to fake the Apollo footage.  The only way to get it to look the way it does is in a place with 1/6 Earth gravity, in near-vacuum, with no ambient humidity.  So.  Knowing that the film is not possible to fake, why is the answer to the fact that you think the numbers don't make sense not "you don't understand what the numbers are telling us"?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 02:09:38 PM
Now should you convert the raw data into logarithmic data then you are simply doing what plotting on a logarithmic graph would do.

Here;s the same comparison. Arithmetic plot on the left, coverted to log scale on the right, log data conversion on the left on an arithmetic scale. Yes, the curve is the same shape as the unconverted data on the log scale, but the numbers are utterly different.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 02:11:47 PM
Maybe this will solve the issue for all except Abaddon who is mentally challenged.  I f you label the minor graduation on your chart and they are equally spaced then the only way the data can match up is if you convert it into a log.  if the minor graduation are at logarithmic intervals then your graph is indeed a logarithmic graph.  So mark the minor graduation on the CraTer data and we will all be happy.  Set them at 1/10 intervals then I have a problem with that and with you.  Capiche?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 02:15:39 PM
Maybe this will solve the issue for all except Abaddon who is mentally challenged.

Are you prepared to retract that slur on another member of the forum?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 02:16:44 PM
I find myself wondering if Tim even knows what a log is.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 02:17:49 PM
I am truly at a loss to understand what you are going on about.  I surely know that mean is the sum divided by the quantity while median is the middle data point when all data is arranged in numerical order.  Where the distinct challenge lies in grasping the concept of a logarithmic graph and it's purpose which as an english major I am sure you did not spend a lot of time studying the concept but is is great to see you bring your journalistic prowess to bear on this sticky problem.

For the love of Gods, why does everyone assume English majors are all journalists?  Those are journalism majors.  I write nonfiction, for the most part, mostly about film--which is how I know what I've repeatedly told you about how faking the Apollo footage is literally impossible even today.

So let's do a little thought experiment, Tim.  Let's say that it is, as you've been told, impossible to fake the Apollo footage.  The only way to get it to look the way it does is in a place with 1/6 Earth gravity, in near-vacuum, with no ambient humidity.  So.  Knowing that the film is not possible to fake, why is the answer to the fact that you think the numbers don't make sense not "you don't understand what the numbers are telling us"?
Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 02:18:13 PM
Maybe this will solve the issue for all except Abaddon who is mentally challenged.  I f you label the minor graduation on your chart and they are equally spaced then the only way the data can match up is if you convert it into a log.  if the minor graduation are at logarithmic intervals then your graph is indeed a logarithmic graph.  So mark the minor graduation on the CraTer data and we will all be happy.  Set them at 1/10 intervals then I have a problem with that and with you.  Capiche?

Tim, I have already drawn the minor divisions on my own plot of the CraTer data on a log scale and the whole thing matches the CraTer graph from the website.

You are proposing a situation where leaving off minor divisions on the y-axis leaves the scale ambiguous. This is just not true. If the powers of 10 are equidistant it is a log scale, because the other kind of scale you talk of simply is not used.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 02:20:07 PM
If you label the minor graduation on your chart and they are equally spaced then the only way the data can match up is if you convert it into a log.

Why do you insist that the data has to be converted. A log scale is arranged on the major units by an increasing order of magnitude, and the data plotted against the scale. The data is not converted. You simply did not read the graph properly, and are using this to try an weasel out of your schoolboy error.

Quote
So mark the minor graduation on the CraTer data and we will all be happy

Did that for you about 800 posts ago, and showed at solar max the dose fell below the threshold value you set, refuting your claim.

Quote
Capiche?

Is that a model of car made by Ford in the 70s and 80s?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 02:21:26 PM
Maybe this will solve the issue for all except Abaddon who is mentally challenged.  I f you label the minor graduation on your chart and they are equally spaced then the only way the data can match up is if you convert it into a log.  if the minor graduation are at logarithmic intervals then your graph is indeed a logarithmic graph.  So mark the minor graduation on the CraTer data and we will all be happy.  Set them at 1/10 intervals then I have a problem with that and with you.  Capiche?

Tim, I have already drawn the minor divisions on my own plot of the CraTer data on a log scale and the whole thing matches the CraTer graph from the website.

You are proposing a situation where leaving off minor divisions on the y-axis leaves the scale ambiguous. This is just not true. If the powers of 10 are equidistant it is a log scale, because the other kind of scale you talk of simply is not used.
Why do you think there is log graph paper and arithmetic graph paper?  The magic is in the graduations.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 02:22:57 PM
Can we please get back to the Lunar Hoax?  This basic math stuff is so boring.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 08, 2018, 02:23:35 PM
In a more serious vein, thanks for finding these Luke.
Concentrations of Thorium and Uranium from Granitic Rocks in NW Spain

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969705002032

Uranium concentrations in the rock varied between 5.3 and 27.7 mg kg-1 and Thorium concentrations from 5.5 to 50.7 mg kg-1

Concentrations of radioactive elements in lunar materials

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/97JE03267

...

Returning to my previous question :
When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified?  i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions?  And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...

Also, what is the calculated risk from brief periods of inhaling dust, as in the typical stay of an Apollo mission, as opposed to long-term colonisation?
Tim, you fobbed me off, suggesting I google the answers to these questions myself.  I admit I haven't spent much time on it - at this time of year weekends are taken up more by boat maintenance than anything else - but I haven't found the information I wanted.  Luke has provided some relevant information however.

Since you apparently do have information on the risks and likely doses from short-term dust inhalation, as opposed to the dangers of long-stay colonisation, perhaps you can indulge me and at least post the references to it?  If dust inhalation over a few days is extremely dangerous, then what medical effects would you expect to see in Apollo astronauts if they were on the moon?

Does anyone ever read the articles?  It clearly states :
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.

The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.  How can it be more plainly stated.  If you are looking for an amount in grams then I have no answer but consider this article:  Apollo Chronicles: The Mysterious Smell of Moondust01.30.06
Long after the last Apollo astronaut left the moon, a mystery lingers: Why does moondust smell like gunpowder?
Moondust. "I wish I could send you some," says Apollo 17 astronaut Gene Cernan. Just a thimbleful scooped fresh off the lunar surface. "It's amazing stuff."

Feel it--it's soft like snow, yet strangely abrasive.

Taste it--"not half bad," according to Apollo 16 astronaut John Young.

Sniff it--"it smells like spent gunpowder," says Cernan.

How do you sniff moondust?

Apollo 17 astronaut Gene Cernan rests inside the lunar module Challenger. There are smudges of dust on his longjohns and forehead.
Every Apollo astronaut did it. They couldn't touch their noses to the lunar surface. But, after every moonwalk (or "EVA"), they would tramp the stuff back inside the lander. Moondust was incredibly clingy, sticking to boots, gloves and other exposed surfaces. No matter how hard they tried to brush their suits before re-entering the cabin, some dust (and sometimes a lot of dust) made its way inside.

Once their helmets and gloves were off, the astronauts could feel, smell and even taste the moon.
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/30jan_smellofmoondust.html

Sorry, but that is not an answer to the question, or a suitable reference to proper research.  The "article" you quote from is a wiki page discussing the risks to people staying on the Moon for long periods, and doesn't discuss the risks to short-stay missions similar to Apollo.

I also asked for something other than a copy and paste response, but that seems to be your only method of debate.  I wonder if you even read the information you so glibly post...

I will repeat the question, in case you missed it - please provide a reference to information (preferably peer-reviewed research) on the risks of exposure to, and inhalation of, lunar surface dust, including KREEP-type materials, over short, medium term and longer duration missions.  It would also be useful, and relevant, to know the expected cancer rates for Apollo astronauts based on their documented exposure levels.


[ I'll also note that when I was doing my PhD research <redacted> years ago, my supervisor would have laughed me out of his office if I'd presented him with a couple of abstracts and a graph.  Research meant finding, reading and understanding multiple papers on the topic (image analysis and feature partitioning), following references, implementing algorithms, reproducing results etc. etc. ]
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 02:23:44 PM
Why do you think there is log graph paper and arithmetic log paper?  The magic is in the graduations.

....but you don't convert the data to plot the data. You simply plot the data against the divisions set by the scale. Jason has shown you very well that changing scale changes the shape of the graph, but the data remains identical. There is no magic transformation of the data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 02:23:52 PM
Maybe this will solve the issue for all except Abaddon who is mentally challenged.
Hurling insults is the last resort of the defeated. Thank you for admitting that.

I f you label the minor graduation on your chart and they are equally spaced then the only way the data can match up is if you convert it into a log.
And if you label the axis "sausages" you can measure the speed of light in rashers per furlong. Be pretty stupid to try to do so, no?

if the minor graduation are at logarithmic intervals then your graph is indeed a logarithmic graph.  So mark the minor graduation on the CraTer data and we will all be happy.  Set them at 1/10 intervals then I have a problem with that and with you.  Capiche?
Yes, we understand that you have no clue how graphs, scales and 3 dimensions actually work. We definitively established that pages ago. Try to keep up.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 02:26:29 PM

Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

Bolding mine.

You have to be careful of us liberal arts majors, too. We tend to see patterns others would prefer remain hidden. That brings me up to five "tells" and the smell of socks is now overpowering.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 02:28:19 PM
Can we please get back to the Lunar Hoax?  This basic math stuff is so boring.
Yes, we can do so as soon as you realise that your head is on a trajectory with your butt. You simply know that you have been found out and that your knowledge is found wanting. You will do and say anything to dodge the fact.

We can move along to your next crank belief as soon as you concede this crank belief.

ETA: "This basic stuff" is boring to you because you simply don't grok it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 02:31:57 PM
Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data.  Is that really not obvious?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 02:35:50 PM
Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data.  Is that really not obvious?

Are you still suggesting that when one plots data on a log scale, they need to take the log of the data? As Jason suggested, go away and compute the log of a number less than 1. Just do that. Find the log of 0.5. Then come tell us how to plot that on the CRaTER graph.

If you cannot perform this simple step to work through some logic, then you are an intellectual coward, and the record is here to see.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 02:36:08 PM
Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 02:36:48 PM
I am truly at a loss to understand what you are going on about.  I surely know that mean is the sum divided by the quantity while median is the middle data point when all data is arranged in numerical order.  Where the distinct challenge lies in grasping the concept of a logarithmic graph and it's purpose which as an english major I am sure you did not spend a lot of time studying the concept but is is great to see you bring your journalistic prowess to bear on this sticky problem.

For the love of Gods, why does everyone assume English majors are all journalists?  Those are journalism majors.  I write nonfiction, for the most part, mostly about film--which is how I know what I've repeatedly told you about how faking the Apollo footage is literally impossible even today.

So let's do a little thought experiment, Tim.  Let's say that it is, as you've been told, impossible to fake the Apollo footage.  The only way to get it to look the way it does is in a place with 1/6 Earth gravity, in near-vacuum, with no ambient humidity.  So.  Knowing that the film is not possible to fake, why is the answer to the fact that you think the numbers don't make sense not "you don't understand what the numbers are telling us"?
Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.
In my spare time, apart from being a professional, credentialed engineer for a living, I am also a stage magician as was my father before me. This is yet another area of knowledge of which you are utterly ignorant.

And knock it off with the random insults. It makes you look like an idiot. Don't do it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 02:38:15 PM
I am sure until I brought the subject up, most of you were unaware that moon dust was a health hazard due to it's radioactive alpha particle content.  I am sure most of you were unaware that the surface of the moon was so radioactive that the radiation from the surface of the moon raises the background radiation in lunar orbit by 30 to 40%.  Now do I need to inform everyone that radiation from a plane source diminishes as a function of distance, so that it is reasonable to assume the surface radiation is greater than the radiation reflected back into lunar orbit.  Let us discuss the implication of these facts.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 02:38:31 PM
Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data.  Is that really not obvious?
What were the units in my graph? What were the units in the crater graph?

You don't know that either.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 02:40:01 PM
Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data.  Is that really not obvious?

What were the units in my graph? What were the units in the crater graph?

You don't know that either.
Just maybe therein lies my confusion...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: cos on April 08, 2018, 02:40:23 PM
If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

Ah. I see what is wrong with your thought processes now. Also how someone can refuse to acknowledge their misunderstanding and instead wave away a mountain of verifiable scientific evidence. I'd like to thank my teachers for teaching me the scientific method, critical thinking and the skills to validate things myself. In an earlier thread some HB said that we still wouldn't believe it was a hoax if God himself told us. You know what, we would BUT only if he could tell us how it was done. Same standard for everyone.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 02:41:28 PM
I am sure until I brought the subject up, most of you were unaware that moon dust was a health hazard due to it's radioactive alpha particle content.
Lie. 
I am sure most of you were unaware that the surface of the moon was so radioactive that the radiation from the surface of the moon raises the background radiation in lunar orbit by 30 to 40%.
Lie.

Now do I need to inform everyone that radiation from a plane source diminishes as a function of distance, so that it is reasonable to assume thesurface radiation is greater than the radiation reflected back into lunar orbit.  Let us discuss the implication of these facts.
Teaching grandma to suck eggs. BTW, the space bar has a purpose.

So do tell us, what is it that makes you trot out so many lies?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 02:42:58 PM
Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data.  Is that really not obvious?

What were the units in my graph? What were the units in the crater graph?

You don't know that either.
Just maybe therein lies my confusion...
No, therein lies your glaring error. Right there among your other lies.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 02:44:20 PM
Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 08, 2018, 02:48:03 PM
Oh no!!  Do you think my boss would accept it as a reasonable excuse for not going in to work, well, ever again?  :o

I assume your refer to Dundee, the Granite City. Now known as the City of Imminent Radioactive Death.
;D

Also known as "Sunny Dundee", as it's the sunniest city in Scotland (although that probably isn't saying much...).  Also one of the main locations of companies in the surprisingly large and successful Scottish space industry!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 02:48:17 PM
Is no one willing to discuss the incongruity of lunar surface radiation and the lunar landings?  We all are entranced by the pretty log graph and can't be distracted with facts and figures?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 08, 2018, 02:52:05 PM
Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 02:52:46 PM
Why am I the only voice of dissention?  What do you guys do when I am not here, stroke each others egos and massage each others sensibilities?  If this was truly a useful site there would be a healthy discourse but all I here is one voice.  What is up with that?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 02:53:38 PM
Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.

Show me the data and I will be silenced.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 02:54:07 PM
Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.
What? Repeating it 6 times wasn't enough?

What? Handing you the actual data on a silver platter isn't enough?

The Americans, the Russians, the Europeans, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indians and several private companies all agree, but you are a special snoflake, is that right?

On top of that, those of us who are graduate scientists, engineers, aerospace engineers and so forth on this board all know you are abjectly wrong and have told you so over and over. But you, who are no more than a grunt who spent some time in a submerged tube, think you know better that the enormous body of knowledge and hard work that got us to where we are. I think not.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 02:54:15 PM
I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

Even I can understand where you're wrong on the background radiation issue.  Do you know how bad that makes you look?

But okay.  Let's look at this.  You are insisting that it is much more logical that it's all faked than that you don't understand something.  Things that would need to be faked without the hoax being exposed in some obvious way even decades later.

1.  The footage
2.  The photographs
3.  The live transmissions
4.  The telemetry
5.  The tracking by amateurs
6.  The tracking by powers hostile to the US
7.  The soil samples
8.  The rock samples
9.  The fact that the Apollo stack was a naked-eye object while in LEO
10.  The remnants of the landings left so that future probes have imaged them

Am I missing anything?  I'm sure I am.  But that they somehow faked that is more logical than that you don't understand something?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 02:55:56 PM
Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.

Show me the data and I will be silenced.
Again?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 08, 2018, 02:57:32 PM
I am sure until I brought the subject up, most of you were unaware that moon dust was a health hazard due to it's radioactive alpha particle content.  I am sure most of you were unaware that the surface of the moon was so radioactive that the radiation from the surface of the moon raises the background radiation in lunar orbit by 30 to 40%.  Now do I need to inform everyone that radiation from a plane source diminishes as a function of distance, so that it is reasonable to assume the surface radiation is greater than the radiation reflected back into lunar orbit.  Let us discuss the implication of these facts.
Lunar dust doesn't have a "radioactive alpha particle content", it contains isotopes which emit alpha particles.  I'm no radiation expert, but even I know that (and have undestood the distinction since high school).

What you haven't quantified is the level of risk presented by the dust, and the expected health impact of short-term exposure.  For example, are the health risks higher or lower than for uranium miners, coal miners, nuclear workers, or any other similar group?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 02:58:47 PM
Why am I the only voice of dissention?
Frankly, because you are the one harbouring crank beliefs.

What do you guys do when I am not here, stroke each others egos and massage each others sensibilities?
We wait for the next loon with the next version of crankery.

If this was truly a useful site there would be a healthy discourse but all I here is one voice.  What is up with that?
Healthy discourse might happen if you ceased with the lies.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 03:00:21 PM
I am sure until I brought the subject up, most of you were unaware that moon dust was a health hazard due to it's radioactive alpha particle content.

My bold. So the moon dust contains alpha particle and the alpha particles are radioactive. Words have meanings, and you don't know what they mean.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 03:00:24 PM
Gillanren,  let me say it again.  I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished.  knowing that there is no magic is sufficient.  The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies.  if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze.  After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 03:01:13 PM
Gillanren,  let me say it again.  I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished.  knowing that there is no magic is sufficient.  The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies.  if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze.  After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...

The hard part is the budget.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 03:02:11 PM
We continue to fuss over the aesthetics and refuse to embrace the issue.  Is that a bit disingenuous?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 03:03:36 PM
I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

That's easy then. The figure you cite is an average, therefore by definition there are occurrences where the GCR background is less than 0.24.

Case closed your honour! We're done then.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 03:04:49 PM
Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.

Show me the data and I will be silenced.
But you yourself posted the data that proves you wrong. If you are unable to read your own data nobody here can help you. Seek a remedial course at your nearest school.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 03:04:53 PM
Gillanren,  let me say it again.  I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished.  knowing that there is no magic is sufficient.  The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies.  if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze.  After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...

The hard part is the budget.

It would be except for the fact that every major industrial nation desires to go the moon.  The Japanese, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, The French,Germans, Italians, and a host of others.  Private ventures are in place to send tourist to the moon.  Money is not the issue.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 03:05:38 PM
No, what's disingenuous is your belief that you have somehow revealed an issue that no one in fifty years has ever thought of before that tanks the Apollo missions even if literally everything else about it holds up.  What's disingenuous is your belief that a single thing is enough to destroy all the other evidence, even if you can't explain how any of the fake worked.  The simple fact is, you are wrong about standards of evidence.  "I don't understand [thing]" is still the more likely explanation than "therefore it's all fake."  You can't admit it.  Ergo, you are the one who is arguing from a perspective of faith.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 08, 2018, 03:05:49 PM
Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.

Show me the data and I will be silenced.

I'm not sure that the Apollo missions recorded continuous radiation data as did CRaTER or the Curiosity voyage.  However you have been show in tow separate calculations that the data if recorded would have met the average value of .24, If anyone knows whether or not the values were stored on a continuous basis or just calculated the average from the dosimeter divided by the number of days?  I suspect that is how the number was derived.
But with the CRaTER data dipping below .2 for long periods of time in a greater flux environment than Apollo leads to a conclusion that the data for 69-72 would be lower than the CRaTER data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 03:06:17 PM
Gillanren,  let me say it again.  I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished.  knowing that there is no magic is sufficient.  The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies.  if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze.  After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...

The hard part is the budget.

It would be except for the fact that every major industrial nation desires to go the moon.  The Japanese, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, The French,Germans, Italians, and a host of others.  Private ventures are in place to send tourist to the moon.  Money is not the issue.

Add "governmental financing" to things you don't understand.  Also, "how much it costs to send people to the Moon."
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 03:06:53 PM
Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.
I asked if you wanted to use CraTer Data to prove or disprove the point many times and I get a resounding "No" it is not applicable.  Why do you keep bringing it up?

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.

Show me the data and I will be silenced.
But you yourself posted the data that proves you wrong. If you are unable to read your own data nobody here can help you. Seek a remedial course at your nearest school.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 03:08:56 PM
Gillanren,  let me say it again.  I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished.  knowing that there is no magic is sufficient.  The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies.  if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze.  After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...


The hard part is the budget.

It would be except for the fact that every major industrial nation desires to go the moon.  The Japanese, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, The French,Germans, Italians, and a host of others.  Private ventures are in place to send tourist to the moon.  Money is not the issue.

Add "governmental financing" to things you don't understand.  Also, "how much it costs to send people to the Moon."

Please explain the government financing part of this article:  https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 08, 2018, 03:09:01 PM
Gillanren,  let me say it again.  I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished.  knowing that there is no magic is sufficient.  The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies.  if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze.  After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...

The hard part is the budget.

No money no Saturn V's or support for the missions.  Trivial fact indeed.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 03:14:19 PM
Please explain the government financing part of this article:  https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html

So if this succeeds, you'll admit that Apollo was real?  That you've been mistaken about the radiation issues?  That it's hardly a "magic trick" to produce all the other stuff, and that you are incredibly ignorant of the relevant issues to claim it is?  That no government in the world has budgeted for a manned lunar mission since Apollo, and that it's the only reason there have been no manned lunar missions?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 03:14:30 PM
Gillanren,  let me say it again.  I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished.  knowing that there is no magic is sufficient.
Duh.
The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies.
Can you take a supersonic transatlantic flight today? You could in the sixties and seventies, why can you not do it today?

if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze.
Ooo, now you have stepped into my area of expertise. You will crash and burn. The AGC did exactly what it was supposed to do, no more, no less. To this day, people build working replicas for a hobby. Guess what? They all work as advertised.

Likely, you have no clue what an AGC is, nor the ability to parse it's source code, but hey, ignorance of the facts hasn't held you back before 
After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...
Hahaha. You seem to think that Apollo happened in isolation. That's hilarious.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 03:16:20 PM
No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 03:18:55 PM
Please explain the government financing part of this article:  https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html

So if this succeeds, you'll admit that Apollo was real?  That you've been mistaken about the radiation issues?  That it's hardly a "magic trick" to produce all the other stuff, and that you are incredibly ignorant of the relevant issues to claim it is?  That no government in the world has budgeted for a manned lunar mission since Apollo, and that it's the only reason there have been no manned lunar missions?
It can't be that expensive if a private enterprise can make an adequate profit by charging two passengers a million each.  I told you what it would take to convince me.  Are you suffering from a short term memory disorder?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 03:19:52 PM
Ooo, now you have stepped into my area of expertise. You will crash and burn. The AGC did exactly what it was supposed to do, no more, no less. To this day, people build working replicas for a hobby. Guess what? They all work as advertised.

I bet Tim hasn't got the foggiest about the AGC. What's the money on this one. I can hear his keyboard frantically being bashed into oblivion as he Goolges AGC.

Have we got computer with the power of a calculator on the Bingo Card?

Tim: Explain your statement about Apollo and the computer with the power of a calculator a little more please.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 03:20:17 PM
It can't be that expensive if a private enterprise can make an adequate profit by charging two passengers a million each.  I told you what it would take to convince me.  Are you suffering from a short term memory disorder?

How much infrastructure has been put in place prior to this that will be relied on for this mission?  How much did that infrastructure cost?

Do you understand why I asked you the other questions about what you'd be admitting if this succeeds?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 03:21:23 PM
No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?
While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 03:23:26 PM
No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?
While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.

I freely admit to being ignorant of most of the radiation discussion.  I'm slightly tempted to try explaining averages to Simon, though, to see if he can understand why "this is the average" necessarily proves that some data will fall below, possibly even significantly below, the stated figure.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 08, 2018, 03:24:17 PM
Ooo, now you have stepped into my area of expertise. You will crash and burn. The AGC did exactly what it was supposed to do, no more, no less. To this day, people build working replicas for a hobby. Guess what? They all work as advertised.

I bet Tim hasn't got the foggiest about the AGC. What's the money on this one. I can hear his keyboard frantically being bashed into oblivion as he Goolges AGC.

Have we got computer with the power of a calculator on the Bingo Card?

Tim: Explain your statement about Apollo and the computer with the power of a calculator a little more please.

It should be unless there aren't enough squares with all the other willfully ignorant claims.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 03:26:53 PM
No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?
While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.

I freely admit to being ignorant of most of the radiation discussion.  I'm slightly tempted to try explaining averages to Simon, though, to see if he can understand why "this is the average" necessarily proves that some data will fall below, possibly even significantly below, the stated figure.

Okay, I started, and I got as far as "and then you divide it by the number of numbers," and his response was, "That's crazy!"  I guess four is too young to get averages.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 03:27:49 PM
No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?
While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.

I freely admit to being ignorant of most of the radiation discussion.  I'm slightly tempted to try explaining averages to Simon, though, to see if he can understand why "this is the average" necessarily proves that some data will fall below, possibly even significantly below, the stated figure.
The problem is a bit more complex than demonstrating that values fluctuate around an average.  That goes without saying.  The problem is find a window to encompass the duration of a mission that is significantly below average and then repeating such a feat 7 more times.  Remember GCR background radiation is only a portion of the overall radiation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 03:28:53 PM
Please explain the government financing part of this article:  https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html

So if this succeeds, you'll admit that Apollo was real?  That you've been mistaken about the radiation issues?  That it's hardly a "magic trick" to produce all the other stuff, and that you are incredibly ignorant of the relevant issues to claim it is?  That no government in the world has budgeted for a manned lunar mission since Apollo, and that it's the only reason there have been no manned lunar missions?
It can't be that expensive if a private enterprise can make an adequate profit by charging two passengers a million each.  I told you what it would take to convince me.  Are you suffering from a short term memory disorder?
So now your claim is that some private enterprise is offering moon trips for  2 million.

OK. Maybe that happens on Planet Sausage, but here on Earth not so much. There have been a few "Space Tourists", a very few. They hitched rides on rockets that were going anyway with or without them. On top of that the cost was 20-40 million just to rent a chair.

Once again, your head has married your butt.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 03:30:10 PM
No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?
While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.

I freely admit to being ignorant of most of the radiation discussion.  I'm slightly tempted to try explaining averages to Simon, though, to see if he can understand why "this is the average" necessarily proves that some data will fall below, possibly even significantly below, the stated figure.

Okay, I started, and I got as far as "and then you divide it by the number of numbers," and his response was, "That's crazy!"  I guess four is too young to get averages.

Though now that I think about it, the average age in our household is 20.75!  He should be old enough to understand!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 03:30:52 PM
Please explain the government financing part of this article:  https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html

So if this succeeds, you'll admit that Apollo was real?  That you've been mistaken about the radiation issues?  That it's hardly a "magic trick" to produce all the other stuff, and that you are incredibly ignorant of the relevant issues to claim it is?  That no government in the world has budgeted for a manned lunar mission since Apollo, and that it's the only reason there have been no manned lunar missions?
It can't be that expensive if a private enterprise can make an adequate profit by charging two passengers a million each.  I told you what it would take to convince me.  Are you suffering from a short term memory disorder?
So now your claim is that some private enterprise is offering moon trips for  2 million.

OK. Maybe that happens on Planet Sausage, but here on Earth not so much. There have been a few "Space Tourists", a very few. They hitched rides on rockets that were going anyway with or without them. On top of that the cost was 20-40 million just to rent a chair.

Once again, your head has married your butt.
Do you ever read the articles or you simply winging your way through this?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 03:32:01 PM
Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.
I asked if you wanted to use CraTer Data to prove or disprove the point many times and I get a resounding "No" it is not applicable.  Why do you keep bringing it up?

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.

Show me the data and I will be silenced.
But you yourself posted the data that proves you wrong. If you are unable to read your own data nobody here can help you. Seek a remedial course at your nearest school.
Your response is nothing? Really? Well, that's convincing......not.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 03:34:06 PM
So, no one wants to discuss real issues?  Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting?  I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello.  I have better things to do with my time.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 03:34:28 PM
Jeez, now I want to do a whole YouTube thing--"Explaining Concepts to My Four-Year-Old."  I'm sure Simon can get his head around "calculated risk."
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 03:34:48 PM
I freely admit to being ignorant of most of the radiation discussion.  I'm slightly tempted to try explaining averages to Simon, though, to see if he can understand why "this is the average" necessarily proves that some data will fall below, possibly even significantly below, the stated figure.

There are several issues going on with the data, and they need to be addressed in some sort of order.

The CRaTER data actually show the complexity of the issue, as the data for the GCR background falls with increasing solar activity, therefore citing an average is utter nonsense.

The CRaTER data very clearly shows that the GCR flux varies significantly about an average.

The next point, which we have not got onto yet, is that the detectors all give different values. So even if we did have CRaTER type data for the missions, could we necessarily compare the data from an orbiting satellite with dosimeter data taken from the CSM and the astronauts. Not all methods of measuring dose are the same.

The argument presented is erroneous given the complexity of the problem, not only from the point of view of the complex nature of space radiation, but measurement theory.

The discussion, why appearing trivial and semantic based, really shows evidence of this claimant's lack of understanding. The log scale might seem trivial to the outsider, but it's actually the source of why the claimant is wrong.

Apologies if you knew all of the above.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 03:36:06 PM
So, no one wants to discuss real issues?  Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting?  I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello.  I have better things to do with my time.

I tried.  I tried to get you to understand that "I don't know how they faked it, but they must have, because my understanding of [thing] proves that it was faked" is less likely than "I don't understand how they did [thing]," but you're not getting that.  Unlike you, I won't ascribe that to any cognitive malfunction.  Frankly, I just don't think you want to admit you're wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 08, 2018, 03:36:46 PM
No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?
While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.

I freely admit to being ignorant of most of the radiation discussion.  I'm slightly tempted to try explaining averages to Simon, though, to see if he can understand why "this is the average" necessarily proves that some data will fall below, possibly even significantly below, the stated figure.
The problem is a bit more complex than demonstrating that values fluctuate around an average.  That goes without saying.  The problem is find a window to encompass the duration of a mission that is significantly below average and then repeating such a feat 7 more times.  Remember GCR background radiation is only a portion of the overall radiation.
tim you were shown that the amount of radiation received during transit of the VARB was < .1 of the total received from the missions, lower GCR's those two values alone are over one half of the roughly two week missions.  Now all you have to do is calculate the amount of radiation received while on the Lunar surface which won't be that much higher than GCR's and you have a mission average of .24 quite simple.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 03:37:13 PM

Please explain the government financing part of this article:  https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html
Sure. You and your ilk have taken away NASA's funding so they can't afford to go anymore. Thus NASA must hitchhike on the efforts of others. Why do you think NASA has a "rent-a-seat" arrangement with Russia to reach the ISS? It is because cranks have made sure that NASA can't afford it on their own.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 03:37:19 PM
Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data.  Is that really not obvious?

It's wrong. You can plot any numbers on any scale. Even your own graphs show that. If the scale goes up by multiples of 10 equidistantly spaced it is a log scale. End of discussion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 03:38:09 PM
Apologies if you knew all of the above.

Oh, dear Gods, no.  Honestly, I'd never even heard of CRaTER data before this discussion.  Like I said, not my area of expertise.  However, he's taking two areas in which I do have a pretty firm amateur understanding and insisting that I'm just being fooled by a magic trick, so there we are.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 03:39:00 PM
So, no one wants to discuss real issues?  Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting?  I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello.  I have better things to do with my time.
What issues? The only issue you have presented is that you can't read graphs. That's hardly our problem, is it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 03:39:57 PM
No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?
While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.

I freely admit to being ignorant of most of the radiation discussion.  I'm slightly tempted to try explaining averages to Simon, though, to see if he can understand why "this is the average" necessarily proves that some data will fall below, possibly even significantly below, the stated figure.

I can only imagine how much longer it would take to bring him to understanding of distribution. From his first post here, he seems to think the world can be best approximated linearly, and problems treated arithmetically.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 03:40:12 PM
Apologies if you knew all of the above.

Oh, dear Gods, no.  Honestly, I'd never even heard of CRaTER data before this discussion.  Like I said, not my area of expertise.  However, he's taking two areas in which I do have a pretty firm amateur understanding and insisting that I'm just being fooled by a magic trick, so there we are.

Oh, three--I have a better-than-layman's understanding of psychology, too.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 03:41:24 PM
Jeez, now I want to do a whole YouTube thing--"Explaining Concepts to My Four-Year-Old."  I'm sure Simon can get his head around "calculated risk."
Well, my two are teens. I can't post what they think. They are egging me on to enter total rant mode.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 08, 2018, 03:41:35 PM
So, no one wants to discuss real issues?  Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting?  I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello.  I have better things to do with my time.

I tried.  I tried to get you to understand that "I don't know how they faked it, but they must have, because my understanding of [thing] proves that it was faked" is less likely than "I don't understand how they did [thing]," but you're not getting that.  Unlike you, I won't ascribe that to any cognitive malfunction.  Frankly, I just don't think you want to admit you're wrong.
I couldn't leave this one uncommented upon.  Your positions is the same as mine.  You say it couldn't be faked because I can't imagine how they would fake a whole list of items and I say it must be fake because it cannot be done using the parameters provided.  We both take our position on a belief that neither can prove.  Well I can prove mine so we are a little alike.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 03:44:18 PM
Please explain the government financing part of this article:  https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html

So if this succeeds, you'll admit that Apollo was real?  That you've been mistaken about the radiation issues?  That it's hardly a "magic trick" to produce all the other stuff, and that you are incredibly ignorant of the relevant issues to claim it is?  That no government in the world has budgeted for a manned lunar mission since Apollo, and that it's the only reason there have been no manned lunar missions?
It can't be that expensive if a private enterprise can make an adequate profit by charging two passengers a million each.  I told you what it would take to convince me.  Are you suffering from a short term memory disorder?
So now your claim is that some private enterprise is offering moon trips for  2 million.

OK. Maybe that happens on Planet Sausage, but here on Earth not so much. There have been a few "Space Tourists", a very few. They hitched rides on rockets that were going anyway with or without them. On top of that the cost was 20-40 million just to rent a chair.

Once again, your head has married your butt.
Do you ever read the articles or you simply winging your way through this?
Oh yes. The difference is that I read it and understood it. You did not because as established up thread, you have challenges in that arena.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 03:45:17 PM
Jeez, now I want to do a whole YouTube thing--"Explaining Concepts to My Four-Year-Old."  I'm sure Simon can get his head around "calculated risk."

I'd watch that!

I had the chance to explain bases to my nephew back when he was five or six, enough where he grasped the joke about there being "10" kinds of of people in the world (those who understand binary and those who don't.)

I can't take the credit, though. Smart kid. He came close to going for maths when he hit University.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 03:45:21 PM
The problem is a bit more complex than demonstrating that values fluctuate around an average

We know, we told you that... and it's taken you this long to finally admit that an average is not the way to go.

Quote
That goes without saying.

Only once we spent 20 millions posts telling you.

Quote
The problem is find a window to encompass the duration of a mission that is significantly below average and then repeating such a feat 7 more times.  Remember GCR background radiation is only a portion of the overall radiation.

You set the boundary of below 0.22 mGr/day, that was your criterion. You chose this from Apollo 11 as it was the smallest number. Let's not forget that the other missions had greater average doses. So by your own criteria, the GCR dose fall below those values more frequently.

We've shown this to be the case with the CRaTER data, which is a less active cycle. Case closed in accord with your own criteria.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 03:45:31 PM
So, no one wants to discuss real issues?  Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting?  I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello.  I have better things to do with my time.

I tried.  I tried to get you to understand that "I don't know how they faked it, but they must have, because my understanding of [thing] proves that it was faked" is less likely than "I don't understand how they did [thing]," but you're not getting that.  Unlike you, I won't ascribe that to any cognitive malfunction.  Frankly, I just don't think you want to admit you're wrong.
I couldn't leave this one uncommented upon.  Your positions is the same as mine.  You say it couldn't be faked because I can't imagine how they would fake a whole list of items and I say it must be fake because it cannot be done using the parameters provided.  We both take our position on a belief that neither can prove.  Well I can prove mine so we are a little alike.

No, see, I do understand the issues.  You cannot get around the fact that they could not have stayed in LEO, because people all over the world would have been able to see it.  It really is that simple.  If you can't explain that, the more logical explanation is that you are wrong about the radiation.  My knowledge of radiation is scanty.  I admit that, and I take the word of experts all over the world, in every country, who use Apollo data.  My knowledge of "people can see a thing" is pretty good, though.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 03:47:41 PM
Jeez, now I want to do a whole YouTube thing--"Explaining Concepts to My Four-Year-Old."  I'm sure Simon can get his head around "calculated risk."

I'd watch that!

I had the chance to explain bases to my nephew back when he was five or six, enough where he grasped the joke about there being "10" kinds of of people in the world (those who understand binary and those who don't.)

I can't take the credit, though. Smart kid. He came close to going for maths when he hit University.

He's already a YouTube star! 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 03:48:51 PM
So, no one wants to discuss real issues?  Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting?  I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello.  I have better things to do with my time.

I tried.  I tried to get you to understand that "I don't know how they faked it, but they must have, because my understanding of [thing] proves that it was faked" is less likely than "I don't understand how they did [thing]," but you're not getting that.  Unlike you, I won't ascribe that to any cognitive malfunction.  Frankly, I just don't think you want to admit you're wrong.
I couldn't leave this one uncommented upon.  Your positions is the same as mine.  You say it couldn't be faked because I can't imagine how they would fake a whole list of items and I say it must be fake because it cannot be done using the parameters provided.  We both take our position on a belief that neither can prove.  Well I can prove mine so we are a little alike.
Wrong again. We have evidence and you don't. I can certainly "imagine" how it could be faked, but that just gives rise to a plethora of other intractable problems for the hoax proponents. For example, one cannot fake the transmissions from the modules unless one proposes that the "ebil gubmint" can somehow overturn physics.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 03:48:57 PM
It should be unless there aren't enough squares with all the other willfully ignorant claims.

The Bingo Card could be the size of a small tennis court.  :o
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 03:51:04 PM
deleted
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 03:51:13 PM
The Bingo Card could be the size of a small tennis court.  :o

There would just be a ton of possible Bingo cards.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 03:52:11 PM
I had the chance to explain bases to my nephew back when he was five or six, enough where he grasped the joke about there being "10" kinds of of people in the world (those who understand binary and those who don't.)

That's why computer scientists get Christmas and Halloween confused, as OCT31 = DEC25
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 03:52:19 PM
So, no one wants to discuss real issues?  Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting?  I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello.  I have better things to do with my time.

Terminology is not semantics. Using the wrong terms is as fatal to doing the math as getting the exponent wrong. You can't simple interchange "mass" and "weight" or "speed" and "acceleration" and think you are actually getting a result.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 03:54:37 PM
Terminology is not semantics. Using the wrong terms is as fatal to doing the math as getting the exponent wrong. You can't simple interchange "mass" and "weight" or "speed" and "acceleration" and think you are actually getting a result.

...or say the dust is filled with radioactive alpha particles. Who even says that in physics?

It was either you, Zakalwe or nomuse that used that phrase 'words have meanings.' It's really clear that if the claimant cannot access the terminology, then they highly unlikely to proficient in the field.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 08, 2018, 03:55:21 PM
Maybe this will solve the issue for all except Abaddon who is mentally challenged.

Tim,

I have banned you for 5 days for trolling and insults like the one quoted above. Improve your attitude or don't bother coming back.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 03:57:01 PM
I had the chance to explain bases to my nephew back when he was five or six, enough where he grasped the joke about there being "10" kinds of of people in the world (those who understand binary and those who don't.)

That's why computer scientists get Christmas and Halloween confused, as OCT31 = DEC25
I wonder will tim grok that one?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 03:57:50 PM
I have banned you for 5 days for trolling and insults like the one quoted above. Improve your attitude or don't bother coming back.

Thanks LO. We've had long discussions on this board about making assumptions regarding CTs mental health/conditions. I know that I was one that had their wrists slapped over it a few times by other members. I think we have pretty much stopped that between ourselves. Slurs about mental state are unacceptable.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 03:58:40 PM
I wonder will tim grok that one?

I had to google that one.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 03:59:49 PM
I had the chance to explain bases to my nephew back when he was five or six, enough where he grasped the joke about there being "10" kinds of of people in the world (those who understand binary and those who don't.)

That's why computer scientists get Christmas and Halloween confused, as OCT31 = DEC25

I've heard that one before, but you know, I still laugh whenever I hear it.

But, oh, my misspent youth...us Liberal Arts folks sometimes have to do things like program patches on music synthesizers, and I miss not the days of calculating checksums in hex.

My nephew really loved the idea of "Carry the G," though.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 04:00:42 PM
I have banned you for 5 days for trolling and insults like the one quoted above. Improve your attitude or don't bother coming back.

Thanks LO. We've had long discussions on this board about making assumptions about CTs mental health/conditions. I know that I was one that had their wrists slapped over it a few times by other members. I think we have pretty much stopped that between ourselves. Slurs about mental state are unacceptable.
As the victim, I took no offence. What matters a slur from any drooling idiot? I was more offended by the insults hurled gillianren's direction.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 04:01:44 PM
My nephew really loved the idea of "Carry the G," though.

That's an hex (heck) of a way of learning it. Puns are rubbish if one uses parentheses to explain the pun. I'll get my coat.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 04:05:45 PM
As the victim, I took no offence.

I doubt I would have been offended, but I believe if we can keep our house clean it places us above them morally too.

I had to laugh, as he declared he would ignore me, and did just that. The thing is, he didn't understand that I actually took his ignoring as a compliment.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 08, 2018, 04:05:57 PM
Why am I the only voice of dissention?  What do you guys do when I am not here, stroke each others egos and massage each others sensibilities?  If this was truly a useful site there would be a healthy discourse but all I here is one voice.  What is up with that?

The people who push the hoax theory are aware that they won't find any gullible suckers to con here, so they avoid us. In other words, they're afraid of us and only go where they can spread their lies without any push back.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 04:07:26 PM
Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data.  Is that really not obvious?

I have already pointed out that the CraTer axis is not delineated in 1/10th increments. I even put up a picture to show you this. Maybe the 5 days off will give you some time to actually think about this.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 04:07:58 PM

...or say the dust is filled with radioactive alpha particles. Who even says that in physics?

It was either you, Zakalwe or nomuse that used that phrase 'words have meanings.' It's really clear that if the claimant cannot access the terminology, then they highly unlikely to proficient in the field.

Sometimes it is a jargon test. Back when I was doing a lot of A2 work when you met a new tech or FOH mixer there'd often be a little dance...he'd toss some jargon, you'd shoot back some jargon, then you'd part satisfied that the other guy or gal knew enough of what they were about to be left to it.

Sure, it's possible someone could memorize a bunch of jargon and convincingly pull a Jarod with it, but I've never found that convinces anyone other than HR. To use the jargon grammatically and idiomatically you need to have grasped the underlying structure.

I try not to be exclusionary, though. Someone can not know the jargon and still have a good idea. What they can't do is skimp on the terminology -- if it isn't correct, it isn't exact, and if it isn't exact, then you have no idea what the person is really thinking.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 04:17:39 PM
Sure, it's possible someone could memorize a bunch of jargon and convincingly pull a Jarod with it, but I've never found that convinces anyone other than HR. To use the jargon grammatically and idiomatically you need to have grasped the underlying structure.

I agree, and as someone that's taught students you know when they really do not understand the underlying concept of a word. I've seen students use nouns as verbs and try and turn nouns into verbs when writing science. From experience I would say that before once can communicate science, everyone needs to understand the nature of words. If I want to talk to you about the effects of black holes, you need to associate the properties of black holes with the word.

Quote
I try not to be exclusionary, though. Someone can not know the jargon and still have a good idea.

Having been at University for 8 years with undergraduate and postgraduate studies, you meet foreign students that do not grasp English fully, but they know their stuff. I worked with a Turkish student, and while he struggled with spoken English, his written work was very good. It took him longer than others to write, but his technical writing was excellent.

Quote
What they can't do is skimp on the terminology -- if it isn't correct, it isn't exact, and if it isn't exact, then you have no idea what the person is really thinking.

I feel that is the case here. Reading back through the thread, the lack of understanding the jargon and mathematical concepts showed. There was back peddling, changing the goal posts as he began to understand more, there were even times when you felt he understood the concepts and introduced his understanding to move the goalposts or changed his angle. Never once did he say 'OK, I see that now.' I felt stuck on base 1, on occasions moved to base 2, only to find myself back at base 1.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 08, 2018, 04:22:49 PM
As the victim, I took no offence. What matters a slur from any drooling idiot? I was more offended by the insults hurled gillianren's direction.


I did also take his insults towards Gillianren and others into account. The one directed at you just happened to be the last straw.

I'm sure we've all developed a thick skin by now, or we wouldn't participate in forums like this one. But I want this forum to remain as civil as possible and there is no need for petty insults.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 04:26:28 PM
Sure, it's possible someone could memorize a bunch of jargon and convincingly pull a Jarod with it, but I've never found that convinces anyone other than HR.

I understood that reference!  I love that show, and I think the problem is that too many people really believe that it's possible to fool people a very small amount of understanding.  That Jarod was special is not something they get.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 04:28:14 PM
I've been open about my mental health issues for decades now.  However, my own particular mental illness is if anything correlated with higher intelligence.  I'm used to the insults, and the ones he used aren't even the worst I've heard--they aren't even worse than "hoaxtard," which I cannot even begin to explain how offensive it is.  But I prefer discussion, not just bickering.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 04:38:46 PM
I've been open about my mental health issues for decades now.  However, my own particular mental illness is if anything correlated with higher intelligence.  I'm used to the insults, and the ones he used aren't even the worst I've heard--they aren't even worse than "hoaxtard," which I cannot even begin to explain how offensive it is.  But I prefer discussion, not just bickering.
Indeed you have and I thank you for it.

However, given that honesty, it makes tims insults worse.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 08, 2018, 04:52:48 PM
I am sure until I brought the subject up, most of you were unaware that moon dust was a health hazard due to it's radioactive alpha particle content.

My bold. So the moon dust contains alpha particle and the alpha particles are radioactive. Words have meanings, and you don't know what they mean.

Holy moly, he did it AGAIN! After all that back and forth last night, he up and does it again! PROVING that he REALLY knows nothing about basic nuclear physics, and thinks that he can bluff his way with a quick Google.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 04:54:56 PM
Hey guys I have a question about radiation which stems from a discussion I have had with a guy on a Facebook group. He contends that the daily dose of radiation from a LEO mission should be magnitudes lower than the daily disease of any of the Apollo lunar missions. He comments that with the VAN protecting us etc and the fact that radiation outside of this and on the surface of the moon is much higher than it is inside the VAN for LEO missions why are the daily dose inside the LEO missions not much lower than the moon missions
This is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.

ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question

and tell me it isn't some playbook.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 05:08:23 PM
Yeah, that's another disheartening thing.

Every now and then you run across a hoax believer who seems well-spoken. They give the appearance of sufficient understanding of a subject to advance an argument. You engage in hopes of seeing that argument evolve.

Only to find they never move from their starting point. Eventually you run into their trail somewhere else, and realize that their practiced ease was, indeed, borne of practice. Of long rehearsal. It only looks smooth because they have rambled through it so many times some of the corners have worn off.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 05:14:00 PM
Hey guys I have a question about radiation which stems from a discussion I have had with a guy on a Facebook group. He contends that the daily dose of radiation from a LEO mission should be magnitudes lower than the daily disease of any of the Apollo lunar missions. He comments that with the VAN protecting us etc and the fact that radiation outside of this and on the surface of the moon is much higher than it is inside the VAN for LEO missions why are the daily dose inside the LEO missions not much lower than the moon missions
This is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.

ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question

and tell me it isn't some playbook.

Oh, dear. Oh, dear. Gillianren, tell me if you are seeing the same thing I'm seeing. Do you also get a sense of someone putting on a style of writing which is not natural to them?

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 08, 2018, 05:16:40 PM
I noticed this a while back. The only conclusions that made sense to me were either a tag team or the smell of socks.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 05:32:41 PM
Reading thread.

I kinda like "VARB is like a HEPA filter." Just not the way it was intended. It isn't that space outside is very, very dirty. What the VARB is....is a dirty filter.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 08, 2018, 05:38:21 PM
This may or may not have been linked but I read it today and a lot of the language and ideas seem like tim's

http://www.apollophotos.ch/media/6314092c889dd380ffff8266a426365.pdf

I fixed the link.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 05:39:35 PM
Hey guys I have a question about radiation which stems from a discussion I have had with a guy on a Facebook group. He contends that the daily dose of radiation from a LEO mission should be magnitudes lower than the daily disease of any of the Apollo lunar missions. He comments that with the VAN protecting us etc and the fact that radiation outside of this and on the surface of the moon is much higher than it is inside the VAN for LEO missions why are the daily dose inside the LEO missions not much lower than the moon missions
This is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.

ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question

and tell me it isn't some playbook.

Oh, dear. Oh, dear. Gillianren, tell me if you are seeing the same thing I'm seeing. Do you also get a sense of someone putting on a style of writing which is not natural to them?


I could write you the script.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 05:41:29 PM
This may or may not have been linked but I read it today and a lot of the language and ideas seem like tim's

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=1444.1665;last_msg=45127
Dude, your link is messed up.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 05:46:19 PM
Hey guys I have a question about radiation which stems from a discussion I have had with a guy on a Facebook group. He contends that the daily dose of radiation from a LEO mission should be magnitudes lower than the daily disease of any of the Apollo lunar missions. He comments that with the VAN protecting us etc and the fact that radiation outside of this and on the surface of the moon is much higher than it is inside the VAN for LEO missions why are the daily dose inside the LEO missions not much lower than the moon missions
This is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.

ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question

and tell me it isn't some playbook.

Oh, dear. Oh, dear. Gillianren, tell me if you are seeing the same thing I'm seeing. Do you also get a sense of someone putting on a style of writing which is not natural to them?


More oddity. Benparry claims to want to address timfinch but not only fails to do so, simply vanishes while tim posts crap over and over. Ben is suddenly uninterested. Why is that?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 08, 2018, 05:51:48 PM
I know timfinch has problems reading them, but I did find this graph (figure Number 2) that conclusively shows the lunar surface dose rate for Apollo 11 to be less than 5cGy/year -
http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

That means less than 50mGy/year and less than 1mGy/week.  This computes to less than .143mGy/day.

So, timfinch, now that you have your requested data, do you concede that your assumptions regarding the dose rates experienced by Apollo 11 were incorrect?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 08, 2018, 05:57:13 PM
Hey guys I have a question about radiation which stems from a discussion I have had with a guy on a Facebook group. He contends that the daily dose of radiation from a LEO mission should be magnitudes lower than the daily disease of any of the Apollo lunar missions. He comments that with the VAN protecting us etc and the fact that radiation outside of this and on the surface of the moon is much higher than it is inside the VAN for LEO missions why are the daily dose inside the LEO missions not much lower than the moon missions
This is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.

ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question

and tell me it isn't some playbook.

Oh, dear. Oh, dear. Gillianren, tell me if you are seeing the same thing I'm seeing. Do you also get a sense of someone putting on a style of writing which is not natural to them?


More oddity. Benparry claims to want to address timfinch but not only fails to do so, simply vanishes while tim posts crap over and over. Ben is suddenly uninterested. Why is that?


For someone who says that he has engaged timfinch on the radiation issue, he has demonstrated even less knowledge of the subject.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 05:57:30 PM
Yeah...the pilot fish routine is really obvious when you see it repeated.

Remember Doctor Socks? His increasingly outrageous disguises, as if the size of the mustache could distract from the unconscious habits of speech?



Speaking of...up to post #172 at CosmoWhatever and apparently the submarine has beached.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 08, 2018, 06:00:16 PM
This may or may not have been linked but I read it today and a lot of the language and ideas seem like tim's

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=1444.1665;last_msg=45127
Dude, your link is messed up.

You are correct, sorry.  I fixed the link

http://www.apollophotos.ch/media/6314092c889dd380ffff8266a426365.pdf
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 06:04:16 PM
Yeah...the pilot fish routine is really obvious when you see it repeated.

Remember Doctor Socks? His increasingly outrageous disguises, as if the size of the mustache could distract from the unconscious habits of speech?



Speaking of...up to post #172 at CosmoWhatever and apparently the submarine has beached.
Yeah...the pilot fish routine is really obvious when you see it repeated.

Remember Doctor Socks? His increasingly outrageous disguises, as if the size of the mustache could distract from the unconscious habits of speech?



Speaking of...up to post #172 at CosmoWhatever and apparently the submarine has beached.
Remember I called Doctor Socks office?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 06:05:22 PM
I don't speculate about socks or not.  I do note that at least he's stopped claiming that no one other than the US government was capable of tracking the landings; he just ignores the implications that they could entirely.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 06:05:33 PM
This may or may not have been linked but I read it today and a lot of the language and ideas seem like tim's

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=1444.1665;last_msg=45127
Dude, your link is messed up.

You are correct, sorry.  I fixed the link

http://www.apollophotos.ch/media/6314092c889dd380ffff8266a426365.pdf
Gosh, no worries. I bork links at a whim.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 08, 2018, 06:05:53 PM
Yeah...the pilot fish routine is really obvious when you see it repeated.

Remember Doctor Socks? His increasingly outrageous disguises, as if the size of the mustache could distract from the unconscious habits of speech?



Speaking of...up to post #172 at CosmoWhatever and apparently the submarine has beached.

As a late comer to ApolloHoax, didn't he have some names of chess masters?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 08, 2018, 06:08:05 PM
Hey guys I have a question about radiation which stems from a discussion I have had with a guy on a Facebook group. He contends that the daily dose of radiation from a LEO mission should be magnitudes lower than the daily disease of any of the Apollo lunar missions. He comments that with the VAN protecting us etc and the fact that radiation outside of this and on the surface of the moon is much higher than it is inside the VAN for LEO missions why are the daily dose inside the LEO missions not much lower than the moon missions
This is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.

ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question

and tell me it isn't some playbook.

Holy mother-forking shirtballs...

That's a damn depressing read. Now I want to know what the hell ben/tim/whatever actually gets out of this.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 06:09:59 PM
I don't speculate about socks or not.  I do note that at least he's stopped claiming that no one other than the US government was capable of tracking the landings; he just ignores the implications that they could entirely.
Ooo let's see. The Russians maybe? Jodrell bank perhaps? Larry Baysinger mayhap? Anything from foreign nations to random amateurs. But tim won't read that, will he?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 06:12:39 PM
Yeah...the pilot fish routine is really obvious when you see it repeated.

Remember Doctor Socks? His increasingly outrageous disguises, as if the size of the mustache could distract from the unconscious habits of speech?



Speaking of...up to post #172 at CosmoWhatever and apparently the submarine has beached.

As a late comer to ApolloHoax, didn't he have some names of chess masters?
Yup. He liked those as aliases. So much he had a fleet of them.

BTW you are three years here, hardly a noob.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 08, 2018, 06:15:09 PM
I know timfinch has problems reading them, but I did find this graph (figure Number 2) that conclusively shows the lunar surface dose rate for Apollo 11 to be less than 5cGy/year -
http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

That means less than 50mGy/year and less than 1mGy/week.  This computes to less than .143mGy/day.

So, timfinch, now that you have your requested data, do you concede that your assumptions regarding the dose rates experienced by Apollo 11 were incorrect?

Dang.  5 days before I get a chance to see timfinch's acknowledgement of the error in his initial complaint. 

No one can see it (I hope), but I couldn't even type that and keep a straight face.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 06:15:21 PM
Hey guys I have a question about radiation which stems from a discussion I have had with a guy on a Facebook group. He contends that the daily dose of radiation from a LEO mission should be magnitudes lower than the daily disease of any of the Apollo lunar missions. He comments that with the VAN protecting us etc and the fact that radiation outside of this and on the surface of the moon is much higher than it is inside the VAN for LEO missions why are the daily dose inside the LEO missions not much lower than the moon missions
This is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.

ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question

and tell me it isn't some playbook.

Holy mother-forking shirtballs...

That's a damn depressing read. Now I want to know what the hell ben/tim/whatever actually gets out of this.
To be fair, I had that in the bag from the outset.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 06:21:22 PM
I know timfinch has problems reading them, but I did find this graph (figure Number 2) that conclusively shows the lunar surface dose rate for Apollo 11 to be less than 5cGy/year -
http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

That means less than 50mGy/year and less than 1mGy/week.  This computes to less than .143mGy/day.

So, timfinch, now that you have your requested data, do you concede that your assumptions regarding the dose rates experienced by Apollo 11 were incorrect?

Dang.  5 days before I get a chance to see timfinch's acknowledgement of the error in his initial complaint. 

No one can see it (I hope), but I couldn't even type that and keep a straight face.
What persuades you that tim/ben/alien orifice will ever acknowledge any error? He/she/it/housecat came close in this very thread but promptly ran away.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 06:25:12 PM
I would reply and say how much he reminds me of a particular poster from the past, but that isn't really fair as he is currently barred from response. Better to keep boredom away discussing something else.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 06:29:56 PM
I would reply and say how much he reminds me of a particular poster from the past, but that isn't really fair as he is currently barred from response. Better to keep boredom away discussing something else.
Fair does not enter the equation. As evidenced in the cosmoquest thread, tim/ben/housecat is a proponent of Sibrel. That makes tim/ben/housecat/it fair game.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 08, 2018, 06:30:36 PM
Yeah...the pilot fish routine is really obvious when you see it repeated.

Remember Doctor Socks? His increasingly outrageous disguises, as if the size of the mustache could distract from the unconscious habits of speech?



Speaking of...up to post #172 at CosmoWhatever and apparently the submarine has beached.

As a late comer to ApolloHoax, didn't he have some names of chess masters?
Yup. He liked those as aliases. So much he had a fleet of them.

BTW you are three years here, hardly a noob.
Well yes but socks was like 8 years ago wasn't he?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 08, 2018, 06:31:22 PM
I know timfinch has problems reading them, but I did find this graph (figure Number 2) that conclusively shows the lunar surface dose rate for Apollo 11 to be less than 5cGy/year -
http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

That means less than 50mGy/year and less than 1mGy/week.  This computes to less than .143mGy/day.

So, timfinch, now that you have your requested data, do you concede that your assumptions regarding the dose rates experienced by Apollo 11 were incorrect?

Dang.  5 days before I get a chance to see timfinch's acknowledgement of the error in his initial complaint. 

No one can see it (I hope), but I couldn't even type that and keep a straight face.
What persuades you that tim/ben/alien orifice will ever acknowledge any error? He/she/it/housecat came close in this very thread but promptly ran away.

Nothing, hence my laughter while writing that.  I can see where I wasn't clear regarding the reason for my laughter (could have been gloating, having anatomical disturbances, etc.).  I am sure he will attempt some sort of spin or twist, but the data IS there.  And just for further clarity, the line I used for data is described in the reference thus:

"The lens dose behind 0.22 g/cm2 Al is an excellent proxy for the combined dose from the D1-D2 detector [Spence et al., 2010] of the CRaTER instrument.  Calculation of the dose is detailed in Appendix A."
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 06:37:29 PM
Yeah...the pilot fish routine is really obvious when you see it repeated.

Remember Doctor Socks? His increasingly outrageous disguises, as if the size of the mustache could distract from the unconscious habits of speech?



Speaking of...up to post #172 at CosmoWhatever and apparently the submarine has beached.

As a late comer to ApolloHoax, didn't he have some names of chess masters?
Yup. He liked those as aliases. So much he had a fleet of them.

BTW you are three years here, hardly a noob.
Well yes but socks was like 8 years ago wasn't he?
Yeah. we are getting old. Look on the bright side Dr. Socks is dead and we are not. (post cynically coloured by latest wingnut)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 08, 2018, 06:41:00 PM
Hey guys I have a question about radiation which stems from a discussion I have had with a guy on a Facebook group. He contends that the daily dose of radiation from a LEO mission should be magnitudes lower than the daily disease of any of the Apollo lunar missions. He comments that with the VAN protecting us etc and the fact that radiation outside of this and on the surface of the moon is much higher than it is inside the VAN for LEO missions why are the daily dose inside the LEO missions not much lower than the moon missions
This is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.

ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question

and tell me it isn't some playbook.

Holy mother-forking shirtballs...

That's a damn depressing read. Now I want to know what the hell ben/tim/whatever actually gets out of this.

Wow!
What strange, fragile-ego  people are hoaxies. What sort of weird fantasyland do you have to live in to get your kicks in this way????
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 06:41:44 PM
I know timfinch has problems reading them, but I did find this graph (figure Number 2) that conclusively shows the lunar surface dose rate for Apollo 11 to be less than 5cGy/year -
http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

That means less than 50mGy/year and less than 1mGy/week.  This computes to less than .143mGy/day.

So, timfinch, now that you have your requested data, do you concede that your assumptions regarding the dose rates experienced by Apollo 11 were incorrect?

Dang.  5 days before I get a chance to see timfinch's acknowledgement of the error in his initial complaint. 

No one can see it (I hope), but I couldn't even type that and keep a straight face.
What persuades you that tim/ben/alien orifice will ever acknowledge any error? He/she/it/housecat came close in this very thread but promptly ran away.

Nothing, hence my laughter while writing that.  I can see where I wasn't clear regarding the reason for my laughter (could have been gloating, having anatomical disturbances, etc.).  I am sure he will attempt some sort of spin or twist, but the data IS there.  And just for further clarity, the line I used for data is described in the reference thus:

"The lens dose behind 0.22 g/cm2 Al is an excellent proxy for the combined dose from the D1-D2 detector [Spence et al., 2010] of the CRaTER instrument.  Calculation of the dose is detailed in Appendix A."
Wait, you actually provided a documented rebuttal? The kind tim insists has never happened? Heaven forfend! That surely has never happened in this thread before!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 08, 2018, 06:45:19 PM
I think I would have enjoyed talking with the good doctor in person. He seemed a pleasant, interesting, and well-read fellow. Aside from his obsession with poop.

Tim, however (and here I do what I said I would not) has a troubling resemblance to an IDW that finally learned how to spell. The same false-sounding folksiness, the arrogance preening and superciliousness, the obsession with (but not understanding of) the term "exponential." The profanity (which showed briefly at CosmoQuest, in a way that suggested it was being kept under tight control otherwise). Even specific phraseology.

I did not, however, find him interesting to argue with.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 06:50:14 PM
I know timfinch has problems reading them, but I did find this graph (figure Number 2) that conclusively shows the lunar surface dose rate for Apollo 11 to be less than 5cGy/year -
http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

That means less than 50mGy/year and less than 1mGy/week.  This computes to less than .143mGy/day.

So, timfinch, now that you have your requested data, do you concede that your assumptions regarding the dose rates experienced by Apollo 11 were incorrect?

That's a great find. Good work MBDK. I've skimmed it, but will have a good read tomorrow when I have more time and it's a little less near midnight.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 08, 2018, 06:51:57 PM
Wait, you actually provided a documented rebuttal? The kind tim insists has never happened? Heaven forfend! That surely has never happened in this thread before!

"forfend".  I actually had to look that one up.  Thanks for the vocab lesson!  Just one more of the benefits I get from this forum.   : )
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 06:54:21 PM
Wait, you actually provided a documented rebuttal? The kind tim insists has never happened? Heaven forfend! That surely has never happened in this thread before!
"forfend".  I actually had to look that one up.  Thanks for the vocab lesson!  Just one more of the benefits I get from this forum.   : )
Hahaha, sorry, sometimes I am wordy.

ETA: Gillian is going to kick me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 08, 2018, 06:55:54 PM
That's a great find. Good work MBDK. I've skimmed it, but will have a good read tomorrow when I have more time and it's a little less near midnight.

Thanks, Luke (if I may be so familiar).  It wasn't easy, and I am sure there is more straightforward info out there, but that's the best I have at this time. Have a great night, and a better tomorrow!

Probably a good time for my temporary exit as well.  Cheers everyone, and thanks for the continuing education!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 08, 2018, 06:57:06 PM
...
Yeah. we are getting old. Look on the bright side Dr. Socks is dead and we are not. (post cynically coloured by latest wingnut)

I didn't get the memo.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 07:00:28 PM
...
Yeah. we are getting old. Look on the bright side Dr. Socks is dead and we are not. (post cynically coloured by latest wingnut)

I didn't get the memo.
Oh he died. In real life.

ETA: His brother took up the clubs of nonsense after him. You missed all that?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 08, 2018, 07:04:55 PM
...
Yeah. we are getting old. Look on the bright side Dr. Socks is dead and we are not. (post cynically coloured by latest wingnut)

I didn't get the memo.
Oh he died. In real life.

ETA: His brother took up the clubs of nonsense after him. You missed all that?
Yep, unknown history to me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2018, 07:15:26 PM
Wait, you actually provided a documented rebuttal? The kind tim insists has never happened? Heaven forfend! That surely has never happened in this thread before!
"forfend".  I actually had to look that one up.  Thanks for the vocab lesson!  Just one more of the benefits I get from this forum.   : )
Hahaha, sorry, sometimes I am wordy.

ETA: Gillian is going to kick me.

It would be a failing as apparently a journalist not to!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 07:16:08 PM
Thanks, Luke (if I may be so familiar).

First name terms are fine. I'm not stuck up about stuff like that. I like my cricket and rugby, and enjoy a beer and a curry; and on occasions a cigar and brandy. No pretence here.

Quote
It wasn't easy...

Which trumps the cut and paste from Wikipedia in the hope of something sticking. That's the difference between your approach and Tim's. You did the hard leg work, and stuck at it until you found that one relevant piece of information. That's good research. Tim just cut and paste anything from Google searches in the hope of sounding erudite. It's a really good paper. There is an abundance of information in there to support every facet of our argument. Modulation of the solar cycle, the changing GCR flux, the variation of dose with solar activity... it's a banker that is now saved to my documents on the subject.

Quote
and I am sure there is more straightforward info out there, but that's the best I have at this time.

...but it's not a straightforward problem, that was the point we were making to Tim. Don't undersell yourself. The breadth of the complexity is punctuated beautifully with every graph, every bit of data and every assumption documented in the literature; the link to the paper you posted paints a great picture. Every aspect of ionising radiation is complex, those that have some understanding of the field know this, the hoax community do not.

Quote
Have a great night, and a better tomorrow!

Teaching tomorrow, pre-exam revision class.  :(
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 08, 2018, 07:43:06 PM
That's a damn depressing read.

Especially this rebuttal from Grant Hutchinson as Tim tries to understand the AE8/AP8 model, after posting images of its output.

It's a large dataset, not a graph - Grant Hutchinson

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 08, 2018, 07:45:40 PM
...
Yeah. we are getting old. Look on the bright side Dr. Socks is dead and we are not. (post cynically coloured by latest wingnut)

I didn't get the memo.
Oh he died. In real life.

ETA: His brother took up the clubs of nonsense after him. You missed all that?
Yep, unknown history to me.
He went under the name "Skinny Splash" as a homage to his brother. He first appeared here...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=263725&highlight=tekeli&page=2
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: cos on April 08, 2018, 09:45:25 PM
So no one had the capability to track Apollo 11 at the time? Well Jodrell Bank followed Eagle to the lunar surface.

http://www.jodrellbank.net/20-july-1969-lovell-telescope-tracked-eagle-lander-onto-surface-moon/

When I was a student at Manchester University in the early 80's I visited Jodrell Bank and this came up in conversation. So I actually talked to one of the guys that was there that night.  Of course if I was timfinch I'd of asked how much NASA were paying him to be a disinformation agent.  Geesh, do the hoaxers do no research before spouting off.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 09, 2018, 11:51:31 AM
Okay, it has become crystal clear to me that Tim is simply trolling and angling for a ban as a "dissenting voice"  He's basically nerd sniping at this point - pretending not to understand how to read a simple graph because he knows most of us can't help but correct him. 

He's throwing in just enough personal insults to be douchy but not outright abusive, so LO can't use that as an excuse when the ban hammer eventually comes down. 

While this thread has been valuable for a number of reasons and I certainly don't want to see it locked, I think we can safely ignore Tim from now on and just talk amongst ourselves.  He's going to continue to pretend to be a dense goober conspiratard, and I see no reason to further feed his need to be a jackass.  I'd rather he not be banned outright, just to deny him that notch in his belt. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 09, 2018, 12:51:34 PM
Okay, maybe I am going to have to explain why "conspiratard" is offensive, since some people haven't gotten the memo.

First of all, you've just talked about personal insults' being inappropriate, so throwing one out yourself is perhaps a little hypocritical.

Second, are you unaware that the term "retardation" is no longer used in childhood development circles because so many people were using it as an insult?  In my opinion, this served to deprive us of a useful distinction, since "developmental disability" and "developmental delay" both cover a lot of territory other than what is covered under "retardation."  My son has a developmental delay--two of them, since he has a social delay and had a speech delay that he seems to have outgrown--but is definitely not intellectually delayed, since he's already reading, writing, and doing math.

Third, let's take my friend's son, Arden.  Arden has Down syndrome.  He was born with all sorts of problems that aren't his fault.  We can talk all we want to about whether someone with his brain issues should be considered stupid, but the fact remains that, if Arden can't understand an average--and I don't know the extent of his mental issues--that's a perfectly understandable state of affairs on his part.  We don't expect more of him, because there is legitimately something wrong with his brain.

Should I go on?  Don't use that word.  Don't use any variant of that word.  It's ableist and it's offensive and we're better than that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 09, 2018, 01:27:15 PM
Gillian, I truly do apologize for being insensitive.  It's something I lose sight of at times, and periodically need the sharp elbow in the ribs for it. Mea culpa

But, for the record, I wasn't claiming that Tim's personal insults were inappropriate, just that they were being used to a specific effect; namely, to tip the scales in favor of him being banned so he can claim a scalp.  He's deliberately keeping them on the near side of actual abuse, so if (when) LO brings the banhammer down Tim can claim it was because of his views, not his behavior.

To be clear, I am explicitly calling Tim out as a troll - he is pretending to be a conspiracy theorist, he is pretending to not understand how to read a graph1, and he is pretending that he's arguing in anything resembling good faith.  His ultimate goal is to be banned, because it's fun ("some people just want to watch the world burn"). 

I've dealt with true believers in other fora, and they will go for the most offensive, gross, and abusive insults they can pretty much at the drop of a hat (people who claim to be Evangelical Christians can have surprisingly deep knowledge of vocabulary and usage).  Tim's moderating his behavior just a bit too well for me to believe he's serious.


1. I knew guys who went through nuc school, and not being able to tell the difference between a linear and log scale would have gotten them bounced on day 1.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 09, 2018, 02:11:08 PM
Honestly, I think it's a waste of time to speculate on motives.  Whether he can read the graph or not doesn't change the discussion much to me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 09, 2018, 02:30:11 PM
I've been reading this thread, following most of it. Is this person one of the usual suspects? Some comments has led me to believe that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 09, 2018, 03:46:29 PM
I've been reading this thread, following most of it. Is this person one of the usual suspects? Some comments has led me to believe that.

1. Inability to understand simple concepts and do basic maths.

2. Over inflated view of self (this one's a "war hero", others have been professors and scientists and authors)

3. Tendency towards crank magnetism.

4. Says they're not a HB but what they say clearly shows they are.

5. Resorts to insults and abuse when they find they can gain no traction against knowledgeable & experienced people

6. Ignores the women posters.

Well, these pretty much fit all the usual batshit crazy CT/HB suspects I can think of. Did you have a particular one on mind... Weisbecker perhaps?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 09, 2018, 04:00:28 PM
No, not really. I was wondering if it was somebody the more "seasoned" members recognized. But put in list form like that, it certainly looks familiar. Just no Jay-fixation so far.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 09, 2018, 04:01:12 PM
Or could it be?

Adrian?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 09, 2018, 04:04:27 PM
To be clear, I am explicitly calling Tim out as a troll

I came to that conclusion some time back, but all too often, I can't help but feed the tortured little soul.

And as far as name-calling goes, in the course of friendly verbal jousting it is all too easy to let something slip that others can find offensive.  I am not one to propose we need PC police, or have a duty to not unintentionally offend anyone, but do recognize some decorum should be maintained in civilized society.  What my friends and I have done (and still do) is use the term "mook".  The dictionary definition includes words such as "stupid" and "undesirable", but in our own slight variation, we have modified (for us) the definition to be, "a person who does something stupid, even though they know (or should know) better".  It seems to be particularly accurate with my lot.  There is a subtlety, though, as the term is almost exclusively used by us in a genial manner.  And just to clarify, the entity timfinch, despite his qualifications in regards to my quoted modified definition, has yet to achieve status worthy of that subtlety.

Sorry for a bit of off-topic rambling.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 09, 2018, 04:12:43 PM
Weisbecker was as dumb as rocks, so not him (not that this Tim/benparry character is over-endowed with smarts, but at least there's a modicum of research done). Plus surfing or having a plot of land for sale wasn't mentioned once.  ;D
Adrian/AWE130? No, I don't believe so. No mentions of a "journey into the truth for all mankind". No referring to himself in the first person plural or any mention of a growing band of believers. Thankfully, no whispering either  :o
Neil Baker? In many ways, similar. Didn't descend into threats of violence and spittle-flecked rage though
IDW? Better spelling.

The one that timfinch/benparry reminds me most of is Heiwa. The same supercilious tone allied with mind-bending stupidity. I'm not saying that they are one and the same (no mention of sinking ferries for a start), but they are cut from the same cloth IMHO.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 09, 2018, 04:45:59 PM
Different rhythm than Heiwa. I just re-read some of his posts from earlier, and - even though my first language is NOT english - it seemed quite different.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 09, 2018, 07:41:37 PM
Weisbecker was as dumb as rocks, so not him (not that this Tim/benparry character is over-endowed with smarts,

Wait! benparry? Really? benparry doesn't strike me as being a troll or an HB. His posts don't suggest that to me (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=1770)

You don't mean inconceivable (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=224) do you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 09, 2018, 08:22:50 PM
Weisbecker was as dumb as rocks, so not him (not that this Tim/benparry character is over-endowed with smarts,

Wait! benparry? Really? benparry doesn't strike me as being a troll or an HB. His posts don't suggest that to me (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=1770)

You don't mean inconceivable (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=224) do you?

Benparry and Timfinch have been playing this same game on Cosmoquest.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question

They're ether working together or they're the same person.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 09, 2018, 09:45:04 PM
I'm of the strong opinion the pilot fish is a sock-puppet of the shark.

As for tim? Yeah, I also thought IDW -- trouble with the term "exponential," the forced folksiness, the particular kind of superciliousness, many even of the stock expressions and the general patter of the voice. But the spelling is way above his level and only on CosmoQuest did the profanity break out, and then only briefly. Plus he's tried to avoid Jay...but the very lack of obviousness in which he avoids the Big Dog is almost suspicious in itself.

(Yeah, I know. Reminds me of the time I was boarding a flight from SFO, smoothly took off my shoes and jacket, finished my water bottle and dropped the empty in the waste...and got a, "Sir, you seem too good at this. Will you step this way?")
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 10, 2018, 01:11:42 AM
Weisbecker was as dumb as rocks, so not him (not that this Tim/benparry character is over-endowed with smarts,

Wait! benparry? Really? benparry doesn't strike me as being a troll or an HB. His posts don't suggest that to me (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=1770)

You don't mean inconceivable (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=224) do you?

Benparry and Timfinch have been playing this same game on Cosmoquest.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question

They're ether working together or they're the same person.

Ah, I hadn't seen that thread.

Looks like some of the stuff you see on TV police procedurals.... "good cop - bad cop"
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 02:14:09 AM
Good Morning Gents. many thanks for your insulting comments. if you care to log in to numerous facebook groups you will see that I spend a good deal of my time debating with people about the moon hoax. although my knowledge doesn't extend to you guys I have learnt a bit to be able to to defend my self. Tim is a gentleman I met on 1 of these groups and his question was the only one I couldn't defend properly which I why I sought your thoughts. I can assure you myself and Tim are not the same person and I am more than happy to share any information you feel is needed for that. cosmoquest is a forum I am also a member of however for anybody who is a member there you will recall the reason why tim stopped debating there is because he was banned.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 02:15:38 AM
for a group of people who claim most hoax believers jump to a conclusion quickly you seem to have .....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 03:24:44 AM
Hey guys I have a question about radiation which stems from a discussion I have had with a guy on a Facebook group. He contends that the daily dose of radiation from a LEO mission should be magnitudes lower than the daily disease of any of the Apollo lunar missions. He comments that with the VAN protecting us etc and the fact that radiation outside of this and on the surface of the moon is much higher than it is inside the VAN for LEO missions why are the daily dose inside the LEO missions not much lower than the moon missions
This is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.

ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question

and tell me it isn't some playbook.


abaddan please see my comments just above. its exactly the same.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 10, 2018, 04:38:12 AM
cosmoquest is a forum I am also a member of however for anybody who is a member there you will recall the reason why tim stopped debating there is because he was banned.

No he wasn't. He 'bowed out' because, as here, he failed utterly to understand any of the answers given to him. His profile on cosmoquest shows he still visits even if he doesn't post. His last activity was a couple of days ago.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 10, 2018, 04:46:04 AM
for a group of people who claim most hoax believers jump to a conclusion quickly you seem to have .....

If we have done you an injustice then apologies are offered. However, as you may have gathered from the comments here and from reading this board, we often see this routine from HBs. The 'I'm asking for a friend' has appeared before, the creation of multiple accounts to provide apparent discussion/antagonism/support has appeared before, and when the same thing happens on multiple forums alarm bells start ringing. Another one that makes the HB-sense tingle is that you say you couldn't debunk his radiation argument, despite it being quite soundly debunked a few months ago on cosmoquest. Did that debunking fall short for you? Did you somehow expect Tim to behave differently on this forum than he did there?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 05:09:44 AM
Hey Jason thanks for your reply. with with regards to the apologies none are necesary my friend. i just didnt want people to get the wrong end of the stick. with regard to Tim's profile on cosmoquest i am pretty sure at some point he was banned. i'm not saying it hasnt been released now. if so then no worries. with regard to me being able as i have said my knowledge was and still is limited. i have indeed learnt a lot from yourself and luke amongst others. when i say i was unable i meant i, at times, didnt understand what you were saying and therefore didnt feel completley confident in my thoughts. i believe Tim is wrong because he has simplfied this too much. his choice to compare 2 different missions which differ in vehicle, length of time taken etc plus different routes in space etc is why he is wrong however you guys have spent many pages explaining this in painstaking detail.

yes i agree that HB will try anything to prove their points. i was debating just last night with a gent who said the albedo factor of earth and the moon were x. i asked him why this made a difference and heard nothing more on the topic. he had just thrown that it to try to catch me out. another example of this was when a gent tried to tell me he couldnt believe 18 tonnes of an LM floated on down to the moon. when i pointed out his mistake (courtesy of Bob Braeunig) i again didnt get a response. i have asked quite a few questions on here which have mostly been generated by my chats on facebook groups. every time you guys have provided a simple answer which has always helped me.

one final point. if you look back over the last hundred or so pages on this thread you will see that i have mentioned the cosmoquest forum chat with tim. if i was trying to hide clearly i wouldnt do this.

anyway thanks again jason for the comments.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 10, 2018, 05:14:54 AM
Thanks for the clarification benparry.
I apologise for any offence. As Jason has said the old "asking for a friend" theme has been used before, as has multiple sock-puppet accounts to either set the stage or support a hoaxie's claims.
If I got the wrong end of the stick then I unreservedly apologise.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 05:20:26 AM
Thanks for the clarification benparry.
I apologise for any offence. As Jason has said the old "asking for a friend" theme has been used before, as has multiple sock-puppet accounts to either set the stage or support a hoaxie's claims.
If I got the wrong end of the stick then I unreservedly apologise.

no need to my friend. we are all friends here. i understand the sock puppet issue. i suppose it could be annoying and i suppose for those who have done this a long time quite predictable.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 10, 2018, 07:06:07 AM
Thanks for the clarification benparry.
I apologise for any offence. As Jason has said the old "asking for a friend" theme has been used before, as has multiple sock-puppet accounts to either set the stage or support a hoaxie's claims.
If I got the wrong end of the stick then I unreservedly apologise.

no need to my friend. we are all friends here. i understand the sock puppet issue. i suppose it could be annoying and i suppose for those who have done this a long time quite predictable.


I have asked before and I'll ask again link the Facebook group you debated with tim
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 07:25:16 AM
Thanks for the clarification benparry.
I apologise for any offence. As Jason has said the old "asking for a friend" theme has been used before, as has multiple sock-puppet accounts to either set the stage or support a hoaxie's claims.
If I got the wrong end of the stick then I unreservedly apologise.

no need to my friend. we are all friends here. i understand the sock puppet issue. i suppose it could be annoying and i suppose for those who have done this a long time quite predictable.


I have asked before and I'll ask again link the Facebook group you debated with tim


black knight and i'm sure i have given this answer before but i will give it again. i have come out of quite a few groups on facebook including the manned lunar landing hoax. you can see many posts by me on there. however i will for sure ask Tim which one he is a member of and i will link that group. if you like i can link both mine and tims facebook profile here. if you like i can link facebook groups which i have debated in if you like. anything to alay your fears.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 10, 2018, 07:33:37 AM
Thanks for the clarification benparry.
I apologise for any offence. As Jason has said the old "asking for a friend" theme has been used before, as has multiple sock-puppet accounts to either set the stage or support a hoaxie's claims.
If I got the wrong end of the stick then I unreservedly apologise.

no need to my friend. we are all friends here. i understand the sock puppet issue. i suppose it could be annoying and i suppose for those who have done this a long time quite predictable.


I have asked before and I'll ask again link the Facebook group you debated with tim


black knight and i'm sure i have given this answer before but i will give it again. i have come out of quite a few groups on facebook including the manned lunar landing hoax. you can see many posts by me on there. however i will for sure ask Tim which one he is a member of and i will link that group. if you like i can link both mine and tims facebook profile here. if you like i can link facebook groups which i have debated in if you like. anything to alay your fears.
Yes you have indicated that you dropped out of them, but still I would appreciate a link, I searched Facebook last week and could find neither you or tim in discussions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 07:41:34 AM
Thanks for the clarification benparry.
I apologise for any offence. As Jason has said the old "asking for a friend" theme has been used before, as has multiple sock-puppet accounts to either set the stage or support a hoaxie's claims.
If I got the wrong end of the stick then I unreservedly apologise.

no need to my friend. we are all friends here. i understand the sock puppet issue. i suppose it could be annoying and i suppose for those who have done this a long time quite predictable.


I have asked before and I'll ask again link the Facebook group you debated with tim


black knight and i'm sure i have given this answer before but i will give it again. i have come out of quite a few groups on facebook including the manned lunar landing hoax. you can see many posts by me on there. however i will for sure ask Tim which one he is a member of and i will link that group. if you like i can link both mine and tims facebook profile here. if you like i can link facebook groups which i have debated in if you like. anything to alay your fears.
Yes you have indicated that you dropped out of them, but still I would appreciate a link, I searched Facebook last week and could find neither you or tim in discussions.


just on the topic. do you know how to share a messenger link. i added Tim on messenger some time in 2017 so before that is where you will find the brief chat in the group (when i find it). 99 percent of our chat is in a messenger chat. do you know Bknight how to share a messenger feed. also if you look for Manned Lunar Landing Hoax you will find my name in there quite a few times. you wont find Tim's he wasnt a member there.  however you will clearly see me arguing for the landings. now if you think Tim believes they are real then clearly are mistaken. so if we are the same person i argue for and he against which doesnt make sense. also for the same reason why would we work together.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 10, 2018, 07:48:38 AM
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1075708332491654/

No members of the relevant names.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 07:58:32 AM
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1075708332491654/

No members of the relevant names.

Allen F i will say again for your benefit. i have come out of many groups on facebook. you are correct. i am no longer a member there.

however if you give me 2 minutes i will share a link here of a group i am a member of.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 08:02:30 AM
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1075708332491654/

No members of the relevant names.


ok Allen F if you search for a group called 'I believe that the moon landing was fake (therefore i am a total cretin) you will find me in there. various comments.

also if you search for 'were the moon landings FAKED' you will find me in there.

also if you search for 'Moon landing Conspriracy' you will find me in there.

those are 3 facebook groups which i am a member of. i do not know which groups Tim is currently a member of as i am not friends with him on facebook. only on messenger. however (since he is based in america, i am in the UK) as soon as he sees my message asking him what the name of the group was, if he can remember (we started talking early 2017) i will share the name here.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 08:11:24 AM
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1075708332491654/
No members of the relevant names.

I guess by posting this, I'm getting involved in the debate. It's not really a debate that I want to be involved in.

I'm really beside myself that we are asking people to prove who they are and offer links to their personal information on FB. Most of us here go by internet names, and I'm guessing that the reason is to afford oneself and families some degree of anonymity.

I went through a time on YT where my personal details were actively sought by Jarrah, Dwayne Damon and others, and it was very uncomfortable. I know of an individual that helps with ALSJ who was dealt with a far harsher hand by Dwayne Damon once that individual's information had become public. I'm not suggesting that anyone here would use personal information for nefarious means, as the individuals here are of good character. However, I do question the precedent we are setting.

I'm going to put forward a scenario here. I played a sophomoric joke on Dwayne and Jarrah once. By chance there was someone of the name M Hunt at a British University that fitted my profile. That lecturer was named and shamed by Jarrah, as he and Dwayne did no understand the joke. Now, say you are correct and that Ben and Tim are the same person, but Tim has played a *clever card* and used the identity of someone on FB for his pilot-fish. How would the real Ben Parry feel if he was caught up in this?

Let's play the cards presented at this forum. If others want to play by dishonest tactics, then let them. We've tried debating the points with whomever timfinch happens to be, and there is a record of his obfuscation here for all to see.   
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 08:18:13 AM
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1075708332491654/
No members of the relevant names.

I guess by posting this, I'm getting involved in the debate. It's not really a debate that I want to be involved in.

I'm really beside myself that we are asking people to prove who they are and offer links to their personal information on FB. Most of us here go by internet names, and I'm guessing that the reason is to afford oneself and families some degree of anonymity.

I went through a time on YT where my personal details were actively sought by Jarrah, Dwayne Damon and others, and it was very uncomfortable. I know of an individual that helps with ALSJ who was dealt with a far harsher hand by Dwayne Damon once that individual's information had become public. I'm not suggesting that anyone here would use personal information for nefarious means, as the individuals here are of good character. However, I do question the precedent we are setting.

I'm going to put forward a scenario here. I played a sophomoric joke on Dwayne and Jarrah once. By chance there was someone of the name M Hunt at a British University that fitted my profile. That lecturer was named and shamed by Jarrah, as he and Dwayne did no understand the joke. Now, say you are correct and that Ben and Tim are the same person, but Tim has played a *clever card* and used to identity of someone on FB for his pilot-fish. How would the real Ben Parry feel if he was caught up in this?

Let's play the cards presented at this forum. If others want to play by dishonest tactics, then let them. We've tried debating the points with whomever timfinch happens to be, and there is a record of his obfuscation here for all to see.

luke i couldnt agree more. anybody here chooses to answer or comment on any post. they are not forced to. i can assure you we are not the same person or working together. i whole heartidly believe the moon landings were real. Tim is of the opinion they were not manned. now throughout this thread (and before to a certain and less scientific extent) this has been shown to be incorrect. if tim chooses to continue here then thats fine. he has shown me today in messenger (i will happily share if needed) that he has indeed downloaded some crater data so he may choose to share this when his ban has ended.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 08:22:25 AM
If tim chooses to continue here then thats fine. he has shown me today in messenger (i will happily share if needed) that he has indeed downloaded some crater data so he may choose to share this when his ban has ended.

That's fine, did he download the fundamentals of scaling graphs while he was at it? I look forward to his return, but I will be appealing to LO if he continues to ignore my posts, particularly as I have new questions to put on the table. You can tell him that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 08:24:48 AM
If tim chooses to continue here then thats fine. he has shown me today in messenger (i will happily share if needed) that he has indeed downloaded some crater data so he may choose to share this when his ban has ended.

That's fine, did he download the fundamentals of scaling graphs while he was at it? I look forward to his return, but I will be appealing to LO if he continues to ignore my posts, particularly as I have new questions to put on the table. You can tell him that.

no worries luke. i have messaged him to ask him the name of the group when we met. i will send him a new message telling him you have something new for him.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 10, 2018, 08:29:19 AM
Luke:
I was just asking for a link to the FB page since I could not find either name when I searched.  I'm attempting to read the discourse that is all, but I understand your reservations.  If the blunder or Duane was looking for personal information, that was inappropriate but not a surprise.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 08:35:31 AM
I was just asking for a link to the FB page since I could not find either name when I searched.  I'm attempting to read the discourse that is all, but I understand your reservations.

As I said, no one here would use that information for nefarious means. I know your interest would be solely for the discourse. Thanks for clarifying. I just don't think links to FB posted in a public forum are the way forward. It can set a precedent.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 10, 2018, 09:54:27 AM
Ben,
I've been wrong before (as my wife and son will assure you) and I'm sure that I will be wrong in the future. But I'm adult enough to admit it. I apologize for accusing you of skullduggery.


I won't apologize to Tim, though. He's a jerk.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 10:08:56 AM
Ben,
I've been wrong before (as my wife and son will assure you) and I'm sure that I will be wrong in the future. But I'm adult enough to admit it. I apologize for accusing you of skullduggery.


I won't apologize to Tim, though. He's a jerk.


Atomic as i have said no apologies needed my friend. i'm just waiting Tim to come back hopefully with the name of the group where i met him. it was a while ago. with regards to your thoughts on Tim i cannot comment. i also believe he is wrong but ...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 10:42:09 AM
I also believe he is wrong but ...

Would you suggest that both sides needs to provide evidence for their argument? Those that believe Apollo need to present evidence it occurred, and that evidence is consistent with engineering, scientific and anecdotal record. Those that are sceptical also need to present evidence that shows the record is not consistent with events. Anomalies if you must.

What is you take on this point? My curiosity is whetted by the ellipsis.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 10, 2018, 10:56:55 AM
I also believe he is wrong but ...

Would you suggest that both sides needs to provide evidence for their argument? Those that believe Apollo need to present evidence it occurred, and that evidence is consistent with engineering, scientific and anecdotal record. Those that are sceptical also need to present evidence that shows the record is not consistent with events. Anomalies if you must.

What is you take on this point? My curiosity is whetted by the ellipsis.

The main reason for my joining the group was to investigate the claims made by HB's.  But now and then I find new facts that I was unaware, a new word ellipsis for example.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 10, 2018, 11:02:32 AM
I am willing to discuss with anyone who is interesting enough to discuss with. If all they do is repeat, I'll turn them off. If they start shouting profanity, I'll turn them off. If they are clearly wrong, I'll keep listening, because that is still interesting. And if they want to play games with their identity I will clap like an adult at a magic show.

That all said...I haven't heard anything of substance from Ben. I don't care if he made nice arguments somewhere else. What can you say to us here? Can you tell us anything you understood and were able to correct from your sparring partner Tim? Perhaps you understand where he went wrong with reading (and naming!) graphs?

I'd actually be really happy if an outsider to the last couple days could go back over the graph discussion and be able to say, "oh, yes, I see now. That's what the difference is." Perhaps even contribute a new way, an analogy that Tim might be able to grasp?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 11:05:22 AM
I also believe he is wrong but ...

Would you suggest that both sides needs to provide evidence for their argument? Those that believe Apollo need to present evidence it occurred, and that evidence is consistent with engineering, scientific and anecdotal record. Those that are sceptical also need to present evidence that shows the record is not consistent with events. Anomalies if you must.

What is you take on this point? My curiosity is whetted by the ellipsis.

The main reason for my joining the group was to investigate the claims made by HB's.  But now and then I find new facts that I was unaware, a new word ellipsis for example.

Hi Luke

of course i agree. i cannot just say its true without research. i myself used to believe they were fake. i watched the FOX TV show. i decided to google 'did we land on the moon' one day and found Bobs site. after reading through this site and looking at a few others i was happy with what i saw and what was explained in a very simple manner. also on the other hand i have yet to come across an argument which i couldnt find an answer for. until i met tim and his radiation issue. this is when i joined cosmoquest and eventually this one. through my interactions on FB groups i occasionally come across items i cannot fully explain and i have asked some of those questions in other threads on here.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 11:08:34 AM
I am willing to discuss with anyone who is interesting enough to discuss with. If all they do is repeat, I'll turn them off. If they start shouting profanity, I'll turn them off. If they are clearly wrong, I'll keep listening, because that is still interesting. And if they want to play games with their identity I will clap like an adult at a magic show.

That all said...I haven't heard anything of substance from Ben. I don't care if he made nice arguments somewhere else. What can you say to us here? Can you tell us anything you understood and were able to correct from your sparring partner Tim? Perhaps you understand where he went wrong with reading (and naming!) graphs?

I'd actually be really happy if an outsider to the last couple days could go back over the graph discussion and be able to say, "oh, yes, I see now. That's what the difference is." Perhaps even contribute a new way, an analogy that Tim might be able to grasp?

with regard to this comment muse you are clearly incorrect. i havent made any arguments anywhere. i am the student here. i have asked a question. certain people on here have kindly answered that both to me and by engaging Tim. some of those points i understand and some i dont. however i have come to the conclusion that Tims points have been answered. it isnt my fault if he refuses to believe them
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 11:12:11 AM
sorry my last comment i didnt quote properly my answer is at the bottom of muses quote
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 10, 2018, 11:16:12 AM
Understood. But as you've noticed, much of the activity here is sidetalk. None of us have to play the Devil's Advocate in order to dissect and then go beyond Tim's claims. Much of the time, what the HB brings to the table is only a jumping-off point for us to learn from each other (and to have the excuse to hit the books ourselves.)

We are here. Tim's claims are still sitting on the table. What do YOU have to say in response to them?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 11:17:26 AM
I'd actually be really happy if an outsider to the last couple days could go back over the graph discussion and be able to say, "oh, yes, I see now. That's what the difference is." Perhaps even contribute a new way, an analogy that Tim might be able to grasp?

I agree that maybe someone else could provide a new analogy, but what is an analogy when we are dealing with matter of fact maths skills? You're a good reasoned sort nomuse, did we not do well at explaining the graph to Tim? What could we do to improve?

Most involved in that protracted discussion tried various ways. I would suggest that the overwhelming evidence that everyone in the forum said it was a log graph.

In some ways it's all academic anyway, as the data tells the story. In some ways it isn't as if we present another graph using the same scale, it seems a pointlessness exercise when the target audience cannot read the graph. We're damned either way.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 11:17:54 AM
Understood. But as you've noticed, much of the activity here is sidetalk. None of us have to play the Devil's Advocate in order to dissect and then go beyond Tim's claims. Much of the time, what the HB brings to the table is only a jumping-off point for us to learn from each other (and to have the excuse to hit the books ourselves.)

We are here. Tim's claims are still sitting on the table. What do YOU have to say in response to them?


i am personally happy with the total of the reply. like i say some of the finer details i dont understand but on the whole i am happy. Tim has simplified this too much and has made incorrect comparisions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on April 10, 2018, 11:19:05 AM
Somehow I find it hard to believe that a person who failed to grasp high school maths and physics after having people try to explain to him for over a 100 pages was ever employed in any technical capacity.

Tim is a gentleman [..]
I think you are mistaken there.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 10, 2018, 11:23:20 AM
I'd actually be really happy if an outsider to the last couple days could go back over the graph discussion and be able to say, "oh, yes, I see now. That's what the difference is." Perhaps even contribute a new way, an analogy that Tim might be able to grasp?

I agree that maybe someone else could provide a new analogy, but what is an analogy when we are dealing with matter of fact maths skills? You're a good reasoned sort nomuse, did we not do well at explaining the graph to Tim? What could we do to improve?

Most involved in that protracted discussion tried various ways. I would suggest that the overwhelming evidence that everyone in the forum said it was a log graph.

In some ways it's all academic anyway, as the data tells the story. In some ways it isn't as if we present another graph using the same scale, it seems a pointlessness exercise when the target audience cannot read the graph. We're damned either way.

I am with you, in that my main argument on the graph was against using a graph. Why look at pretty pictures when you have numbers? (Unless you are an HB -- they looooove looking at pictures for something they can single out).

I was talking about it with a friend over dinner last night. Soon as I told him about the table Tim provided with the SD clearly listed in each column he said open the damned thing up in Excel and do a search term for strings of clustered low values. Or do some real statistics on the numbers.

Graphs are great for spotting patterns. Not so good for numeric breakouts.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 10, 2018, 11:30:03 AM
Those that believe Apollo need to present evidence it occurred, and that evidence is consistent with engineering, scientific and anecdotal record.

I did obliquely by pointing Tim at my website in my sig.

More specifically (and this is diverting way beyond the original premise of the thread), all a hoax believer has to do is explain this photo:

(https://i.imgur.com/6Oq8CaY.jpg)

It is my personal copy of a press image, dated the day it was taken. It is taken from a TV broadcast made by a handheld camera way outside Earth orbit, where the person operating the camera described the view. The configuration of ocean and land masses visible is absolutely consistent with the time of that broadcast and the viewpoint of the observer. The view contains a hurricane, a hurricane that only existed in that specific (and quite unusual) configuration on that day. Satellite images taken on the day of broadcast, but not available at the time of the broadcast, confirm every detail in it.

No hoax believer has come up with a remotely convincing account as to how this could have been done without telling outright lies, revealing their complete ignorance of the subject, or just plain old pretending they never saw it.

As soon as Tim stops misunderstanding abscissa and ordinates and how radiation works, maybe he can look at more prosaic and much more easily understood proofs of Apollo's reality.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 11:39:50 AM
I am with you, in that my main argument on the graph was against using a graph. Why look at pretty pictures when you have numbers? (Unless you are an HB -- they looooove looking at pictures for something they can single out).

Even then, if we had CRaTER data for July 1969, the dosimeter results from the astronauts would not align. The detectors on CRaTER would be different to the dosimeters for many reasons. It's a ludicrous exercise. About all one can say it that the CRaTER data is actually ball park with the Apollo missions. Go figure, what could that actually mean?

The CRaTER and SOHO data are pointers that refute Ralph Rene's argument that cisluanr space if a raging inferno or radiation where the the astronauts receive hundreds of rem outside the VABs. The CRaTER data neatly shows the the frequency of SPE events. It's a great tool from that point of view.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 11:45:18 AM
I did obliquely by pointing Tim at my website in my sig.

I saw you make several references to the Chandrayaan photos and reference to your website, which were all duly ignored. There are others who also picked up on his argument that the KREEP rocks are radioactive, which means someone had to go and collect those rocks in the first place. Or the usual hoax believer argument of quoting an anecdote of someone being on the moon, to prove... they weren't on the moon. HB's sure do like talking about anomalies, but logical fallacies are the currency they peddle.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 10, 2018, 12:15:00 PM
I am with you, in that my main argument on the graph was against using a graph. Why look at pretty pictures when you have numbers? (Unless you are an HB -- they looooove looking at pictures for something they can single out).

Even then, if we had CRaTER data for July 1969, the dosimeter results from the astronauts would not align. The detectors on CRaTER would be different to the dosimeters for many reasons. It's a ludicrous exercise. About all one can say it that the CRaTER data is actually ball park with the Apollo missions. Go figure, what could that actually mean?

The CRaTER and SOHO data are pointers that refute Ralph Rene's argument that cisluanr space if a raging inferno or radiation where the the astronauts receive hundreds of rem outside the VABs. The CRaTER data neatly shows the the frequency of SPE events. It's a great tool from that point of view.

Luke
I don't think this is exactly correct,  LRO was launched on June 18 2009 on a four day mission to the Moon.  That would put it in orbit on the 22nd 2009.  The data in the file linked started on the 26th 2009, so no cislunar data is recorded in this file, although it ay have been saved in a different file.  I didn't think to look up the launch date and the corresponding trip out bound.

ETA year on dates
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 12:33:48 PM
of course i agree. i cannot just say its true without research. i myself used to believe they were fake. i watched the FOX TV show. i decided to google 'did we land on the moon' one day and found Bobs site. after reading through this site and looking at a few others i was happy with what i saw and what was explained in a very simple manner. also on the other hand i have yet to come across an argument which i couldnt find an answer for. until i met tim and his radiation issue. this is when i joined cosmoquest and eventually this one. through my interactions on FB groups i occasionally come across items i cannot fully explain and i have asked some of those questions in other threads on here.

There are many aspects of the hoax theory that at first sight appear with merit to the uninitiated. I found the 'photo anomalies' more difficult to explain, but then I am no expert on photography. A few visits to Clavius and Jay's sections on fall off and secondary lighting, and asking a few questions here with members that understand photography, the photos all make sense.

The radiation arguments are more compelling for those less technically adept, but that's partly due to the 'radiation is bad Mmmmm-kay' approach that the HB's use. It takes time to sift through the material and understand the context. A little knowledge of physics helps, but it's not necessary.

The complexity of the technical side is overwhelming, and it's how I feel the HB's gained a foothold with their arguments. It's also worth remembering that HB's such as Ralph Rene had no grasp of physics themselves, so his own arguments were based upon his own misconceptions of the physical world. Now imagine peddling those ideas to those with a similar grasp of science. Those arguments can stick. Why are there dyed in the wool HB's? I won't speculate. I guess there are casual believers, and then there are those that are predisposed for whatever reason to have hard beliefs that cannot be shaken.

It's why I like Gillian's approach with her skills in film, history and understanding of psychology, or talking to the engineers here who can tell you that a hoax that size could never be kept quiet. Their involvement in aerospace projects is more than anecdotal, it relies on an understanding of the scale of the project involved from a professional vantage point; so I tend to believe them. Jay was trained and worked with Apollo era engineers (if I recall). He's held parts of Apollo hardware in his hand. He can testify that it was not faked and those parts of the hardware work as advertised. Those arguments, when one digests them fully, are more compelling than the arguments that reside in the technical minutiae.

Smartcooky and ka9q are worth a good listen, as they understand the communications aspect of Apollo. Onebigmonkey has produced an excellent website on the photographic record of the missions. We have scientists here who can confirm the ACG and its code worked as advertised. I could go on: Dwight, sts60 and Bob B.

I'm sorry to those that I missed from the list. There are many others that contribute here... ask a question and its answered. Be ready to listen, and those areas  that seem counter intuitive or are called as foul are explained with reason.

The knowledge here from non-credentialed members is incredible too, and they should not go without mention. The Apollo enthusiasts that reside here are a force to be reckoned with, and should be held in high regard for their encyclopedic knowledge of the missions and the technologies that made them possible.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 12:35:58 PM
Luke
I don't think this is exactly correct,  LRO was launched on June 18 2009 on a four day mission to the Moon.  That would put it in orbit on the 22nd 2009.  The data in the file linked started on the 26th 2009, so no cislunar data is recorded in this file, although it ay have been saved in a different file.  I didn't think to look up the launch date and the corresponding trip out bound.

I wasn't being very clear. Even if we had CRaTER-like data. Yes, I am aware that there is no CRaTER data for 1969, but if we could imagined that data was available, you could not compare it to the dosimeters directly. There would alway be differences.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 10, 2018, 12:52:21 PM
Luke
I don't think this is exactly correct,  LRO was launched on June 18 2009 on a four day mission to the Moon.  That would put it in orbit on the 22nd 2009.  The data in the file linked started on the 26th 2009, so no cislunar data is recorded in this file, although it ay have been saved in a different file.  I didn't think to look up the launch date and the corresponding trip out bound.

I wasn't being very clear. Even if we had CRaTER-like data. Yes, I am aware that there is no CRaTER data for 1969, but if we could imagined that data was available, you could not compare it to the dosimeters directly. There would alway be differences.

Yes, the dosimeters were a total mission received, then divided by the mission length gives one the average of .24 as represented in to Apollo radiation tables. The data would give a close approximation of that value, but as all of us have pointed out, the individual data points must be used not a graph.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 12:56:19 PM
Yes, the dosimeters were a total mission received, then divided by the mission length gives one the average of .24 as represented in to Apollo radiation tables. The data would give a close approximation of that value, but as all of us have pointed out, the individual data points must be used not a graph.

Quite, and as Jason pointed out, there are doses in the table that sit comfortably above the values recorded by CRaTER; but Tim did not dwell on that point when it was raised. There are many reasons we cannot make the comparison.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 10, 2018, 12:56:33 PM
It's why I like Gillian's approach with her skills in film, history and understanding of psychology, or talking to the engineers here who can tell you that a hoax that size could never be kept quiet.

Thank you kindly.  Tim's claim that it must have been figured out how to fake it because the numbers tell him it's wrong is infuriating to me, because he's doing it exactly backward.  The obvious answer there, given that the rest of it cannot be faked, is that he doesn't understand the numbers as well as he thinks he does.  But he will never admit that, so in his mind, the hoax is the obvious answer.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 01:00:40 PM
Thank you kindly.  Tim's claim that it must have been figured out how to fake it because the numbers tell him it's wrong is infuriating to me, because he's doing it exactly backward.  The obvious answer there, given that the rest of it cannot be faked, is that he doesn't understand the numbers as well as he thinks he does.  But he will never admit that, so in his mind, the hoax is the obvious answer.

That's OK. I'm not going to refuse learning from your contributions because you don't have a y-chromosome.  :P

...and he shouldn't be comparing the numbers as he thinks, as his comparison doesn't account for the complexity of the problem. However, I think that is implied in your words that I bolded.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 10, 2018, 01:02:14 PM
It's why I like Gillian's approach with her skills in film, history and understanding of psychology, or talking to the engineers here who can tell you that a hoax that size could never be kept quiet.

Thank you kindly.  Tim's claim that it must have been figured out how to fake it because the numbers tell him it's wrong is infuriating to me, because he's doing it exactly backward.  The obvious answer there, given that the rest of it cannot be faked, is that he doesn't understand the numbers as well as he thinks he does.  But he will never admit that, so in his mind, the hoax is the obvious answer.

I lean toward that assessment, as he has been shown points that invalidate his belief and he won't accept and move on as he puts it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 01:07:05 PM
I lean toward that assessment, as he has been shown points that invalidate his belief and he won't accept and move on as he puts it.

I agree, and despite a handful of people telling him that his initial premise is wrong as he did not read the graph properly, he still cannot accept this point or look at the data. There are many threads of the argument that he does not accept. I've noticed how he abandons part of the argument, then brings it back into the fray as though we have forgotten. Jay often calls the behavioural traits of their argument the 'nature of conspiracism.'  I need to remember this more when I get frustrated by their nonsense.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 10, 2018, 02:27:57 PM
I've been thinking of calling it the "Gish Drunkard's Walk."

The really fun thing is how some will apply this in hopes that their audience hasn't a functional long-term memory. Instead of, "Let's get back Claim A," they will drop it back in with a, "Since we've already shown Claim A..."

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 10, 2018, 02:36:29 PM
Not to beat a dead horse, but here is the semi-log plot of the RAD instrument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_assessment_detector

The actual data begins 2011 Dec 06 some 10 days after launch(no cislunar date damn!!!!)
https://pds-ppi.igpp.ucla.edu/search/view/?f=yes&id=pds://PPI/MSL-M-RAD-2-EDR-V1.0/DATA/CRUISE/2011/340

From the graph, in spite of the relatively huge points on the graph, one can clearly see data below .3 and some points approaching .1


Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 10, 2018, 02:47:23 PM
For me, as interested as I was in space sciences, I hadn't paid particular attention to Apollo. I was of the generation that thought of it as a stepping stone and my dreams were full of...well, mostly habitats, with their lovingly depicted suburbia slash industrial parks lining the inside of improbably sized cylinders and toroids.

So I was exposed to the hoax from the hoax side. It was...unconvincing. They made statements which were clearly contrary to basic geometry and optics, exposed clear and obvious pareidolia...plus the general presentation was mawkish. Then I hit the first skeptic site and the explanations were so well-formed they convinced almost by the sheer strength of their understanding of the material and ability to speak about it clearly and precisely.

I am with those that say the hoax belief starts with a propensity. The typical arc of the hoax believer seems to be to run into something --despite their narratives to the contrary, often demonstrably from a secondary source.

The difference being, when that first claim is thrown into question, they don't open up the question to ask if perhaps there wasn't a hoax after all. Instead they quickly grasp for other, stronger supports of what they've decided on without prior evidence.

For me, the big impact was not in the minutia, but in the larger picture. On a photo-by-photo basis you can quibble forever, and, yes, I did entertain thoughts that a hoax might have been possible. Until I took a step back and thought about the program itself. It isn't a couple guys in a spacecraft somewhere remote that brought a couple pictures back.

It was a massive public program, seated firmly in an ongoing history of the space sciences and aeronautical engineering. Every bit of behavior of materials or thermodynamics or whatever isn't some unique thing that only happened once out of sight of most of humanity; it is something analogous to behaviors experienced daily in thousands of industries, and linked by robust and quantified physical understanding to basic properties that are at the root of everything we understand and can do.

It isn't too much to say that if the thermodynamics claims of the hoax believers were correct, I wouldn't have been able to do some of the things I have personally done with hot metals. You can't draw some bright line between the physics happening on the Moon and the physics happening in your kitchen. The only thing you can do is fail to understand the underlying physics...and that is something the hoax believers demonstrate daily.

One can make similar points about the way the project was organized funded vetted inspected and reported on, or how the activities of the spacecraft were observed. In fact, I can not think of a single aspect of Apollo (at least, not one that has received focus from the hoax believers) that doesn't fall into the trap of requiring ten thousand people (and all the literature they produce) in some completely different field to be either lying, incompetent, or both.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bobdude11 on April 10, 2018, 03:38:51 PM
It is merely a thing of curiosity.

Then it won't matter if no one answers you.

Quote
Is there harm in asking?

All the other conspiracy theorists who come here and ask the same question have had one of a small number of ulterior motives in asking it.  So you tell me what harm you might intend by asking it.

My, my, we are defensive.  I am in the far corner of the country and I am old and harmless.  I am a threat to a beer bottle but that is the extent of it.  I am just trying to get a feel for the nature of the group.  So tell me.  What conspiracy do you fancy?
Well, do you still kick your dog?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 03:50:08 PM
Ok guys I have found the group. It is simply called the moon landing hoax.if you search my name it comes up with at least 1 chat between me and tim
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 10, 2018, 03:56:18 PM

I'd actually be really happy if an outsider to the last couple days could go back over the graph discussion and be able to say, "oh, yes, I see now. That's what the difference is." Perhaps even contribute a new way, an analogy that Tim might be able to grasp?

Well here is one for you

The logarithmic scale goes (for example 1, 10, 100, 1000; or more correctly 100, 101 102 103 etc) even though the major intervals on the graph appear physically to be equally spaced. Now, I saw timfinch complain that the minor intervals (the bits in between) were equally spaced and therefore it must be a linear scale... but if the major intervals were equally spaced, why would that not also apply to the minor intervals?

(I hope this makes sense) 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 04:14:44 PM
here is a link to the group https://www.facebook.com/groups/1090895674258943/about/
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 10, 2018, 04:22:33 PM
My thinking goes muddy every time I try to go down the rabbit hole of a log graph with linear material between the major indexes. Obviously the vales plot differently. Presumably all data can still be plotted; since the index line marked "10" has an index line marked "100" above it, then if you added ten finer division lines they would be 20, 30, 40... not 11, 12, 13.

The only difference, then, is the spacing of these subdivision lines. The lines being of course arbitrary; they don't constrain data, they just make it easier run your eye straight across.

So...at this point I can't do it without some lined paper...what's a nice example number that's clearly and obviously in a different spot?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 10, 2018, 04:44:38 PM
here is a link to the group https://www.facebook.com/groups/1090895674258943/about/

Well, I found both of you in the thread, but didn't find any interaction between you guys.
However all of tim's post that I did read were more or less a copy of what he posted here.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 04:47:38 PM
...but if the major intervals were equally spaced, why would that not also apply to the minor intervals?

(I hope this makes sense)

I hope my answer makes sense. Take the minor intervals between 10 and 100. They correspond to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90.

Now take Log 10 = 1
Now take Log 100 = 2

I can say that 10 is placed on on the major grid line 1, which is labelled 101. 100 is placed on major grid line 2 which is labelled 102.

So how do I space the multiples of 10 between 10 and 100? I scale them as minor units as a log function spaced in between the two major scales that represent 10 and 100, the latter two numbers are equidistant on paper.

Log 20 = 1.30
Log 30 = 1.48
Log 40 = 1.60
Log 50 = 1.70
Log 60 = 1.78
Log 70 = 1.85
Log 80 = 1.90
Log 90 = 1.95

As you can see, 20 is scaled at distance of 1.3. If you distribute 10n linearly, the numbers in between are not distributed linearly. You scale them to a log function shown above. You don't scale the data according to a log function.

You plot the data, unmodified, against the scale you've defined according to a log function, and I think this part was confusing Tim. He thought the graph was linear, so if that was the case, one had to convert the data using a log to fit it to a linear scale. Now I'm thinking about it, I think he may have been trying to suggest two things: (a) the CRaTER data was already a log of the original data to fit it against a linear scale or (b) one had to take a log of the CRaTER data to fit it to a linear scale.

I've never heard of (a) or (b) being performed, and if (b) then the data would be negative and the CRaTER graph has no negative numbers. Bottom line is that the dots are the x-minors as shown by Jason's blow up.

Note: Edited for clarity as member theteacher was replying.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 10, 2018, 05:01:34 PM
here is a link to the group https://www.facebook.com/groups/1090895674258943/about/

Well, I found both of you in the thread, but didn't find any interaction between you guys.
However all of tim's post that I did read were more or less a copy of what he posted here.

bknight you didn't look very far. search for my name at the top and the very first time I appear is with tim
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: theteacher on April 10, 2018, 05:23:12 PM
...but if the major intervals were equally spaced, why would that not also apply to the minor intervals?

(I hope this makes sense)

I hope my answer makes sense. Take the minor intervals between 10 and 100. They correspond to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90.

Now take Log 10 = 1
Now take Log 100 = 2

I can say that 10 is places on square 1, which is labelled 101. 100 is placed on square 2 which is labelled 102. So how do I place minor unit on the square to scale 20, 30... etc?

So I have to scale my minor units as a log function spaced in between the two major scales that represent 10 and 100 which are equidistant on paper. So how do I space the multiples the units of 10 between 10 and 100.

Log 20 = 1.30
Log 30 = 1.48
Log 40 = 1.60
Log 50 = 1.70
Log 60 = 1.78
Log 70 = 1.85
Log 80 = 1.90
Log 90 = 1.95

As you can see, 20 is scaled at 1.3 squares, and 30 is almost half way between 10 and 100 at 1.48 squares. The lines then get closer for each increment of 10. Logs are not linear, therefore, if you distribute 10n linearly, the numbers in between are not.

I made post #1190 to point to that fact, because the smaller divisions are not helpful. On the contrary they are disturbing, and I cannot understand why the graph displaying the CRaTER data are drawn on that specific grid.

I guess it could be helpful to regard a so called "graph" as consisting of 3 different levels: 1: The background, 2: The coordinate system and 3: The graph itself.

The background is in itself meaningless. it can be helpful or it can be confusing.

The graph itself is uninterpretable without a coordinate system.

So what matters is the coordinate system consisting of two (or three) axes, their orientation and their units. This system defines, how the graph must be interpreted. The coordinate system can be drawn on a blank background, but some lines parallel to the axes may of cause be helpfull, though not mandatory.

So my point is, that the lines, that divide the units on the y-axis in the CRaTER "graph" (for short) in smaller increments, are not helpfull. They are meaningless and confusing as the y-axis is logarithmic. So why are they there? I guess they are no problem to the scientifically literates, but I guess I understand why they become an obstacle to the lay person - willfully ignorant or not.

Just my two cents.

(Edited for spelling)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 05:34:34 PM
Just my two cents.

A valuable 2 cents. I don't find a log scale terribly intuitive immediately and I have to sit and ponder, but that's the nature of reading graphs. They are meant to make one think, as all they present are a visual of the data. I actually prefer them with the minor division as it helps me determine the numbers. To a lay person I can see why they are confusing.

I heavily edited my last post while you were replying, so it reads differently. I read it a few times and thought my explanation was still not clear.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: theteacher on April 10, 2018, 05:50:31 PM
Just my two cents.

A valuable 2 cents. I don't find a log scale terribly intuitive immediately and I have to sit and ponder, but that's the nature of reading graphs. They are meant to make one think, as all they present are a visual of the data. I actually prefer them with the minor division as it helps me determine the numbers. To a lay person I can see why they are confusing.

I heavily edited my last post while you were replying, so it reads differently. I read it a few times and thought my explanation was still not clear.

I found your post exactly to the point  :)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 06:06:30 PM
I'm sure someone else did this, possibly nomuse, Jason or Raven. Plotting exactly the same data, same scale and simply omitting the minor grid lines.

Scaled this way, 2, 20, 200, 2000 etc are almost half way between the major scales of 10n.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 10, 2018, 06:13:22 PM
That was my gut feeling....Tim was looking at a line around 2 and reading it as if it were 5.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 10, 2018, 06:18:09 PM
So my point is, that the lines, that divide the units on the y-axis in the CRaTER "graph" (for short) in smaller increments, are not helpfull. They are meaningless and confusing as the y-axis is logarithmic. So why are they there?

As I tried to get Tim to understand, they are actually not there, at least not as increments on the y-axis. Unfortunately the decision to plot the gridlines as dotted lines has led to confusion. However, if you zoom into the axis you can see that what is actually happening is that the 'minor divisions' on the y-axis are actually just the dotted line from the first point on the x-axis. This is clear when you zoom in, as the major divisions on the y-axis don't align with these dots. Notably the 100 point on the y-axis is between two of the dots. If you zoom in you just can't make the numbers work with those dots as minor divisions on any scale. There are just a few too many.

Attached below are the zoomed axis image I posted earlier and an altered version of the graph with the actual gridlines on it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 06:27:14 PM
That was my gut feeling....Tim was looking at a line around 2 and reading it as if it were 5.

That's exactly what he was doing, and getting 5 x 10-2 cGy day-1, or 0.5 mGr day-1.

Even so, his wrangling over it being an arithmetic graph scaled exponentially was back pedalling of the highest order. When he introduced the idea of taking a log of the data before plotting the data against the log scale, I knew he didn't understand the graph.

I don't think it was obvious to him what the minor lines mean as we focused on trying to get him to understand how the major scales are spaced equally with an increasing order of magnitude. Did anyone, at any time, explain the way in which the minor scales are scaled; or was this futile given his fixation with the presentation of the CRaTER graph? After all, he seemed convinced that the dashed lines were scaling the y-axis linearly.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: theteacher on April 10, 2018, 06:46:07 PM
So my point is, that the lines, that divide the units on the y-axis in the CRaTER "graph" (for short) in smaller increments, are not helpfull. They are meaningless and confusing as the y-axis is logarithmic. So why are they there?

As I tried to get Tim to understand, they are actually not there, at least not as increments on the y-axis.
You are correct and I apologize for not having paid adequate attention to what you wrote in the post you mention, although I remember the picture, which I never bothered to click. On the other hand it justifies, that my employer as of today has granted me free glasses for screen work  8)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 10, 2018, 06:47:16 PM
And that's just the start of it.

I mean, if you can't even read the graph properly, what's the point of going on from there?

(I still opine that if there's any question about interpreting the graph, then look at the numbers themselves.)

But still... once you get past the graph, you still have to deal with the problem that, as my friend put it, neither of us have a half mil in assets, despite what the median is for the US...the 1% throw those numbers off considerably. And the Crater data is both visibly and mathematically (the SD that Tim listed, err, copied himself) "spikey." One glance at the numbers tells you that it is a relatively low level of activity with short-lived spikes that drive the median up. It's hard to get a signal where the mean and the median are the same, so confuse them at your peril!

And then it is silly to sum up a year (well, particularly a non-representative year) for an activity that got to chose which part of the year. It's like saying you can't wear shorts in Paris because it snows there.

And then this is "radiation" arriving at detectors. A human astronaut is inside a spacecraft. Not only does a human have different quality factors for each potential ionizing threat, each is ameliorated differently. You can't just wave vaguely at bremsstrahlung and thus just add all your particles together, regardless of energies, to get one simplified picture.

But you know what's really funny? After all of that....he comes in within a power of two of what was actually recorded. His error bars are a magnitude above that. Some of us are happy enough with the results of a Fermi Estimation (his favorite song from an American musical? 100 trombones!)

When you do a napkin sketch and it is in the ballpark of the real-world numbers, you pat yourself on the back. You don't run to the highest steps and start shouting "NASA is wrong I just proved it!"
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 07:04:25 PM
And then this is "radiation" arriving at detectors. A human astronaut is inside a spacecraft. Not only does a human have different quality factors for each potential ionizing threat, each is ameliorated differently. You can't just wave vaguely at bremsstrahlung and thus just add all your particles together, regardless of energies, to get one simplified picture.

Ahhhh, glad you said that, as I was hoping we would begin discussing that with Tim next. I eluded to this point a few posts ago. I remarked to Ben that using the CRaTER data is dubious at the very least as it will give different readings to the Apollo dosimeters. Not only because the CRaTER detectors are naked in space as you elude to in you post (which is a version of the Muppet's, Pigs in Space), but they are different instruments so there will errors between instruments. That's the problem with measuring stuff, no two methods are the same. Science is a bit pesky like that.

Quote
But you know what's really funny? After all of that....he comes in within a power of two of what was actually recorded. His error bars are a magnitude above that. Some of us are happy enough with the results of a Fermi Estimation (his favorite song from an American musical? 100 trombones!)

The CRaTER data are ball park and in some instances well below the recorded Apollo doses, as Jason mentioned in a previous post. In fact I'm glad for the CRaTER data, as this puts to bed the ideas toted by a certain YouTube HB's, namely radiation levels beyond LEO are a raging furnace of death. Again, I'm glad you have drawn this conclusion about the error bars.

Quote
When you do a napkin sketch and it is in the ballpark of the real-world numbers, you pat yourself on the back. You don't run to the highest steps and start shouting "NASA is wrong I just proved it!"

I've had similar thought. The CRaTER data are not too dissimilar to the Apollo doses, a far cry from the raging furnace of death some HB's would lead one to believe.

OK, two things. Tim wants to use the CRaTER data to provide a threshold to judge whether NASA has taken part in skullduggery. He's going the wrong way as he will always compare apples with pears when trying to extrapolate data to the actual missions. Second thing, the CRaTER data shows nicely that the radiation outside of the VABs is survivable.

In one sense, Tim has done use a service as we can point to those naysayers that suggest the astronauts received 100s of rem per mission and highlight the CRaTER data dose not show that to be the case. Only in the event of an SPE do the levels spike. Which is precisely the message they have been given all these years.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 10, 2018, 07:10:46 PM
Hmph. Well, Tim ignored both the difference between "high" CREEP and "low" CREEP in his own sources, and the vast difference in activity between active and peaceful sun in mine.

But then, when we left off he was still thinking in terms of long-lived isotopes. Not of, if I understand correctly, a sort of nuclear spalling. Which might include a few isotopes along the way but with half-lives in the femto scale it hardly matters.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 10, 2018, 07:29:20 PM
Would it be correct to say that the ten equally space minor divisions between 100 and 101 would be 10n where n= a decimal fraction of 1

so

100 = 1 (major division)
100.1 = 1.259
100.2 = 1.585
100.3 = 1.995
100.4 = 2.512
100.5 = 3.162
100.6 = 3.981
100.7 = 5.011
100.8 = 6.310
100.9 = 7.943
101 = 10 (major division)

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 08:03:24 PM
Would it be correct to say that the ten equally space minor divisions between 100 and 101 would be 10n where n= a decimal fraction of 1

so

100 = 1 (major division)
100.1 = 1.259
100.2 = 1.585
100.3 = 1.995
100.4 = 2.512
100.5 = 3.162
100.6 = 3.981
100.7 = 5.011
100.8 = 6.310
100.9 = 7.943
101 = 10 (major division)

If you are spacing the numbers on the left of your '=' sign equally in actual distance, then yes. But it makes no sense. Now try plotting data on that scale, because the numeric distance between minor scales is not equal. It would be utterly crackers to use that as a scale.

That's why the log scale has minor scales that become closer together, as the minor scale are derived from exponents of x in the function of 10x (not exponential, that's something different), where x are mapped using a log function to represent equal increments between the major scale. The difference between successive values of x are not equal, but the difference between successive values of 10x are equal.

So between 1 and 10 the first minor mark is 2, the next is 3, and so forth.

If you were to label 2 in exponent form it would be 100.30102999566398119521373889472449

3 would be 100.47712125471966243729502790325512.

This then translates to equal distances between the numbers represented by the minor scale. Does that make sense?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 08:33:01 PM
Would it be correct to say that the ten equally space minor divisions between 100 and 101 would be 10n where n= a decimal fraction of 1

so

100 = 1 (major division)
100.1 = 1.259
100.2 = 1.585
100.3 = 1.995
100.4 = 2.512
100.5 = 3.162
100.6 = 3.981
100.7 = 5.011
100.8 = 6.310
100.9 = 7.943
101 = 10 (major division)

... and I think this hits the nail on the head with Tim. I actually now believe that if you had the number 3.162 in your data, he was saying that would take a log of this to obtain 0.5, and the plot 0.5 against 100.5

This only works if the data matches the numbers on the right of the '=' sign. What happen if you have 8.5?

Log 8.5 = 0.93.

As you can see, by trying to scale exponents arithmetically, so to speak, you can don't have the linear scale that Tim suggests. Yes, the exponents themselves are spaced arithmetically, but when one computes 10x the data does not map linearly to the scale. The only way to scale a graph this way would be to have infinite minor scales so you ensure the scale is bespoke for the data set.

This is explains why he was using the term exponential arithmetic graph. He was saying the exponents are spaced arithmetically.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 10, 2018, 08:34:31 PM
If you are plotting by hand, then yeah...you need a grid a human can work with. If you are using software to plot, then it doesn't need to look at the index lines. It can put the data whatever number of pixels it wants.

In any case, nobody makes a graph that changes shape depending on the scale you look at it. I'd be tempted to say that's the basic nature of a graph; that it is fractal. As in, theoretically (if the plotted data were actually to that many significant figures) you could zoom in infinitely and the curve would still be the same.

If Tim tried to put a sine wave on his weird hybrid graph it would get all bumpy.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 08:37:24 PM
If Tim tried to put a sine wave on his weird hybrid graph it would get all bumpy.

Ah, that's the word I was looking for. It's a hybrid.

The major scales are based on a log scale, the minor are based on spacing the exponents arithmetically. I mean wow!!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 08:41:10 PM
In any case, nobody makes a graph that changes shape depending on the scale you look at it. I'd be tempted to say that's the basic nature of a graph; that it is fractal. As in, theoretically (if the plotted data were actually to that many significant figures) you could zoom in infinitely and the curve would still be the same.

My bold, but I was thinking along these lines. Every time you need to plot a point on Tim's hybrid, you'd need to take a log of the data and zoom in to find a point (ETA: minor scale) that was a solution to value_of_point = 10x.

The only way to scale a graph this way would be to have infinite minor scales so you ensure the scale is bespoke for the data set.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 10, 2018, 08:47:55 PM
This is what working with an exponential arithmetic scale using log data would be like.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 10, 2018, 09:11:09 PM
This is what working with an exponential arithmetic scale using log data would be like.


Now that is kool. 😀
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 10, 2018, 11:20:17 PM
Ah, of course. Because every lump would have lumps, and it's elephants, young man, all the way down.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 11, 2018, 03:58:30 AM
I eluded to this point a few posts ago....
as you elude to in you post...

Sorry to nitpick, but you allude to something. To elude means to escape from something.

Quote
Only in the event of an SPE do the levels spike.

And this is where understanding the scale and the numbers on the axis comes into play. On the log scale the CraTer data appears to be full of big, dangerous-looking spikes. However, only four of them get above 10cGy/day (0.1Gy/day) and only two exceed 100cGy/day (1Gy/day). If big, life-threatening spikes are what you're interested in then a linear plot is actually more clear visually. To put that in context a quick Google search (not the most academic of methods but gives an idea) for radiation effects in humans suggests 0.3Gy makes you ill, 1-4gy makes you very ill but you can be saved with medical intervention, 4-8Gy makes you extremely ill and might kill you within weeks of exposure even if you do get treatment. 8-30Gy makes you acutely ill and kills you within days of exposure and over 30Gy is certain death within two days. So put like that it is clear that over the entire cycle only a very small number of occasions occurred that would present even significant threats to the health of any astronauts on a two-week flight, Only two that present threat to life during the mission, and that's only because any radiation sickness would likely impair their ability to operate the spacecraft to return safely to Earth where they could be treated for it. All of this is before you account for the different shielding properties of their spacecraft versus the detectors used to gather these data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 11, 2018, 06:06:36 AM
Sorry to nitpick, but you allude to something. To elude means to escape from something.

Ha! It's one of my common mistakes. My friend caught the same mistake not so long ago on Facebook. I'll make it again, I'm sure. Pedal and peddle is one I have to think about too.

I'm OK, with your and you're, to, too and two, there, their and they're - thankfully!  ;)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: BazBear on April 11, 2018, 07:15:08 AM
I screw up choosing its or it's far too often.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 11, 2018, 10:05:15 AM
All of this is before you account for the different shielding properties of their spacecraft versus the detectors used to gather these data.

... and of course, with warning, they could turn the spacecraft around so the CSM faces the incoming proton flux and offers increased shielding; eluding some components of the SPE flux. As alluded to in many discussions on this topic at fora and accounts in the literature. There is no eluding this issue, SPEs are the main danger.

I screw up choosing its or it's far too often.

I'm sure I make that mistake often.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 11, 2018, 11:13:12 AM
I screw up choosing its or it's far too often.

If it helps, "its" parallels "yours" and "ours" and so forth.  None of them take an apostrophe, either.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 11, 2018, 11:20:23 AM
I just assume I've got it wrong, and will go back over every one in a quick edit pass.

(I know the rules, but the mind has the terrible ability to edit what it thinks it didn't and vice-versa.)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 11, 2018, 01:19:32 PM
... and of course, with warning,

Another bit Tim either didn't get or pretended not to get. He was quite happy to talk about SPEs but apparently still thought they travelled at light speed....
 
Quote
they could turn the spacecraft around so the CSM faces the incoming proton flux and offers increased shielding; eluding some components of the SPE flux. As alluded to in many discussions on this topic at fora and accounts in the literature. There is no eluding this issue, SPEs are the main danger.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 11, 2018, 01:46:19 PM
And this is where understanding the scale and the numbers on the axis comes into play. On the log scale the CraTer data appears to be full of big, dangerous-looking spikes. However, only four of them get above 10cGy/day (0.1Gy/day) and only two exceed 100cGy/day (1Gy/day). If big, life-threatening spikes are what you're interested in then a linear plot is actually more clear visually. To put that in context a quick Google search (not the most academic of methods but gives an idea) for radiation effects in humans suggests 0.3Gy makes you ill, 1-4gy makes you very ill but you can be saved with medical intervention, 4-8Gy makes you extremely ill and might kill you within weeks of exposure even if you do get treatment. 8-30Gy makes you acutely ill and kills you within days of exposure and over 30Gy is certain death within two days. So put like that it is clear that over the entire cycle only a very small number of occasions occurred that would present even significant threats to the health of any astronauts on a two-week flight, Only two that present threat to life during the mission, and that's only because any radiation sickness would likely impair their ability to operate the spacecraft to return safely to Earth where they could be treated for it. All of this is before you account for the different shielding properties of their spacecraft versus the detectors used to gather these data.

I found this link which shows the date of SPEs that took place during the Apollo missions. The graphic illustrates quite nicely that not all SPEs are equal. When one researches the literature, the solar storm of 1972 is always considered a big one, along with the Halloween storm of 2003. The Carrington event is considered the largest in recorded history if I recall, similar in magnitude to the storm of 2012 that thankfully missed the Earth.

Apollo and SPEs (http://www.minimagnetosphere.org/)

On the International Space Station there is a special thick-walled room to which the astronauts have had to retreat during times of increased solar radiation.

Unless I'm incorrect, this suggests astronauts can take action in the event of a solar proton event. I understand from SOHO data that the initial proton flux rises suddenly, but the SPE occurs over hours or days, so the dose is not received in an instant. An SPE is not a spike in radiation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 11, 2018, 04:57:57 PM
This is what working with an exponential arithmetic scale using log data would be like.


Wow!  Now that is complex!!  ;D <pun intended>

An interesting choice of colours that brings out my synesthesia, and I can taste them all the way down  :o
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: inconceivable on April 11, 2018, 05:00:21 PM
But  then we have still have the issue of the glass windows in the LEM and the CM and not to mention the helmets.  Sure they can handle the heat of reentry but no Nasa documentation on radiation protection and micrometeoroids.  The space shuttle's fused silicon GLASS which was in low Earth orbit had a record average replacement of 1 window replacement every 10.8 days in orbit.  The higher the altitude the mean impact rate increased.  Shielding is required over 124.34 miles altitude and more research is needed for better shielding over 330 miles altitude.     This is basically the same fused silicon glass the Soyuz and the new Orion will be using.  Ironically there is no mention of Apollo/Gemini radiation protection of  high temp quartz GLASS.  The Boeing x-37 shuttle is doing the preliminary testing of crafts with no windows and HUD with cameras and screens and advanced electronics capable of traveling in the Van Allen Belts.  To go the moon and deep space it is known that windows have to go.   Glass is like having an open window in space to radiation.  3oh.e
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 11, 2018, 05:09:48 PM
But  then we have still have the issue of the glass windows in the LEM and the CM and not to mention the helmets.  Sure they can handle the heat of reentry but no Nasa documentation on radiation protection and micrometeoroids.  The space shuttle's fused silicon GLASS which was in low Earth orbit had a record average replacement of 1 window replacement every 10.8 days in orbit.  The higher the altitude the mean impact rate increased.  Shielding is required over 124.34 miles altitude and more research is needed for better shielding over 330 miles altitude.     This is basically the same fused silicon glass the Soyuz and the new Orion will be using.  Ironically there is no mention of Apollo/Gemini radiation protection of  high temp quartz GLASS.  The Boeing x-37 shuttle is doing the preliminary testing of crafts with no windows and HUD with cameras and screens and advanced electronics capable of traveling in the Van Allen Belts.  To go the moon and deep space it is known that windows have to go.   Glass is like having an open window in space to radiation.  3oh.e

Firstly it wasn't made of glass but polycarbonate, if you would have bothered to look.

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/helmet-pressure-bubble-aldrin-apollo-11
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 11, 2018, 05:21:38 PM
To go the moon and deep space it is known that windows have to go.   Glass is like having an open window in space to radiation.

If you have read this thread, it is agreed that the CM offered little protection to GCR. However, on a short mission to the moon and the return journey, GCR does not present a problem in terms of the dose the astronauts received.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 11, 2018, 05:42:26 PM
But  then we have still have the issue of the glass windows in the LEM and the CM and not to mention the helmets.

Why is this still an issue when we have just spent hundreds of pages showing how low radiation in space actually is when it comes to serious health concerns for a two week flight?

Quote
no Nasa documentation on radiation protection and micrometeoroids

None? Or just none you've been able to pull up from a google search? Huge difference.

Quote
Glass is like having an open window in space to radiation.

Is it? What kind of radiation? How energetic? Come on, inconceivable, engage with the thread. My question as to your reasons for being here still stands since you steadfastly refuse to actually discuss and to respond when people reply to you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 11, 2018, 06:00:31 PM
I suspect strongly there are MORE impacts in LEO, not fewer. First, gravity will tend to perturb objects towards Earth, as well as entrap them in various elliptical paths. Second, LEO is where we've been. Ask any archaeologist; where people go, is garbage. LEO is where space junk is. Worse, the stuff is more-or-less already in the orbital paths you want to have your shuttle orbiter in.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 11, 2018, 06:13:44 PM
I suspect strongly there are MORE impacts in LEO, not fewer.

Would this Planetary and Space Science publication confirm your suspicion? I can only go by the abstract, and I'm not paying for the full pdf.  ;)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0032063379901284
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 11, 2018, 10:52:33 PM
of course i agree. i cannot just say its true without research. i myself used to believe they were fake. i watched the FOX TV show. i decided to google 'did we land on the moon' one day and found Bobs site. after reading through this site and looking at a few others i was happy with what i saw and what was explained in a very simple manner. also on the other hand i have yet to come across an argument which i couldnt find an answer for. until i met tim and his radiation issue. this is when i joined cosmoquest and eventually this one. through my interactions on FB groups i occasionally come across items i cannot fully explain and i have asked some of those questions in other threads on here.
You are fortunate. Sure, I can buy that the photo nonsense has the appearance of some traction, but upon examination, it does not.

That is the beauty of this site. There is a boatload of expertise available.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 11, 2018, 11:07:17 PM
The radiation issue IS complex. And messy. When you get right down to it, the specifics of dosage and the specifics of thermal management are two places where even the engineer would prefer you build the real thing and measure it.

Thing is, ballpark shows you the task is achievable. Even error-ridden approximations like we've been throwing around in this thread are enough to zero in to a magnitude or two; enough to where you know you aren't going to need that "six feet of lead" some people claim.

But when it gets down to it, working out the various energetic particle threats and their amelioration isn't something completely orthogonal to figuring out how to navigate, or predict and control liquid flow within the motors, or sustaining life within the pressure suits. It really is just another engineering problem. And when you've accepted that the people they had were fully capable of figuring out how to communicate with the craft or build landing gear that would work, it becomes very hard to think that same group (or, rather, other specialists with similar levels of expertise) would be incapable of addressing the radiation issue.

What I mean by all this is that set against the background of the rest of the project, you would need a heck of a big smoking gun. "It's harder than it looks" isn't a good smoking gun. "This looks odd to me" isn't one. A deathbed confession is nothing, at this point. My "smoking gun" at this point would be an interview program where interviewees explain how they did it. And that program would be Ken Burns in length.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 12, 2018, 03:33:29 AM
Thing is, ballpark shows you the task is achievable. Even error-ridden approximations like we've been throwing around in this thread are enough to zero in to a magnitude or two; enough to where you know you aren't going to need that "six feet of lead" some people claim.

What frustrates me most about this whole business (apart from people like Tim trolling by pretending not to understand log graphs, or inconceivable and his seagull posting) is that there really is an abundance of information out there that shows this radiation issue to be a non-issue for short duration missions, yet HBs will insist on going back to statements from James van Allen made right after Explorer 1, or point to the fact that radiation studies are ongoing for long duration missions as though they somehow have relevance. Or generally not even look at the information available.

Even inconceivable's latest garbage about windows contains no actual information and still falls back on the implication of a deadly sea of radiation and tiny projectiles ready to kill us all the minute we dare go out of the atmosphere.


But when it gets down to it, working out the various energetic particle threats and their amelioration isn't something completely orthogonal to figuring out how to navigate, or predict and control liquid flow within the motors, or sustaining life within the pressure suits. It really is just another engineering problem. And when you've accepted that the people they had were fully capable of figuring out how to communicate with the craft or build landing gear that would work, it becomes very hard to think that same group (or, rather, other specialists with similar levels of expertise) would be incapable of addressing the radiation issue.

What I mean by all this is that set against the background of the rest of the project, you would need a heck of a big smoking gun. "It's harder than it looks" isn't a good smoking gun. "This looks odd to me" isn't one. A deathbed confession is nothing, at this point. My "smoking gun" at this point would be an interview program where interviewees explain how they did it. And that program would be Ken Burns in length.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 12, 2018, 08:02:27 AM
They are trying to be lawyers. They treat the issue as a criminal case. If one single fact can be shown not to fit the prosecutors case, there can be argued for "resonable doubt" - and the defendant must be acquitted. Which in this context means, the Apollo moon landings were impossible, if one single fact can be proven wrong or impossible. No matter how much they have to lie and cheat and quotemine.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: BertieSlack on April 12, 2018, 08:57:15 AM
If one single fact can be shown not to fit the prosecutors case, there can be argued for "resonable doubt" - and the defendant must be acquitted.

The burden of proof is indeed with the prosecution. That would be the Apollo deniers, not the Apollo defenders.

But the argument that one missing or apparently contradictory piece of evidence destroys all the others is nonsense anyway. Hoaxnuts are very fond of quoting the Holmesian maxim that a missing link in a chain destroys the whole chain. They disregard the fact that Holmes was referring to chain of reasoning, where each inference is dependent on the strength of the previous one - he was NOT referring to a collection of independently verifiable facts. For example, if I told you that:
1. My real name is not Bertie
2. I am 50 years old
3. I live in England

but then it turned out that I was mistaken about my age, that would not mean that I really am called Bertie and live somewhere other than England. Even if a jury suspected I was a liar, my name and country of residence can be independently verified.

Court verdicts are given on the totality of the evidence, and not everything can be perfectly known. Some pieces of the jigsaw will be missing, some may be damaged - but have we got enough pieces in the right place to see the picture?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 12, 2018, 10:35:30 AM
I think it helps (hinders?) that the hoax believers generally lack a background that lets them appreciate the body of the material.

They look at Apollo as resting on proof that is made up of a bundle of straws. So when they think they've broken one straw, it is easy for them to think of the others as equally weak as would all break if looked at as closely.

Even when you follow them down one hole and show them, say, how much more a pressure suit is than a balloon, they don't extrapolate; the radio transmissions are still easily faked with a tape recorder in LEO, the Apollo Surface Record just takes a bit of desert and black-and-white film, etc.

All in a framework where understanding of Apollo is entirely some pictures in a dusty archive that are said to have been shot somewhere that we know nothing about and no-one else has ever been or seen. A project that has no footprint, no connections, no descendants, and few witnesses. They just can't see it within the context of widely known and ordinary engineering and science.

(I'd also say they lack appreciation for how well the history is documented, but the conspiracy believer has the same lack of appreciation for the width and depth to which history is studied. For them it is a single line in a schoolbook and anyone could have written that.)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 12, 2018, 11:18:46 AM
In my experience, HBs don't understand how history works any more than they understand how anything else works.  You can tell based on all the weight they place on Nixon.

Was Watergate a scandal and a Constitutional crisis?  You bet.  Does it show a disregard to the truth and the law in Nixon?  Absolutely.  Does it prove that Nixon lied about everything?  Absolutely not.  Nixon is a complicated figure, even a tragic one in some ways.  He had a strange sense of honour that was completely overwhelmed by his need to be liked.  I would argue that you can track everything Nixon did wrong in his life to a need to believe that people liked him.  More to the point, though, it's obvious that he didn't lie about everything.  We have evidence of all kinds of things he didn't lie about.  He didn't lie about the automatic cost of living adjustment to Social Security; all you need to prove that's true is to note that Social Security payments still get automatic COLA to this day.

So if you're going to put "Nixon lied about stuff" in your evidence column, well, that's not enough.  Everyone lies about stuff.  Everyone also tells the truth about stuff.  So you then have to work out if it's more likely, in this case, that Nixon was lying or telling the truth.  Given that Apollo was announced by JFK and pushed by LBJ, it frankly becomes more likely that Nixon was telling the truth, and if you don't understand why that's the case, you need to stop using Nixon in your evidence column anyway, because you don't understand Nixon.  Revealing the hoax would have, in his eyes, made him beloved at the expense of JFK, who had once betrayed him.  I mean, come on!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bobdude11 on April 13, 2018, 01:26:34 PM
The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years....

Well, microbursts were not identified as an aviation hazard until the mid 70's. All those decades before that with people flying about close to airports putting themselves at risk not knowing about the potential for disaster.

Ah yes I remember AA flight 181 2 Aug 85 near DFW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_191
I was a Security Policeman (7th Security Police Squadron) at Carswell AFB (now Naval JRB) when that happened (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carswell_Air_Force_Base). Our Readiness Exercise was cancelled in preparation for receiving any survivors at the base hospital. We didn't receive any that I recall; the local hospitals in and around DFW were sufficient to handle them.
I also remember that storm and it was nasty  :o
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bobdude11 on April 13, 2018, 01:28:50 PM
The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years....

Well, microbursts were not identified as an aviation hazard until the mid 70's. All those decades before that with people flying about close to airports putting themselves at risk not knowing about the potential for disaster.

Ah yes I remember AA flight 181 2 Aug 85 near DFW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_191
Also, I believe it was Flight 191 ...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 13, 2018, 06:30:23 PM
The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years....

Well, microbursts were not identified as an aviation hazard until the mid 70's. All those decades before that with people flying about close to airports putting themselves at risk not knowing about the potential for disaster.

Ah yes I remember AA flight 181 2 Aug 85 near DFW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_191
Also, I believe it was Flight 191 ...

Fat finger exercise, but you're correct.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 13, 2018, 08:01:19 PM
I can see I was sorely missed.  Providence has smiled on you all for I am back.  If you are not aware Cosmoquest booted me the first day.  It seems they have a policy against proving the Moon Landings were a hoax.  Who knew?  I also noticed there was movement on the Logarithmic graph and now we all see the purpose and need for the logarithmic minor graduations.  This is good news because we we all have to decipher the data from logarithmic graphs moving forward if we are to keep up.  Check out the Cosmoquest debacle and tell me what you think.  They not only booted me, they closed the thread.  What's up with that?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 13, 2018, 08:06:53 PM
I really don't think you guys are looking at background radiation correctly.  It appears to me that you believe that because GCR is reduced by Solar Activity then a corresponding reduction in background radiation occurs.  I would point out the cause of GCR reduction is the presence of Solar radiation.  Solar radiation is not the same radiation as GCR but it is nevertheless radiation.  It is the reason the average background radiation is so high.  It is logical to assume that background radiation increases in relation to solar activity meaning that because Apollo 11 ventured out during solar peak it would have experienced ad inordinately high background radiation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 13, 2018, 08:16:47 PM
I finally downloaded the CraTer data and produce this graph.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 13, 2018, 08:23:20 PM
The other thing I wanted to bring to the groups attention is the fact that the CraTer data is a bit misleading.  The telescope records data at periodic intervals, say hourly, and a more complete image would require the all of the snap shots taken in a day to be averaged.  That would give you a better understanding of the daily exposures received by astronauts.  Some of you thought that because you saw prolonged stretches of data below the Apollo threshold that a transit was possible.  You would need a stretch of over 240 consecutive measurements to equal a 10 day mission.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 13, 2018, 08:27:53 PM
I created a second graph as it seems a correction factor is required to be added to the D1 & D2 detector readouts to compensate for inherent inaccuracies in detection.  This second graph provides a larger separation between median radiation dose and Apollo 11 baseline.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 13, 2018, 09:22:23 PM
I can see I was sorely missed.  Providence has smiled on you all for I am back.  If you are not aware Cosmoquest booted me the first day.  It seems they have a policy against proving the Moon Landings were a hoax.  Who knew?  I also noticed there was movement on the Logarithmic graph and now we all see the purpose and need for the logarithmic minor graduations.  This is good news because we we all have to decipher the data from logarithmic graphs moving forward if we are to keep up.  Check out the Cosmoquest debacle and tell me what you think.  They not only booted me, they closed the thread.  What's up with that?
No you were suspended for arguing with the mods
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 13, 2018, 10:30:14 PM
I could halfway go along with that premise except for the glaring fact that they closed the thread.  Why would they do that if I were the problem and not the subject matter.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 13, 2018, 10:44:31 PM
I didn't so much as argue with the moderator as I refused to agree with his Nazi -like attempts to administer the thread that I created.  There ploy is to distract and obfuscate with inane questions and ploys to distract.  When I refused to engage the attempts they ran me out on the rail.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 13, 2018, 10:46:49 PM
It would be easier to convince me of the moon landing than it would be to convince me these forums are not some government front designed to intercept and prevent the widespread distribution of truth.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 13, 2018, 10:49:20 PM
This is why the thread was closed:

*******And I completely disagree with that approach. The evidence for the landings is so overwhelming that this exercise is, IMO, ridiculous. And the last time you were here, whenever other evidence was presented (such as lunar samples) you dismissed them with handwaving.

Beyond that, I have no interest in playing this game. You want to believe one of the human race's greatest achievements was a hoax, and nothing will convince you otherwise, have fun.*******
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 13, 2018, 11:36:40 PM
This is nothing like I expected.  I expected to return as a hero with my fans gathered around tugging my sleeves asking for more and more of my valuable insight.  It has been 4 hours and only one response.  Humility is such a bitter pill to swallow.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:03:24 AM
One last graph before I go to bed.  This is a very interesting one.  It plots GCR with SPE  ans Solar activity.  It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 14, 2018, 12:52:09 AM
One last graph before I go to bed.  This is a very interesting one.  It plots GCR with SPE  ans Solar activity.  It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.

Pretty much the opposite.

Here's your source:

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/&httpsredir=1&article=1311&context=physics_facpub

Quote
Exploration missions near solar maximum may be preferable in order to limit the galactic cosmic ray
radiation hazard

How many days in space would it take in space before an astronaut exceeded modern limits on dosage?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 02:14:21 AM
I am at a loss to understand what does it matter how long one must be in space to reach his limit.  I have never claimed space exploration was impossible.  I simply claim that it cost more than we claimed we spent.  It is simple and you can not obscure the simple fact.  Background radiation is too high to to make a lunar transit and not have gotten more than .22 mgy/day.  It didn't happen, it can't happen and therefore the moon hoax is proven.  I believe the Mars planners believe a six month trip will cost 66 msv for the effort so you can spend longer than six months if you are into Russian Roulette and one to take your chances with SPE's.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on April 14, 2018, 03:10:45 AM
I didn't so much as argue with the moderator as I refused to agree with his Nazi -like attempts to administer the thread that I created.  There ploy is to distract and obfuscate with inane questions and ploys to distract.  When I refused to engage the attempts they ran me out on the rail.

That YOU created? I thought the OP was benparry?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 14, 2018, 03:16:32 AM
I am at a loss to understand what does it matter how long one must be in space to reach his limit.  I have never claimed space exploration was impossible.  I simply claim that it cost more than we claimed we spent.  It is simple and you can not obscure the simple fact.  Background radiation is too high to to make a lunar transit and not have gotten more than .22 mgy/day.  It didn't happen, it can't happen and therefore the moon hoax is proven.  I believe the Mars planners believe a six month trip will cost 66 msv for the effort so you can spend longer than six months if you are into Russian Roulette and one to take your chances with SPE's.

And everyone else is at a loss as to how you can continually misinterpret the information you are trying to provide as a support for your argument. You have supplied no information that contradicts the figures recorded by Apollo, however many times you claim it does. Radiation levels recorded by Apollo are an irrelevant sideshow, there are much simpler proofs that require far more complex explanations to dismiss.

You are pinning your hopes on an instrument in lunar orbit that has repeatedly photographed evidence of human activity that is completely in accordance with both the historical record and the observations of other spacecraft.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 03:34:37 AM
Some of you thought that because you saw prolonged stretches of data below the Apollo threshold that a transit was possible.  You would need a stretch of over 240 consecutive measurements to equal a 10 day mission.

Stop trying to educate us on the obvious. When we see prolonged periods we're talking months in duration, a fact that has already been pointed out. Here are graphs for 2012 and 2013. The orange line is yur magic 0.22mGy/day threshold.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 04:22:07 AM
I also noticed there was movement on the Logarithmic graph and now we all see the purpose and need for the logarithmic minor graduations.

And still you refuse to acknowledge that even with those minor graduations the data is on a log scale I see.
 
Quote
This is good news because we we all have to decipher the data from logarithmic graphs moving forward if we are to keep up.

We can all already do this. I keep telling you I do it for a living.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 04:28:35 AM
One last graph before I go to bed.  This is a very interesting one.  It plots GCR with SPE  ans Solar activity.  It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.

Quite the reverse. It shows ACE and CraTER data matching a model that extrapolates back over the period of Apollo and shows an estimated lunar surface dose rate of around 5cGy/year over the period during which Apollo occurred. That's about 0.14mGy/day. How exactly does a lower daily lunar surface dose rate scream hoax? HOw does that match your claim that the surface is more radioactive?

You still misinterpret and misrepresent data that categorically does not support your argment. You still want to oversimplify the entire situation and you still don't actually understand the subject enough or you wouldn't keep making ridiculous errors in terminology. Why are you actually here if not to troll us?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 05:04:37 AM
I really don't think you guys are looking at background radiation correctly.  It appears to me that you believe that because GCR is reduced by Solar Activity then a corresponding reduction in background radiation occurs.

Shifting goalposts noted again. Your argument was that the GCR produced a constant background radiation level that must be a minimum for all missions beyond LEO. Now confronted with the fact that available data do not support that position, you try and weasel out of it. It was you who focused this discussionon the GCR, and it was that we discussed.

Quote
I would point out the cause of GCR reduction is the presence of Solar radiation.  Solar radiation is not the same radiation as GCR but it is nevertheless radiation.  It is the reason the average background radiation is so high.  It is logical to assume that background radiation increases in relation to solar activity

What are the types and energy levels of solar radiation versus GCR? Yet again you still fall back on 'radiation is radiation'.

GCR flux is modulated by solar radiation because solar radiation affects the density of matter in the solar system, over several trillion cubic kilometres. It essentially adds to the matter present in space. When you look at a volume of space the size of a solar system particle densities which we would define as a vacuum make a huge difference over those scales. For any given GCR particle there is more matter in the way as it passes through the solar system during high solar activity than during low. Effectively it's a better, denser shield.

But, and here's the kicker, that shield can be made up of particles a lot less energetic and penetrating than the GCR. Higher solar radiation does not mean the radiaton levels overall balance out, or that this radiation is as dangerous as CGR flux. Type, energy, flux density, all terms critical yet all terms you instst on ignoring in favour of 'radiaiton' as some catch-all.

Quote
meaning that because Apollo 11 ventured out during solar peak it would have experienced ad inordinately high background radiation.

No, because radiation is not the same as radiation. Differences exist, and you are not accounting for them.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 05:28:17 AM
It would be easier to convince me of the moon landing than it would be to convince me these forums are not some government front designed to intercept and prevent the widespread distribution of truth.

Predictable as ever. Tell me, which government do you think is operating this board, and why do you think that has anything to do with me?

Also, perhaps you can explain how allowing your posts to be made at all on a website that can be read by anyone constitutes intercepting and preventing a spread of information?

You remind me of Bill Kaysing, who repeatedly insisted the government was controlling the mass media to silence anyone who claimed the moon landings were faked. A claim he repeatedly made using the mass media. He also freely published his address and contact details. He died of natural causes after literally decades of spouting his stuff about how he was being silenced by the media he was using to claim he was being silenced...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 05:34:40 AM
I really don't think you guys are looking at background radiation correctly.  It appears to me that you believe that because GCR is reduced by Solar Activity then a corresponding reduction in background radiation occurs.  I would point out the cause of GCR reduction is the presence of Solar radiation.  Solar radiation is not the same radiation as GCR but it is nevertheless radiation.  It is the reason the average background radiation is so high.  It is logical to assume that background radiation increases in relation to solar activity meaning that because Apollo 11 ventured out during solar peak it would have experienced ad inordinately high background radiation.

Jason has addressed this point, but I will add. The data you brought to the forum shows you are wrong on this point. The CRaTER data clearly illustrates a modulated background radiation punctuated by SPEs. The modulation of the background radiation is such that it has a minimum at solar maximum. The very fact that the SPEs are recorded informs us that the detectors recording the data do not discriminate between the outward flux of particle radiation from the Sun, and the incoming GCR radiation. They record all background radiation levels, including particle radiation that is responsible for the modulation of the GCR, the solar wind. The radiation that you suggest raises the background considerably.

The modulation of GCR is predominately due to the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) produced by the solar wind. This was suggested as early as 1962 (Ahluwalia and Dessler, 1962) whereby it was proposed that electric drift in the solar wind leads to convective removal of GCR from the inner heliosphere, modulating the CGR flux.

At solar maximum the solar wind *increases*, and it produces several mechanisms that perturb the IMF. The solar wind produces tangled magnetic fields that stretch out into space through the slow solar wind, the high speed solar wind speed, interplanetary manifestations of coronal transients and shocks.

The interplanetary manifestations of coronal transients form a diffusion region, the heliocentric barrier, further out in the heliosphere. This is knows as the global merged interaction region after Burlaga et al. (1993), which reduced the GCR intensity at Earth's orbit. We are familiar with this idea, and it has been shown from the data presented in this thread.

Now, if one examines the solar wind, the increase in radiation that you suggest raises the background considerably has thermal energies (a few eV - 10 keV). This radiation presents a negligible radiation hazard to an astronaut in a space ship. In fact, the solar wind is readily absorbed by the layers of a space suit, so present negligible radiation hazard to an astronaut on EVA.

So, once again, you have hand waved you way into showing you ignorance of pertinent facts and lack all understanding of the different components of particle fluxes that exist in the solar system.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 05:44:30 AM
One last graph before I go to bed.  This is a very interesting one.  It plots GCR with SPE  ans Solar activity.  It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.

I'm glad to see you have plotted the CRaTER data, and are now over you issue with reading log graphs properly. That's a move forward on your part.

As for your last pre-bedtime graph. It tells you what we have telling you all along. The GCR flux would have been lower on cycle 20 due to that cycle having an increased activity over cycle 24. Therefore, the CRaTER data that falls below your threshold for long periods of time would have been even lower in 1969.

It also informs us that the lunar surface dose that you propose was prohibitively high, does not manifest itself as you claim. Isn't it a little bit of a pain when you post sources that refute your own claims?

However, the CRaTER data is a red herring that you have created. It was taken in cycle 24. What don't you  understand about this point, or do you think we have simply forgotten in the space of 5 days while you were serving a ban for being rude to forum members?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 14, 2018, 07:25:44 AM
I didn't so much as argue with the moderator as I refused to agree with his Nazi -like attempts to administer the thread that I created.  There ploy is to distract and obfuscate with inane questions and ploys to distract.  When I refused to engage the attempts they ran me out on the rail.

That YOU created? I thought the OP was benparry?

Not in this case tim started a new thread that was closed when he was suspended.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?168399-I-m-back-with-a-vengeance-and-undeniable-proof-of-the-Moon-Hoax
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 14, 2018, 07:35:06 AM
One last graph before I go to bed.  This is a very interesting one.  It plots GCR with SPE  ans Solar activity.  It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.

Pretty much the opposite.

Here's your source:

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/&httpsredir=1&article=1311&context=physics_facpub

Quote
Exploration missions near solar maximum may be preferable in order to limit the galactic cosmic ray
radiation hazard

How many days in space would it take in space before an astronaut exceeded modern limits on dosage?

Excellent read!!  Now if tim will read it and all the attached figures he would note in figure 2 and three that Apollo occurred at times when radiation was at a minimum and would imply that the reported does to be correct and tim is incorrect.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 14, 2018, 08:00:18 AM
tim we were in the middle of a discussion concerning the amount of radiation received by the Apollo crews.
In post 3 and again in post 17 you stated:

Quote
A lunar transit requires transiting 4 radiation areas' The order of magnitude is as follows:
 1. The LEO is the lowest
 2. Cislunar space is the second lowest
 3. Lunar orbit and the lunar surface are the third highest
 4. finally, the Van Allen Belts are by far the highest.

After posting Bob Braeunig's calculation of radiation received during transit through the VARB

https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Your comment was:
Quote
I reject these calculations in their entirety. They are a poorly masqueraded attempt to distract. Table 2 of that article list the transit times as follows: Outbound VARB Transit =214 minutes & Inbound VARB Transit =140 minutes. Realizing the VAB span some 37 thousands miles it can be seen in Apollo 11 logs the rate of deceleration was such that the Apollo craft transited the VAB at an average speed of less than 8684 mph. It is not possible that they spent less than 4.5 hours transiting the VAB. Braeuning states that the entire VAB exposursure was from high energy protons and that there was no electron contribution to radiation exposure. Which is ridiculous at any level of consideration. I reject this article as a poor attempt at misdirection.

You have been repeatedly show that the trajectory through the VARB was not through the entire width of the belts but traversed through less dense parts of the torus shaped VARB as show in this video linked several times in this thread.



Now you as can clearly visualize the Apollo CSM transited the portion of the VARB in about 2 hours as Bob indicated, not the 4.5 hours you guess. 
Bob included the electron radiation, you just need to re-read and understand what Bob has calculated. Electron part was included about half way down on the page.

In summary to this long post:
The radiation received was not great through the VARB.
The transit time through the VARB was about two hours.
You are incorrect concerning the radiation received through the VARB, or the trajectory of Apollo and the corresponding time in the VARB.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 08:35:00 AM
I can see I was sorely missed.  Providence has smiled on you all for I am back.

Don't flatter yourself. no really cares about another scientifically illiterate blow hard on the *Interweb*. You're not the first to make a fool of yourself and you won't be the last. The only issue here is putting right your bogus argument. You are incidental to the argument.

Quote
If you are not aware Cosmoquest booted me the first day.

Yawn.

Quote
It seems they have a policy against proving the Moon Landings were a hoax.  Who knew?

Yawn

Quote
I also noticed there was movement on the logarithmic graph and now we all see the purpose and need for the logarithmic minor graduations.

No, we already knew. Smartcooky finally peeled back the veneer of your ignorance. You believed that the minor divisions were scaled according to arithmetic distribution of the exponents, and persisted to call it an exponential arithmetic graph. You're not only scientifically semi-illiterate, you're also mathematically semi-illiterate.

Quote
This is good news because we we all have to decipher the data from logarithmic graphs moving forward if we are to keep up.

It was you that could not keep up. Let's remind you that we also had to teach you above averages.

Quote
Check out the Cosmoquest debacle and tell me what you think.  They not only booted me, they closed the thread.  What's up with that?

Already did, and saw the same pompous, self-aggrandising, pseudo-scientific drivel posted there as you have posted here. You got booted as you didn't answer the questions. LO has much more patience, but then I'm guessing that CQ has a broader remit and broader topic audience, so quickly brings down the hammer as they don't waste time with the hoax nonsense. This forum is dedicated to ApolloHoax.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 14, 2018, 08:54:01 AM
Already did, and saw the same pompous, self-aggrandising, pseudo-scientific drivel posted there as you have posted here. You got booted as you didn't answer the questions. LO has much more patience, but then I'm guessing that CQ has a broader remit and broader topic audience, so quickly brings down the hammer as they don't waster time with the hoax nonsense. This forum is dedicated to ApolloHoax.
Cosmoquest (full disclosure - I'm also a member there) has a strict set of rules for people posting in their conspiracy and "against the mainstream" forums, including politeness (on both sides) presenting evidence or claims in a suitable form, and answering relevant questions properly and in a timely manner.

Tim, you flouted these rules on several occasions, and were given a lot of leeway as a conspircy claimant.  You haven't been "banned", you are suspended because of your continued disparaging of other posters, and refusal to answer questions.

There's no policy against discussing Apollo hoax theories, either on Cosmoquest or here, but you need to present your evidence, and then answer any challenges made of that evidence.  On both forums (fora?) you haven't been able to counter the arguments against your ideas, and simply repeating them over and over again doesn't make them any less wrong with each repetition...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 09:18:03 AM
I didn't so much as argue with the moderator as I refused to agree with his Nazi -like attempts to administer the thread that I created.  There ploy is to distract and obfuscate with inane questions and ploys to distract.  When I refused to engage the attempts they ran me out on the rail.

That YOU created? I thought the OP was benparry?
I was referring to my unpleasant experience at the Nazi compound called Cosmoquest.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 09:23:36 AM
I am at a loss to understand what does it matter how long one must be in space to reach his limit.  I have never claimed space exploration was impossible.  I simply claim that it cost more than we claimed we spent.  It is simple and you can not obscure the simple fact.  Background radiation is too high to to make a lunar transit and not have gotten more than .22 mgy/day.  It didn't happen, it can't happen and therefore the moon hoax is proven.  I believe the Mars planners believe a six month trip will cost 66 msv for the effort so you can spend longer than six months if you are into Russian Roulette and one to take your chances with SPE's.

And everyone else is at a loss as to how you can continually misinterpret the information you are trying to provide as a support for your argument. You have supplied no information that contradicts the figures recorded by Apollo, however many times you claim it does. Radiation levels recorded by Apollo are an irrelevant sideshow, there are much simpler proofs that require far more complex explanations to dismiss.

You are pinning your hopes on an instrument in lunar orbit that has repeatedly photographed evidence of human activity that is completely in accordance with both the historical record and the observations of other spacecraft.
I pin my hopes on no such thing.  Everything NASA claims that man accomplished on the moon can be and has been accomplished on unmanned lunar missions.  You saw the magic trick and now you believe in magic?  There is absolutely no way to make a lunar transit without a magnitude greater mission dose than the Apollo missions reported.  This is the claim I am willing to defend.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 09:30:18 AM
I really don't think you guys are looking at background radiation correctly.  It appears to me that you believe that because GCR is reduced by Solar Activity then a corresponding reduction in background radiation occurs.

Shifting goalposts noted again. Your argument was that the GCR produced a constant background radiation level that must be a minimum for all missions beyond LEO. Now confronted with the fact that available data do not support that position, you try and weasel out of it. It was you who focused this discussionon the GCR, and it was that we discussed.

Quote
I would point out the cause of GCR reduction is the presence of Solar radiation.  Solar radiation is not the same radiation as GCR but it is nevertheless radiation.  It is the reason the average background radiation is so high.  It is logical to assume that background radiation increases in relation to solar activity

What are the types and energy levels of solar radiation versus GCR? Yet again you still fall back on 'radiation is radiation'.

GCR flux is modulated by solar radiation because solar radiation affects the density of matter in the solar system, over several trillion cubic kilometres. It essentially adds to the matter present in space. When you look at a volume of space the size of a solar system particle densities which we would define as a vacuum make a huge difference over those scales. For any given GCR particle there is more matter in the way as it passes through the solar system during high solar activity than during low. Effectively it's a better, denser shield.

But, and here's the kicker, that shield can be made up of particles a lot less energetic and penetrating than the GCR. Higher solar radiation does not mean the radiaton levels overall balance out, or that this radiation is as dangerous as CGR flux. Type, energy, flux density, all terms critical yet all terms you instst on ignoring in favour of 'radiaiton' as some catch-all.

Quote
meaning that because Apollo 11 ventured out during solar peak it would have experienced ad inordinately high background radiation.

No, because radiation is not the same as radiation. Differences exist, and you are not accounting for them.
I am sure I made the distinction between radiation types but I won't belabor the point.  My claim is and has always been that the baseline for lunar transit radiation dosage has to be GCR.  No mission can have a mission dosage less than GCR.  I have yet to take into account the transit through the VAB on lunar orbit or actual lunar landing all of which are a higher radiation area.  If we can't demonstrate the apollo's mission dose was not at least as high as cislunar space radiation then what hope have we of proving they did any of it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 09:34:57 AM
It would be easier to convince me of the moon landing than it would be to convince me these forums are not some government front designed to intercept and prevent the widespread distribution of truth.

Predictable as ever. Tell me, which government do you think is operating this board, and why do you think that has anything to do with me?

Also, perhaps you can explain how allowing your posts to be made at all on a website that can be read by anyone constitutes intercepting and preventing a spread of information?

You remind me of Bill Kaysing, who repeatedly insisted the government was controlling the mass media to silence anyone who claimed the moon landings were faked. A claim he repeatedly made using the mass media. He also freely published his address and contact details. He died of natural causes after literally decades of spouting his stuff about how he was being silenced by the media he was using to claim he was being silenced...
All I know is every attempt to get the information I have discerned out is resisted.  My voice is silenced for unfounded an unjust reasons.  The universal claim "He was trolling" seems to be the excuse de Jour.  If disagreeing with the mainstream herd is trolling then I will always be guilty of that crime.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 09:45:09 AM
I really don't think you guys are looking at background radiation correctly.  It appears to me that you believe that because GCR is reduced by Solar Activity then a corresponding reduction in background radiation occurs.  I would point out the cause of GCR reduction is the presence of Solar radiation.  Solar radiation is not the same radiation as GCR but it is nevertheless radiation.  It is the reason the average background radiation is so high.  It is logical to assume that background radiation increases in relation to solar activity meaning that because Apollo 11 ventured out during solar peak it would have experienced ad inordinately high background radiation.

Jason has addressed this point, but I will add. The data you brought to the forum shows you are wrong on this point. The CRaTER data clearly illustrates a modulated background radiation punctuated by SPEs. The modulation of the background radiation is such that it has a minimum at solar maximum. The very fact that the SPEs are recorded informs us that the detectors recording the data do not discriminate between the outward flux of particle radiation from the Sun, and the incoming GCR radiation. They record all background radiation levels, including particle radiation that is responsible for the modulation of the GCR, the solar wind. The radiation that you suggest raises the background considerably.

The modulation of GCR is predominately due to the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) produced by the solar wind. This was suggested as early as 1962 (Ahluwalia and Dessler, 1962) whereby it was proposed that electric drift in the solar wind leads to convective removal of GCR from the inner heliosphere, modulating the CGR flux.

At solar maximum the solar wind *increases*, and it produces several mechanisms that perturb the IMF. The solar wind produces tangled magnetic fields that stretch out into space through the slow solar wind, the high speed solar wind speed, interplanetary manifestations of coronal transients and shocks.

The interplanetary manifestations of coronal transients form a diffusion region, the heliocentric barrier, further out in the heliosphere. This is knows as the global merged interaction region after Burlaga et al. (1993), which reduced the GCR intensity at Earth's orbit. We are familiar with this idea, and it has been shown from the data presented in this thread.

Now, if one examines the solar wind, the increase in radiation that you suggest raises the background considerably has thermal energies (a few eV - 10 keV). This radiation presents a negligible radiation hazard to an astronaut in a space ship. In fact, the solar wind is readily absorbed by the layers of a space suit, so present negligible radiation hazard to an astronaut on EVA.

So, once again, you have hand waved you way into showing you ignorance of pertinent facts and lack all understanding of the different components of particle fluxes that exist in the solar system.

Consider this graph if you will.  Is is the same graph that performing a median of the data would provide.  All the data is lined up numerically from high to low.  If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat with a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.  The curve is not flat.  That suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.  It is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 09:57:57 AM
One last graph before I go to bed.  This is a very interesting one.  It plots GCR with SPE  ans Solar activity.  It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.

I'm glad to see you have plotted the CRaTER data, and are now over you issue with reading log graphs properly. That's a move forward on your part.

As for your last pre-bedtime graph. It tells you what we have telling you all along. The GCR flux would have been lower on cycle 20 due to that cycle having an increased activity over cycle 24. Therefore, the CRaTER data that falls below your threshold for long periods of time would have been even lower in 1969.

It also informs us that the lunar surface dose that you propose was prohibitively high, does not manifest itself as you claim. Isn't it a little bit of a pain when you post sources that refute your own claims?

However, the CRaTER data is a red herring that you have created. It was taken in cycle 24. What don't you  understand about this point, or do you think we have simply forgotten in the space of 5 days while you were serving a ban for being rude to forum members?
If your memory served you better you'd remember that I openly acknowledged it was not an apples and apples and comparison.  I wanted to use the stated GCR range of NASA which was 2.4 mgy/day to 6. mgy/day as the basis of my position.  I asked if anyone hand any information to the contrary and  then I would use it instead.  There are no herrings red or otherwise in the soup of denial.  It was subtle but it obviously went under your radar.  You claimed the graph refuted my position.  Look again mon ami.  What does it show as GCR levels for 1969 through 1974?  Touche!  Your serve.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 10:00:50 AM
Consider this graph if you will.  Is is the same graph that performing a median of the data would provide.  All the data is lined up numerically from high to low.  If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat with a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.  The curve is not flat.  That suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.  It is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.

My bold in your quote, as I want to address that point.

1)  The curve won't be flat if the GCR is strongly modulated, will it? The background GCR flux is modulated, so it rises,
     won't it?.
2)  The peak at the end is due to SPE radiation events skewing the data. The SPE event contribute the most by
     magnitude, but temporally the background radiation is predominantly due to GCR.

Your attempts at analysis to step around the issue are quite unremarkable in that you are simply presenting the data in a different way and it tells the same story. You r new graph clearly show there are periods of time where the level is below the threshold, the rise GCR rises for less active parts of the solar, and is skewed for sharp peaks due to SPE events. Remember, this was your initial premise. I being deliberately tautological here.

There are prolonged periods where the GCR flux is below the threshold you stated, in every graph you have presented. That was your initial argument, but in any case you can dismiss the CRaTER data. Please refrain from discussing it again as it does not apply to the solar cycle 20.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 10:01:59 AM
tim we were in the middle of a discussion concerning the amount of radiation received by the Apollo crews.
In post 3 and again in post 17 you stated:

Quote
A lunar transit requires transiting 4 radiation areas' The order of magnitude is as follows:
 1. The LEO is the lowest
 2. Cislunar space is the second lowest
 3. Lunar orbit and the lunar surface are the third highest
 4. finally, the Van Allen Belts are by far the highest.

After posting Bob Braeunig's calculation of radiation received during transit through the VARB

https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Your comment was:
Quote
I reject these calculations in their entirety. They are a poorly masqueraded attempt to distract. Table 2 of that article list the transit times as follows: Outbound VARB Transit =214 minutes & Inbound VARB Transit =140 minutes. Realizing the VAB span some 37 thousands miles it can be seen in Apollo 11 logs the rate of deceleration was such that the Apollo craft transited the VAB at an average speed of less than 8684 mph. It is not possible that they spent less than 4.5 hours transiting the VAB. Braeuning states that the entire VAB exposursure was from high energy protons and that there was no electron contribution to radiation exposure. Which is ridiculous at any level of consideration. I reject this article as a poor attempt at misdirection.

You have been repeatedly show that the trajectory through the VARB was not through the entire width of the belts but traversed through less dense parts of the torus shaped VARB as show in this video linked several times in this thread.



Now you as can clearly visualize the Apollo CSM transited the portion of the VARB in about 2 hours as Bob indicated, not the 4.5 hours you guess. 
Bob included the electron radiation, you just need to re-read and understand what Bob has calculated. Electron part was included about half way down on the page.

In summary to this long post:
The radiation received was not great through the VARB.
The transit time through the VARB was about two hours.
You are incorrect concerning the radiation received through the VARB, or the trajectory of Apollo and the corresponding time in the VARB.

Show me on this graph were the bad man hurt you.  Pick your color and we will use it in the calculation of a VAB transit.  I assure you that you will not like your color.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 10:12:33 AM
Consider this graph if you will.  Is is the same graph that performing a median of the data would provide.  All the data is lined up numerically from high to low.  If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat with a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.  The curve is not flat.  That suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.  It is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.

My bold in your quote, as I want to address that point.

1)  The curve won't be flat if the GCR is strongly modulated, will it? The background GCR flux is modulated, so it rises,
     won't it?.
2)  The peak at the end is due to SPE radiation events skewing the data. The SPE event contribute the most by
     magnitude, but temporally the background radiation is predominantly due to GCR.

Your attempts at analysis to step around the issue are quite unremarkable in that you are simply presenting the data in a different way and it tells the same story. You r new graph clearly show there are periods of time where the level is below the threshold, the rise GCR rises for less active parts of the solar, and is skewed for sharp peaks due to SPE events. Remember, this was your initial premise. I being deliberately tautological here.

There are prolonged periods where the GCR flux is below the threshold you stated, in every graph you have presented. That was your initial argument, but in any case you can dismiss the CRaTER data. Please refrain from discussing it again as it does not apply to the solar cycle 20.
You just don't get it do you?  I remind you that each individual snapshot is approximately 1/24 of a days exposure.  Yes that is right they are not a days average.  Now having said that I also remind you that the D1 & D2 dose meter readings are uncorrected and should be multiplied by 1.3 to obtain the actual value.  How do you like me now?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 10:13:45 AM
If your memory served you better you'd remember that I openly acknowledged it was not an apples and apples and comparison.  I wanted to use the stated GCR range of NASA which was 2.4 mgy/day to 6. mgy/day as the basis of my position.

If your memory served you better, the 'standard' you cite was 0.24 and 0.60 mGy day-1. It's also point out to you that it says nowhere that this is a standard. A standard implies that the figure is broadly used by industry or scientists as a baseline. Only in your head is it a 'standard.' I dismiss any reference to you implying this a standard as it's something you invented in your own mind.

Quote
I asked if anyone hand any information to the contrary and then I would use it instead.

If your mathematical skills serve you better, then you'd understand it was an average based on modulated data. The 0.24 mGy day-1 will have be based on values that are higher and lower.

Quote
It was subtle but it obviously went under your radar.

Save the patronising, as your tone is a form of trolling. You've already served a 5 day expulsion for a similar tone.

Quote
Touche! Your serve.

Since you place so much reliance on the CRaTER data. Then I take it you won't mind if we put this in the mix then.

http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

I draw your attention to Figure 2. That put the doses due to GCR well below your arbitrary threshold. And you know the nice thing about it... it's a graph that even you might understand, although I doubt that very much.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 10:15:58 AM
Now having said that I also remind you that the D1 & D2 dose meter readings are uncorrected and should be multiplied by 1.3 to obtain the actual value

Where does the 1.3 come from please?

Quote
How do you like me now?

I'm ambivalent.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 10:16:14 AM
Luke, you don't like my graphs and numbers but I am willing to use your numbers to prove my point.  You see there exist no realistic numbers than can validate the apollo lunar transit.  None!  Not old data and not new.  Let's try anyway.  Tell me what numbers you would use and why and I gladly make the calculations using numbers of your choice.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 10:18:24 AM
Now having said that I also remind you that the D1 & D2 dose meter readings are uncorrected and should be multiplied by 1.3 to obtain the actual value

Where does the 1.3 come from please?

Quote
How do you like me now?

I'm ambivalent.


You will grow to love me.  The ride start slow but picks up speed as we go along.

http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

Appendix B: Calculation of the D1-D2 Dose Rate [54] Many measurements of space radiation have been, and continue to be, made using silicon detectors. In many experiments, the quantities of interest are the fluxes of individual ion species in particular energy bins. Detectors and electronics are optimized accordingly. ACE/CRIS provides a good example of this. In contrast, CRaTER is optimized to measure energy deposition distributions in silicon over a very wide dynamic range. These measurements must E00H13 SCHWADRON ET AL.: LUNAR RADIATION AND SPACE WEATHERING E00H13 10 of 13 be converted to tissue dose. As in analysis done by other groups [e.g., Beaujean et al., 2002] a single scaling factor is used to perform this conversion. [55] In principle, calculation of dose requires knowledge of the charge, mass, and energy of each incident particle in order to calculate its LET in water; the LET values of individual particles are multiplied by path length (detector thickness), summed and divided by the mass. In practice, we do not have this detailed information, so instead we add together all the energy depositions in silicon and divide by the mass to get the dose in silicon. We then need to account for the difference in ionization potentials between silicon and water. The ionization potential appears in the logarithmic term in the Bethe-Bloch equation, and introduces energy dependence when the ratio of dE/dx in two materials is computed. At typical GCR energies of several hundred to a few thousand MeV/nuc, the ratio of dE/dx in the two materials is fairly constant. The lower ionization potential of water compared to silicon results in larger energy depositions per unit mass for a particle with a given charge and velocity. Careful study shows that for the GCR energy range of interest the ratio of dE/dx in silicon to dE/dx in water is about 1.75, an estimate that includes d-ray escape from finite depths of silicon. This also includes the effect of the higher density of silicon, which must be factored out, resulting in a multiplicative factor of 1.33 to be applied to the silicon dose. This can be seen from considering the sums over energy depositions, DEi, in the two materials:
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 14, 2018, 10:20:18 AM
tim we were in the middle of a discussion concerning the amount of radiation received by the Apollo crews.
In post 3 and again in post 17 you stated:

Quote
A lunar transit requires transiting 4 radiation areas' The order of magnitude is as follows:
 1. The LEO is the lowest
 2. Cislunar space is the second lowest
 3. Lunar orbit and the lunar surface are the third highest
 4. finally, the Van Allen Belts are by far the highest.

After posting Bob Braeunig's calculation of radiation received during transit through the VARB

https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Your comment was:
Quote
I reject these calculations in their entirety. They are a poorly masqueraded attempt to distract. Table 2 of that article list the transit times as follows: Outbound VARB Transit =214 minutes & Inbound VARB Transit =140 minutes. Realizing the VAB span some 37 thousands miles it can be seen in Apollo 11 logs the rate of deceleration was such that the Apollo craft transited the VAB at an average speed of less than 8684 mph. It is not possible that they spent less than 4.5 hours transiting the VAB. Braeuning states that the entire VAB exposursure was from high energy protons and that there was no electron contribution to radiation exposure. Which is ridiculous at any level of consideration. I reject this article as a poor attempt at misdirection.

You have been repeatedly show that the trajectory through the VARB was not through the entire width of the belts but traversed through less dense parts of the torus shaped VARB as show in this video linked several times in this thread.



Now you as can clearly visualize the Apollo CSM transited the portion of the VARB in about 2 hours as Bob indicated, not the 4.5 hours you guess. 
Bob included the electron radiation, you just need to re-read and understand what Bob has calculated. Electron part was included about half way down on the page.

In summary to this long post:
The radiation received was not great through the VARB.
The transit time through the VARB was about two hours.
You are incorrect concerning the radiation received through the VARB, or the trajectory of Apollo and the corresponding time in the VARB.

Show me on this graph were the bad man hurt you.  Pick your color and we will use it in the calculation of a VAB transit.  I assure you that you will not like your color.

You pick your color of choice and then calculate the radiation received.  SHow your work.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 10:21:03 AM
Luke, you don't like my graphs and numbers but I am willing to use your numbers to prove my point.  You see there exist no realistic numbers than can validate the apollo lunar transit.  None!  Not old data and not new.  Let's try anyway.  Tell me what numbers you would use and why and I gladly make the calculations using numbers of your choice.

This also includes the effect of the higher density of silicon, which must be factored out, resulting in a multiplicative factor of 1.33 to be applied to the silicon dose.[/glow] This can be seen from considering the sums over energy depositions, DEi, in the two materials:

Good, now since you place so much credence on the CRaTER scientists being correct. What did they conclude about the dose in 1969 from their data and models?

http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

Figure 2 please?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 10:28:56 AM
My claim is and has always been that the baseline for lunar transit radiation dosage has to be GCR.  No mission can have a mission dosage less than GCR.

And no-one here disputes that. It is your inability to actually show that the GCR actually is higher than any Apollo mission dose that is the problem in your arguments, no matter how many times you insts you have proven it. The numbers simply do not work.

Quote
If we can't demonstrate the apollo's mission dose was not at least as high as cislunar space radiation

Which we have, repeatedly, but you just won't accept it.

Quote
then what hope have we of proving they did any of it?

You've been given a not exhaustive list of things you have to explain if it was faked.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 10:29:04 AM
If your memory served you better you'd remember that I openly acknowledged it was not an apples and apples and comparison.  I wanted to use the stated GCR range of NASA which was 2.4 mgy/day to 6. mgy/day as the basis of my position.

If your memory served you better, the 'standard' you cite was 0.24 and 0.60 mGy day-1. It's also point out to you that it says nowhere that this is a standard. A standard implies that the figure is broadly used by industry or scientists as a baseline. Only in your head is it a 'standard.' I dismiss any reference to you implying this a standard as it's something you invented in your own mind.

Quote
I asked if anyone hand any information to the contrary and then I would use it instead.

If your mathematical skills serve you better, then you'd understand it was an average based on modulated data. The 0.24 mGy day-1 will have be based on values that are higher and lower.

Quote
It was subtle but it obviously went under your radar.

Save the patronising, as your tone is a form of trolling. You've already served a 5 day expulsion for a similar tone.

Quote
Touche! Your serve.

Since you place so much reliance on the CRaTER data. Then I take it you won't mind if we put this in the mix then.

http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

I draw your attention to Figure 2. That put the doses due to GCR well below your arbitrary threshold. And you know the nice thing about it... it's a graph that even you might understand, although I doubt that very much.

Explain to me how you are interpreting this graph.  Are you using the red line or the green.  Maybe an average and if you chose one over the other then why.  Finally tell me the value you extrapolated from this graph that I might consider properly the ramifications.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 10:33:13 AM
You just don't get it do you?  I remind you that each individual snapshot is approximately 1/24 of a days exposure.  Yes that is right they are not a days average.

Yes, we know. I showed you two graphs with huge sections of CraTER data where
Quote
not one single point
actually goes over your magic 0.22mGy/day threshold. So you can take a day's average, a ten days' average, or any period average you like over those time scales and the average will not (indeed mathematically cannot) exceed your stated minimum GCR dose.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 10:33:43 AM
Luke, you don't like my graphs and numbers but I am willing to use your numbers to prove my point.  You see there exist no realistic numbers than can validate the apollo lunar transit.  None!  Not old data and not new.  Let's try anyway.  Tell me what numbers you would use and why and I gladly make the calculations using numbers of your choice.

This also includes the effect of the higher density of silicon, which must be factored out, resulting in a multiplicative factor of 1.33 to be applied to the silicon dose.[/glow] This can be seen from considering the sums over energy depositions, DEi, in the two materials:

Good, now since you place so much credence on the CRaTER scientists being correct. What did they conclude about the dose in 1969 from their data and models?

http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

Figure 2 please?

This is the model they constructed using information from the past coupled with today's technology.  The blue line represents the results of that modeling.  Do you want to use the value from that table in our estimation of Apollo 11's cislunar dose rate?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 10:34:40 AM
Explain to me how you are interpreting this graph.  Are you using the red line or the green.  Maybe an average and if you chose one over the other then why.  Finally tell me the value you extrapolated from this graph that I might consider properly the ramifications.

No, you tell me how you interpret it. It's produced by the CRaTER team that you Timothy, hold with so great authority. You tell use how you interpret it, and then answer the question. Does it meet your criteria or not?

LO: I want this moderated if you can spare the time. I want Timothy to interpret the graph, and answer the question I placed in bold.

I suggest no other person here gives the answers. Over to you Timothy. Interpret that graph.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 10:35:26 AM
I remind you that chart not only emcompasses the apollo era it aslo includes the CraTer era as a defacto comparison to the available data on cislunar background radiation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 10:37:33 AM
I remind you that chasrt not only emcompasses the apollo era it aslo includes the CraTer era as a defacto comparison to the available data on cislunar background radiation.

In the light of all the discussions, interpret the graph in Figure 2, not Figure 1 as you've just posted. How does it compare to the discussions? What can conclude from the graph. Please tell us Timothy. Paint that picture for us, and whether the analysis aligns with all that we've explained.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 10:39:24 AM
Explain to me how you are interpreting this graph.  Are you using the red line or the green.  Maybe an average and if you chose one over the other then why.  Finally tell me the value you extrapolated from this graph that I might consider properly the ramifications.

No, you tell me how you interpret it. It's produced by the CRaTER team that you Timothy, hold with so great authority. You tell use how you interpret it, and then answer the question. Does it meet your criteria or not?

LO: I want this moderated if you can spare the time. I want Timothy to interpret the graph, and answer the question I placed in bold.

I suggest no other person here gives the answers. Over to you Timothy. Interpret that graph.

Whoa, big fellow.  You introduced the graph and I asked for your interpretation first.  Fair is fair.  You brought the witness to the stand then examine the witness that I might consider the testimony.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 10:40:21 AM
I remind you that chart not only emcompasses the apollo era it aslo includes the CraTer era as a defacto comparison to the available data on cislunar background radiation.

Oh Timothy, you'll get to love me, as that plot includes the CRaTER data at a solar maximum.What does that CRaTER data tell us for GCR dose at solar maximum?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 10:42:10 AM
All the data is lined up numerically from high to low.  If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat

Why? The GCR background is modulated by solar activity and hence is not constant (as is clear from the riginal CraTER graph). If it is not constant the curve cannot be flat.

Quote
with a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.

Why? SPEs are not events with certain magnitudes, and their directionality will also affect the amount of radiation reaching the detectors. In fact that kind of continuum is exactly what you would expect from something recording radiation reaching a detector in a particular location when the object emitting the radiation is spherical and blasting it off from various points on its surface.

Quote
That suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.

SPEs are discrete events.

Quote
It is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.

Virtually the whole left side of that curve falls below 0.2mGy/day.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 10:42:14 AM
Whoa, big fellow.  You introduced the graph and I asked for your interpretation first.  Fair is fair.  You brought the witness to the stand then examine the witness that I might consider the testimony.

No, I'm asking you a question. Does the graph confirm your initial hypothesis of threshold, yes or no? The burden of proof is on you. I'm just given you another part of the data.

You can read graphs Timothy?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 10:46:44 AM
Whoa, big fellow.  You introduced the graph and I asked for your interpretation first.  Fair is fair.  You brought the witness to the stand then examine the witness that I might consider the testimony.

No, I'm asking you a question. Does the graph confirm your initial hypothesis of threshold, yes or no? The burden of proof is on you. I'm just given you another part of the data.

You can read graphs Timothy?
Is this  a seniority thing?  I asked the first question and as such I should get the first answer.  Let's play fair.  What are you afraid of?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 10:47:56 AM
Appendix B: Calculation of the D1-D2 Dose Rate [54] Many measurements of space radiation have been, and continue to be, made using silicon detectors. In many experiments, the quantities of interest are the fluxes of individual ion species in particular energy bins. Detectors and electronics are optimized accordingly. ACE/CRIS provides a good example of this. In contrast, CRaTER is optimized to measure energy deposition distributions in silicon over a very wide dynamic range. These measurements must E00H13 SCHWADRON ET AL.: LUNAR RADIATION AND SPACE WEATHERING E00H13 10 of 13 be converted to tissue dose. As in analysis done by other groups [e.g., Beaujean et al., 2002] a single scaling factor is used to perform this conversion. [55] In principle, calculation of dose requires knowledge of the charge, mass, and energy of each incident particle in order to calculate its LET in water; the LET values of individual particles are multiplied by path length (detector thickness), summed and divided by the mass. In practice, we do not have this detailed information, so instead we add together all the energy depositions in silicon and divide by the mass to get the dose in silicon. We then need to account for the difference in ionization potentials between silicon and water. The ionization potential appears in the logarithmic term in the Bethe-Bloch equation, and introduces energy dependence when the ratio of dE/dx in two materials is computed. At typical GCR energies of several hundred to a few thousand MeV/nuc, the ratio of dE/dx in the two materials is fairly constant. The lower ionization potential of water compared to silicon results in larger energy depositions per unit mass for a particle with a given charge and velocity. Careful study shows that for the GCR energy range of interest the ratio of dE/dx in silicon to dE/dx in water is about 1.75, an estimate that includes d-ray escape from finite depths of silicon. This also includes the effect of the higher density of silicon, which must be factored out, resulting in a multiplicative factor of 1.33 to be applied to the silicon dose. This can be seen from considering the sums over energy depositions, DEi, in the two materials:

Now show that what that statement means is actually that the data presented must be multiplied by 1.3 rather than that this factor has already been included in the data presented.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 10:50:39 AM
All the data is lined up numerically from high to low.  If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat

Why? The GCR background is modulated by solar activity and hence is not constant (as is clear from the riginal CraTER graph). If it is not constant the curve cannot be flat.

Quote
with a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.

Why? SPEs are not events with certain magnitudes, and their directionality will also affect the amount of radiation reaching the detectors. In fact that kind of continuum is exactly what you would expect from something recording radiation reaching a detector in a particular location when the object emitting the radiation is spherical and blasting it off from various points on its surface.

Quote
That suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.

SPEs are discrete events.

Quote
It is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.

Virtually the whole left side of that curve falls below 0.2mGy/day.
Didn't you get the memo?  That is uncorrected data, and to properly evaluate it you should average out daily dose rates making it 1/24 the size it currently is.  It really doesn't matter what value you select as a representative dose foe a lunar transit.  Any dose at all is too high because of VAB an Lunar radiation but let's play this game anyway.  What value would you select as a realistic value for the next lunar mission?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 10:50:56 AM
Is this  a seniority thing?  I asked the first question and as such I should get the first answer.  Let's play fair.  What are you afraid of?

I say that graph refutes your hypothesis.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 10:52:53 AM
Appendix B: Calculation of the D1-D2 Dose Rate [54] Many measurements of space radiation have been, and continue to be, made using silicon detectors. In many experiments, the quantities of interest are the fluxes of individual ion species in particular energy bins. Detectors and electronics are optimized accordingly. ACE/CRIS provides a good example of this. In contrast, CRaTER is optimized to measure energy deposition distributions in silicon over a very wide dynamic range. These measurements must E00H13 SCHWADRON ET AL.: LUNAR RADIATION AND SPACE WEATHERING E00H13 10 of 13 be converted to tissue dose. As in analysis done by other groups [e.g., Beaujean et al., 2002] a single scaling factor is used to perform this conversion. [55] In principle, calculation of dose requires knowledge of the charge, mass, and energy of each incident particle in order to calculate its LET in water; the LET values of individual particles are multiplied by path length (detector thickness), summed and divided by the mass. In practice, we do not have this detailed information, so instead we add together all the energy depositions in silicon and divide by the mass to get the dose in silicon. We then need to account for the difference in ionization potentials between silicon and water. The ionization potential appears in the logarithmic term in the Bethe-Bloch equation, and introduces energy dependence when the ratio of dE/dx in two materials is computed. At typical GCR energies of several hundred to a few thousand MeV/nuc, the ratio of dE/dx in the two materials is fairly constant. The lower ionization potential of water compared to silicon results in larger energy depositions per unit mass for a particle with a given charge and velocity. Careful study shows that for the GCR energy range of interest the ratio of dE/dx in silicon to dE/dx in water is about 1.75, an estimate that includes d-ray escape from finite depths of silicon. This also includes the effect of the higher density of silicon, which must be factored out, resulting in a multiplicative factor of 1.33 to be applied to the silicon dose. This can be seen from considering the sums over energy depositions, DEi, in the two materials:

Now show that what that statement means is actually that the data presented must be multiplied by 1.3 rather than that this factor has already been included in the data presented.
I confess,  There was nothing in the down load that indicated it was not raw data but theoretically I imagine it could have been.  What can I tell you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 10:55:19 AM
All the data is lined up numerically from high to low.  If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat

Why? The GCR background is modulated by solar activity and hence is not constant (as is clear from the riginal CraTER graph). If it is not constant the curve cannot be flat.

Quote
with a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.

Why? SPEs are not events with certain magnitudes, and their directionality will also affect the amount of radiation reaching the detectors. In fact that kind of continuum is exactly what you would expect from something recording radiation reaching a detector in a particular location when the object emitting the radiation is spherical and blasting it off from various points on its surface.

Quote
That suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.

SPEs are discrete events.

Quote
It is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.

Virtually the whole left side of that curve falls below 0.2mGy/day.
Didn't you get the memo?  That is uncorrected data, and to properly evaluate it you should average out daily dose rates making it 1/24 the size it currently is.

Averaging out the data won't make it get any higher. Having fewer data points won't alter the magnitude.

Quote
It really doesn't matter what value you select as a representative dose foe a lunar transit.

That was literally your whole argument up until you find yourself unable to defend it. Page after apge after page is you insisting that GCR has to be some magical threshold minimum. Now it doesn't matter?

Quote
Any dose at all is too high because of VAB an Lunar radiation but let's play this game anyway.

Also wrong for reasons gone into at length on this thread.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 10:55:33 AM
Is this  a seniority thing?  I asked the first question and as such I should get the first answer.  Let's play fair.  What are you afraid of?

I say that graph refutes your hypothesis.

Could you punctuate that response with a value you interpreted from the graph to help me understand your position.  Who knows, I might agree with you.  I am not sure of the relevancy of the graph as it states it is a neutron flux derived determination and I am unfamiliar with the specifics but I don't discount the information.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 10:56:11 AM
I confess,  There was nothing in the down load that indicated it was not raw data but theoretically I imagine it could have been.  What can I tell you?


You can tell us why 'imagining' is a substitute for finding out for sure when insisting we had to correct the data by that factor earlier.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 10:59:00 AM
All the data is lined up numerically from high to low.  If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat

Why? The GCR background is modulated by solar activity and hence is not constant (as is clear from the riginal CraTER graph). If it is not constant the curve cannot be flat.

Quote
with a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.

Why? SPEs are not events with certain magnitudes, and their directionality will also affect the amount of radiation reaching the detectors. In fact that kind of continuum is exactly what you would expect from something recording radiation reaching a detector in a particular location when the object emitting the radiation is spherical and blasting it off from various points on its surface.

Quote
That suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.

SPEs are discrete events.

Quote
It is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.

Virtually the whole left side of that curve falls below 0.2mGy/day.
Didn't you get the memo?  That is uncorrected data, and to properly evaluate it you should average out daily dose rates making it 1/24 the size it currently is.

Averaging out the data won't make it get any higher. Having fewer data points won't alter the magnitude.

Quote
It really doesn't matter what value you select as a representative dose foe a lunar transit.

That was literally your whole argument up until you find yourself unable to defend it. Page after apge after page is you insisting that GCR has to be some magical threshold minimum. Now it doesn't matter?

Quote
Any dose at all is too high because of VAB an Lunar radiation but let's play this game anyway.

Also wrong for reasons gone into at length on this thread.
When you really think about it.  If you had a dosimeter that recorded at hourly intervals would and average reading be indicative or would you need to multiply the average by 24 to get a daily dose.  I'm just wondering out loud.  Any thoughts in this regard?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 10:59:31 AM
I confess,  There was nothing in the down load that indicated it was not raw data but theoretically I imagine it could have been.  What can I tell you?

I can tell you. The paper that I have recently posted includes the 1.33 factor. Care to comment on why the graph no longer supports your hypothesis?

Further, that paper also tells you that there is a possibility of double counting in the thin-thick detetor set up. There is also an overlap between LET. I cite the authors:

By studying the LET spectra in these detectors, we find that the appropriate breaking point for LET between D1
and D2 is at 20.1 keV/mm, which occurs in ADU 38 for D1 and ADU 920 for D2. The total dose in deposited in the
D1-D2 detectors is the sum of the dose from independent measurements in D1 (ADU range 38–4095) and from D2
(ADU range 7–920). If the same measurement results in both D1 and D2 deposited energies, then we take the
deposited energy in D1 as the contributor to dose.


Please take this statement and explain why you cannot simply plot your D1 and D2 doses on ExCel, and why this approach might not provide an accurate assessment of the dose.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 11:03:16 AM
When you really think about it.  If you had a dosimeter that recorded at hourly intervals would and average reading be indicative or would you need to multiply the average by 24 to get a daily dose.  I'm just wondering out loud.  Any thoughts in this regard?

When the data are presented as 'cGy/day' don't you think that's already been accounted for? It's very simple: the detector records how much radiaiton hit it in an hour, then multiplied it by 24 so the data represents a daily dose equivalent. That's why the units used are cGy/day.

You seem to be unable to grasp the simple fact that when data are presented using certain units and in certain ways, you can actually use those units to interpret without trying to fudge other calculations to make it what you think it should actually be.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 11:04:53 AM
All the data is lined up numerically from high to low.  If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat

Why? The GCR background is modulated by solar activity and hence is not constant (as is clear from the riginal CraTER graph). If it is not constant the curve cannot be flat.

Quote
with a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.

Why? SPEs are not events with certain magnitudes, and their directionality will also affect the amount of radiation reaching the detectors. In fact that kind of continuum is exactly what you would expect from something recording radiation reaching a detector in a particular location when the object emitting the radiation is spherical and blasting it off from various points on its surface.

Quote
That suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.

SPEs are discrete events.

Quote
It is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.

Virtually the whole left side of that curve falls below 0.2mGy/day.
Didn't you get the memo?  That is uncorrected data, and to properly evaluate it you should average out daily dose rates making it 1/24 the size it currently is.

Averaging out the data won't make it get any higher. Having fewer data points won't alter the magnitude.

Quote
It really doesn't matter what value you select as a representative dose foe a lunar transit.

That was literally your whole argument up until you find yourself unable to defend it. Page after apge after page is you insisting that GCR has to be some magical threshold minimum. Now it doesn't matter?

Quote
Any dose at all is too high because of VAB an Lunar radiation but let's play this game anyway.

Also wrong for reasons gone into at length on this thread.
It is still the foundation of my argument.  A problem arose when the both the CraTer and MSL/RAD data was rejected as being inapplicable because it was from a different solar cycle.  To get around this obstacle I cited a NASA range of expected GCR dose rates.  There was then an outcry that although this was a valid comparison it was to broad to cover specifics like a 10 day lunar transit.  It was presented that theoretically the apollo could have ventured out in the rain and not gotten wet because the cosmos lined up just right.  I am trying to negotiate this minefield as best I can.  Be patient.  The truth is near.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 11:05:37 AM
Could you punctuate that response with a value you interpreted from the graph to help me understand your position.  Who knows, I might agree with you.  I am not sure of the relevancy of the graph as it states it is a neutron flux derived determination and I am unfamiliar with the specifics but I don't discount the information.

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. So they say.

Now you tell me, based on everything we have said, why you don't want to use the graph I have presented. What are your objections?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 11:08:39 AM
When you really think about it.  If you had a dosimeter that recorded at hourly intervals would and average reading be indicative or would you need to multiply the average by 24 to get a daily dose.  I'm just wondering out loud.  Any thoughts in this regard?

When the data are presented as 'cGy/day' don't you think that's already been accounted for? It's very simple: the detector records how much radiaiton hit it in an hour, then multiplied it by 24 so the data represents a daily dose equivalent. That's why the units used are cGy/day.

You seem to be unable to grasp the simple fact that when data are presented using certain units and in certain ways, you can actually use those units to interpret without trying to fudge other calculations to make it what you think it should actually be.
I was led to believe this was raw data.  Feel free to make what ever assumptions you want but be reminded that a correlation exist between MSL/RAD data and CraTer Data.  A comparison can be made against the same period of the solar cycle to test for accuracy.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 11:11:44 AM
Could you punctuate that response with a value you interpreted from the graph to help me understand your position.  Who knows, I might agree with you.  I am not sure of the relevancy of the graph as it states it is a neutron flux derived determination and I am unfamiliar with the specifics but I don't discount the information.

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. So they say.

Now you tell me, based on everything we have said, why you don't want to use the graph I have presented. What are your objections?
I want to use the truth in any form I find it.  The chart in question is problematic for me because I am not familiar with the methodologies use to formulate the chart.  The description says it is based upon magnetic and neutron fluxes taken from a model but what does that really mean?  I have no idea.  I can open difficult packages but I prefer the effortless kinds.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 11:12:07 AM
It is still the foundation of my argument.  A problem arose when the both the CraTer and MSL/RAD data was rejected as being inapplicable because it was from a different solar cycle.

ANd the implications of this were ignored by yourself. SOlar cycle 20 was more energetic than 24, therefore the GCR in cycle 20 was expected to be lower. Since the CraTER data repeatedly has been shown to demonstrate lower GCR flux than your magic minimum it is not a showstopper for Apollo.

Quote
To get around this obstacle I cited a NASA range of expected GCR dose rates.

No, you cited an article that stated an average rate of 0.24mGy/day and said that number was a minimum level, which you still can't seem to understand is not the same thing at all.

Quote
There was then an outcry that although this was a valid comparison it was to broad to cover specifics like a 10 day lunar transit.

Not an outcry, a reasonable point that an average taken over a couple of years cannot be used as any kind of baseline for a two-week mission.

Quote
It was presented that theoretically the apollo could have ventured out in the rain and not gotten wet because the cosmos lined up just right.

THis is not miraculous. You keep insisting that it is, but it really isn't. To use the rainfall anaogy, yesterday it rained here. I went out and did not get wet. Why not? Because although the average rainfall during the day was a certain level, I went out when it wasn't raining. That's why you can't use avergaes as minima.

Quote
I am trying to negotiate this minefield as best I can.

No, youre trying desperately to avoid admitting you made mistakes, and are shifting the goalposts repeatedly when you can no longer defend your evidence as the smoking gun you presented it as.

I ask you again, what would convince you that you being wrong is actually a reasonable hypothesis?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 11:15:17 AM
I was led to believe this was raw data.

Exactly what led you to believe it? The data are clearly presented as dose rates in cGy/day.

Quote
Feel free to make what ever assumptions you want

I am making no assumptions. When the data are presented as daily dose rates it is a sound conclusion that that is what they represent.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 11:20:25 AM
I was led to believe this was raw data.

Exactly what led you to believe it? The data are clearly presented as dose rates in cGy/day.

Quote
Feel free to make what ever assumptions you want

I am making no assumptions. When the data are presented as daily dose rates it is a sound conclusion that that is what they represent.
Jason,  The question that assaults my mind relentlessly is this.  Does the raw CraTer data represent discrete snapshots of radiation levels in cislunar space that have to be averaged and multiplied by 24 to arrive at an actual daily dose rate?  Can you help me unravel this tightly wound ball of frustration.  What are your thoughts?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 11:23:15 AM
I am not complaining but it is difficult to keep track of all the responses when so many quotes are reposted.  My resources are taxed by my contemplation of things far above the pay grade of the general populace.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 11:34:05 AM
I want to use the truth in any form I find it.  The chart in question is problematic for me because I am not familiar with the methodologies use to formulate the chart.  The description says it is based upon magnetic and neutron fluxes taken from a model but what does that really mean? I have no idea.  I can open difficult packages but I prefer the effortless kinds.

... my bold, and herein lies the problem.

The chart tells you everything we have been telling you. The dose would have been lower in 1969 during a corresponding solar maximum. Why? The phi McMurdo reading is based on a ground based neutron monitor. A neutron monitor informs us of GCR flux from secondary neutrons produced by GCR interacting in our upper atmosphere. The higher the neutron reading, the greater the GCR flux.

As you can see, the McMurdo levels are greater in cycle 24 (when the CRaTER data was taken) compared with cycle 20 (Apollo).

So, those CRaTER data that you have been plotting, where swathes of the data are below 0.22. Do you think more of the data would be below 0.22 or less below 0.22?

Further, the entire data set used in the argument shows you that the problem is more complex than you make out. You cannot simply take data from research articles and use it as proof. The detection methods are different for a start. The whole problem is too difficult to use the simple methods you apply. That's really the bottom line to this whole discussion.

However, when you present the argument in the form you expressed, refuse to accept that you cannot compare cycle 20 with 24, that your initial premise is proven wrong by inspection of the data, and then move the goal posts by using average data which you cite as a standard; then it does not make you case look good.

That's not finding the truth in any form you find it. That's deliberately bending the truth to hide the fact you read a graph incorrectly.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 11:37:26 AM
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/MSL-RAD-radiation-environment-measurements.-Guo-Zeitlin/89c373715bc38905ea2cf8c4ae3709d0e626e218/figure/1
Now we can compare the MSL/RAD Data to the CraTer data for a means of determining if the CraTer Data is raw uncorrected data or is in fact as you suspect internally corrected.  What do you think, is it approximately what you expect even in light of the fact that lunar neutron radiation should have raised CraTer data some 30 to 40% above MSL/Rad data?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 11:38:04 AM
I am not complaining but it is difficult to keep track of all the responses when so many quotes are reposted.

Save us. No, you just cannot keep a coherent story. That is evident. You've been caught out on interpreting the data again. The data is cited in cGy/day, and swathes of the data fall below you threshold. Your initial premise was wrong. That's the end of the argument.

Quote
My resources are taxed by my contemplation of things far above the pay grade of the general populace.

... but below the pay grade of the experts that reside here.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 11:39:55 AM
I want to use the truth in any form I find it.  The chart in question is problematic for me because I am not familiar with the methodologies use to formulate the chart.  The description says it is based upon magnetic and neutron fluxes taken from a model but what does that really mean? I have no idea.  I can open difficult packages but I prefer the effortless kinds.

... my bold, and herein lies the problem.

The chart tells you everything we have been telling you. The dose would have been lower in 1969 during a corresponding solar maximum. Why? The phi McMurdo reading is based on a ground based neutron monitor. A neutron monitor informs us of GCR flux from secondary neutrons produced by GCR interacting in our upper atmosphere. The higher the neutron reading, the greater the GCR flux.

As you can see, the McMurdo levels are greater in cycle 24 (when the CRaTER data was taken) compared with cycle 20 (Apollo).

So, those CRaTER data that you have been plotting, where swathes of the data are below 0.22. Do you think more of the data would be below 0.22 or less below 0.22?

Further, the entire data set used in the argument shows you that the problem is more complex than you make out. You cannot simply take data from research articles and use it as proof. The detection methods are different for a start. The whole problem is too difficult to use the simple methods you apply. That's really the bottom line to this whole discussion.

However, when you present the argument in the form you expressed, refuse to accept that you cannot compare cycle 20 with 24, that your initial premise is proven wrong by inspection of the data, and then move the goal posts by using average data which you cite as a standard; then it does not make you case look good.

That's not finding the truth in any form you find it. That's deliberately bending the truth to hide the fact you read a graph incorrectly.
How does that work in your mind?  We used a ground based neutron detector shielded by the VAB to determine cislunar GCR radiation?  You are good with that assessment?  That is the method you would choose above all others?  Why in your data mining did you pass on this more realistic assessment taken from detectors in space?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 11:42:42 AM
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/MSL-RAD-radiation-environment-measurements.-Guo-Zeitlin/89c373715bc38905ea2cf8c4ae3709d0e626e218/figure/1

Taken during cycle 24 and enroute to Mars. Rejected based on fallacy of equivalence.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 11:43:13 AM
Jason,  The question that assaults my mind relentlessly is this.  Does the raw CraTer data represent discrete snapshots of radiation levels in cislunar space that have to be averaged and multiplied by 24 to arrive at an actual daily dose rate?  Can you help me unravel this tightly wound ball of frustration.  What are your thoughts?

If such a mathematically nonsensical suggestion is gnawing at your mind perhaps you should go and learn a bit about averages. If you take the mean and mutiply it by 24 all you have is the sum.

Look, it's really very simple: the data presented are daily dose rates in cGy/day. That is the information given in the data set, quite clearly in the header, and shown on the axis of the graph. That means every point represents the equivalent daily dose rate at that time. To get the overall average daily dose rate for one day you just average the 24 points for that given day. Over ten days, avergae the 240 points that cover those ten days.

For some reason you seem dead set on trying to interpret the graph as if it's some odd code that needs to be unwound. It really isn't. It is stated quite clearly.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 11:44:15 AM
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/MSL-RAD-radiation-environment-measurements.-Guo-Zeitlin/89c373715bc38905ea2cf8c4ae3709d0e626e218/figure/1

Taken during cycle 24 and enroute to Mars. Rejected based on fallacy of equivalence.
I am sure that you will note that the graph is inclusive of solar cycle 20 .  It is easily over looked.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 11:46:40 AM
I love this graph.  It easily allows a comparison across solar cycles.  What say we used it exclusively for our discussion on GCR levels?  Can we vote on this.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 11:49:57 AM
We used a ground based neutron detector shielded by the VAB to determine cislunar GCR radiation?  You are good with that assessment?  That is the method you would choose above all others?  Why in your data mining did you pass on this more realistic assessment taken from detectors in space?

If you look at the ground based detectors, they both give greater readings than CRaTER, despite being shielded by the VABs (as you tell us).   ::) You are aware that the C14 in the atmosphere is produced by GCR. So you think that GCR does impinge on the upper atmosphere now?

It's not the point though is it? The ground based detector readings are also modulated with the solar cycle. So answer the question that pertains to the point I was making rather than your strawman.

If the ground based detector readings are modulated by solar cycle, what would that tell us about the CRaTER data, if we had CRaTER data from 1969? Would it be lower or higher?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 11:50:08 AM
And here is a plot of the daily dose rate received over 10-day periods on the CraTER data. I started this set from day 178 on the data file, but of course you can choose any starting point. The clear point here is that once again we see a significant number of 10-day periods where the dose rates lie well below that magical Apollo 11 0.22mGy/day dose...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 11:54:14 AM
I am sure that you will note that the graph is inclusive of solar cycle 20 .  It is easily over looked.

What, the Year 2011-12 is solar cycle 20? It's taken from the Mars Surface Laboratory, it launched November 26, 2011. The date on the graphs runs from 2011 - 2012.

Graphs still not your strong point Timothy?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 11:54:51 AM
I love this graph.  It easily allows a comparison across solar cycles.  What say we used it exclusively for our discussion on GCR levels?  Can we vote on this.

Why bother? EVen if we show it proves you wrong you will just backtrack.

But assuming you won't, do you agree that it shows a lunar surface dose rate of between 4-6Gy/yr during the period of the lunar phase of Apollo?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 11:55:53 AM
And here is a plot of the daily dose rate received over 10-day periods on the CraTER data. I started this set from day 178 on the data file, but of course you can choose any starting point. The clear point here is that once again we see a significant number of 10-day periods where the dose rates lie well below that magical Apollo 11 0.22mGy/day dose...

Jason, Jason, Jason....  I ask the question again.  Should you not be summing readings over a day to arrive at a daily dose rate and shouldn't some type of multiplier be used to account for the fact that you were not continually monitoring.  If an astronaut only receives discrete pulses of radiation then I guess your method could work, I am not sure but I think it could.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 11:56:18 AM
But assuming you won't, do you agree that it shows a lunar surface dose rate of between 4-6Gy/yr during the period of the lunar phase of Apollo?

I was hoping Tim would work that out. I am sure he has, but insisted I did so he could reject it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 11:56:54 AM
I am sure that you will note that the graph is inclusive of solar cycle 20 .  It is easily over looked.

What, the Year 2011-12 is solar cycle 20? It's taken from the Mars Surface Laboratory, it launched November 26, 2011. The date on the graphs runs from 2011 - 2012.

Graphs still not your strong point Timothy?
Are we referring to the same graph?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 11:58:16 AM
I am sure that you will note that the graph is inclusive of solar cycle 20 .  It is easily over looked.

What, the Year 2011-12 is solar cycle 20? It's taken from the Mars Surface Laboratory, it launched November 26, 2011. The date on the graphs runs from 2011 - 2012.

Graphs still not your strong point Timothy?
Are we referring to the same graph?

When you quote, try not to quote a link with one graph and an attachment at the same time.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:00:26 PM
I love this graph.  It easily allows a comparison across solar cycles.  What say we used it exclusively for our discussion on GCR levels?  Can we vote on this.

Why bother? EVen if we show it proves you wrong you will just backtrack.

But assuming you won't, do you agree that it shows a lunar surface dose rate of between 4-6Gy/yr during the period of the lunar phase of Apollo?

I will agree that it shows 4-6 cgy/year during the lunar phase of the the apollo missions, yes, wholeheartedly.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:05:28 PM
It would be an amazing stretch of luck to assume no contribution to background radiation from SPE's and CME during the most active  time of a solar cycle when CME's occur at a rate of 3 time a day but let's proceed with this as the basis of our discussion.  Where are we?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 12:06:44 PM
I will agree that it shows 4-6 cgy/year during the lunar phase of the the apollo missions, yes, wholeheartedly.

... and state your assumptions for that value. Remember, it's based on modelling of ground based neutron detectors.

So if you want to use the data from this graph for CYle 20, do you agree that your initial premise based on cycle 24 data from CRaTER was incorrect.

Would you also agree that Solar cycle 20 is more active than 24, and the dose in cycle 20 is correspondingly lower. Which is what we have telling you all along. This means you can reject the CRaTER data, and you initial premise is now proven fallacious.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:10:53 PM
I will agree that it shows 4-6 cgy/year during the lunar phase of the the apollo missions, yes, wholeheartedly.

... and state your assumptions for that value. Remember, it's based on modelling of ground based neutron detectors.

So if you want to use the data from this graph for CYle 20, do you agree that your initial premise based on cycle 24 data from CRaTER was incorrect.

Would you also agree that Solar cycle 20 is more active than 24, and the dose in cycle 20 is correspondingly lower. Which is what we have telling you all along. This means you can reject the CRaTER data, and you initial premise is now proven fallacious.
You lost me there.  Help me catch up.  I was under the assumption that I was promoting a range of .24-6 mg/day citing a NASA report as the basis of that assumption.  I thought I was trying to get everyone to accept NASA's minimum as the reference.  What did I miss?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 12:16:14 PM
It would be an amazing stretch of luck to assume no contribution to background radiation from SPE's and CME during the most active  time of a solar cycle when CME's occur at a rate of 3 time a day but let's proceed with this as the basis of our discussion.  Where are we?

SPEs are discrete events, so they've taken them out to provide the background GCR flux; that's what the study is interest in. Were there any SPEs during the actual flight of the Apollo missions? No, so we can discount them from this discussion.

You do know the relationship between CMEs and SPEs? I'll tell you, as you don't know.

A large majority of CMEs have Alven wave speeds less than the solar wind. In other words, the matter in the CME contributes to the solar wind.  CMEs above a certain speed produce SPEs by a shock driven event in the plasma. It tends to be a halo-CME event that gives rise to solar storms at the moon-Earth system. a vast majority of CME events produce particles with thermal energies. CMEs are frequent and produce huge amounts of mass, but would not contribute to the overall dose owning to the low energy of the constituent particles.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:16:49 PM
So no one but me has directly addressed the elephant in the room in regards to the CraTer data.  Do we need to correct it to a daily dose or not and if we do is that adjustment a multiplier of 24 times?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:19:49 PM
It would be an amazing stretch of luck to assume no contribution to background radiation from SPE's and CME during the most active  time of a solar cycle when CME's occur at a rate of 3 time a day but let's proceed with this as the basis of our discussion.  Where are we?

SPEs are discrete events, so they've taken them out to provide the background GCR flux; that's what the study is interest in. Were there any SPEs during the actual flight of the Apollo missions? No, so we can discount them from this discussion.

You do know the relationship between CMEs and SPEs? I'll tell you, as you don't know.

A large majority of CMEs have Alven wave speeds less than the solar wind. In other words, the matter in the CME contributes to the solar wind.  CMEs above a certain speed produce SPEs by a shock driven event in the plasma. It tends to be a halo-CME event that gives rise to solar storms at the moon-Earth system. a vast majority of CME events produce particles with thermal energies. CMEs are frequent and produce huge amounts of mass, but would not contribute to the overall dose owning to the low energy of the constituent particles.

So, from that I am to understand that CME's and the subsequent CME induced SPE's do not contribute to the background radiation.  Is that correct?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 12:21:26 PM
You lost me there.  Help me catch up.

If you are so excited by that graph, then that graph tells us about the modulation of GCR. Answer the questions please.

So if you want to use the data from this graph for Cycle 20, do you agree that your initial premise (based on cycle 24 data) using CRaTER was incorrect?

Would you also agree that Solar cycle 20 is more active than 24, and the dose in cycle 20 is correspondingly lower. Which is what we have telling you all along. Does this mean was can reject the CRaTER data, and you initial premise is now proven fallacious.

I'm going to ask the moderator that you answer these two questions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:21:58 PM
Based on all the data we have considered is anyone willing to estimate a realistic background radiation level for the apollo missions?  Something you feel comfortable with?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 12:27:40 PM
So, from that I am to understand that CME's and the subsequent CME induced SPE's do not contribute to the background radiation.  Is that correct?

That's not what I said. SPEs did not occur an Apollo flight. They contribute to the dose, but are discrete events. CMEs contribute to the background flux but not dose as their energies are insufficient to produce a dose. CMEs have thermal energies, typical of the solar wind. We have been discussing dose, not flux. We've been discussing dose, not flux. Two different things.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:27:51 PM
You lost me there.  Help me catch up.

If you are sop excited by that graph, then that graph tells us about the modulation of GCR. Answer the questions please.


So if you want to use the data from this graph for Cycle 20, do you agree that your initial premise (based on cycle 24 data) using CRaTER was incorrect?

Would you also agree that Solar cycle 20 is more active than 24, and the dose in cycle 20 is correspondingly lower. Which is what we have telling you all along. Does this mean was can reject the CRaTER data, and you initial premise is now proven fallacious.

I'm going to ask the moderator that you answer these two questions.
The CraTer Data is correct.  It has never been in questioned is the ability to interpret it's data and apply it across solar cycles.  I have stated on multiple occasions that I acknowledge the solar cycle is different but I am under the impression the current solar cycle is more active and as a consequence GCR levels are much higher in this cycle than in 20.  I have been a proponent of disregarding CraTer Data and using NASA GCR ranges of the apollo missions all along.  Where is the disconnect and why do you keep bringing this up?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:29:20 PM
So, from that I am to understand that CME's and the subsequent CME induced SPE's do not contribute to the background radiation.  Is that correct?

That's not what I said. SPEs did not occur an Apollo flight. They contribute to the dose, but are discrete events. CMEs contribute to the background flux but not dose as their energies are insufficient to produce a dose. CMEs have thermal energies, typical of the solar wind. We have been discussing dose, not flux. We've been discussing dose, not flux. Two different things.
My bad.  I thought I read that CME's themselves are capable of producing SPE's.  Was I wrong?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:32:02 PM
If Solar activity does not raise overall background radiation why would the average radiation be higher during solar peak?  If we took the data and eliminated peaks above a certain magnitude would not the remaining level be higher than GCR level.  I am asking for a friend.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 12:34:54 PM
My bad.  I thought I read that CME's themselves are capable of producing SPE's.  Was I wrong?

No, only under certain conditions a CME will produce an SPE. A CME event is a precursor for an SPE, but only if the speed of the CME  exceeds a certain value. Also, it tends to be halo-CMEs that produce solar storms at the Earth-moon system. SPE events can graze the Earth or miss completely.

This picture of the magnetic field gives a picture of the problem:

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/solar-radiation-storm

This is  handy table to show you that space is not a raging sea of radiation:

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/noaa-scales-explanation

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:39:16 PM
My bad.  I thought I read that CME's themselves are capable of producing SPE's.  Was I wrong?

No, only under certain conditions a CME will produce an SPE. A CME event is a precursor for an SPE, but only if the speed of the CME  exceeds a certain value. Also, it tends to be halo-CMEs that produced solar storms at the Earth-moon system. SPE events can graze the Earth or miss completely.

This picture of the magnetic field gives a picture of the problem:

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/solar-radiation-storm

This is  handy table to show you that space is not a raging sea of radiation:

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/noaa-scales-explanation
So, in your estimations it is logical to assume during the most active part of a solar cycle these "certain conditions" can be eliminated from consideration?  Why is that?  I didn't follow your line of reasoning.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:41:17 PM
This should clarify it all for me.  If you were planing a tourist trip to the moon, would you plan your trip during solar maximum or solar minimum or something in between?  Why?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:42:47 PM
Based on all the data we have considered is anyone willing to estimate a realistic background radiation level for the apollo missions?  Something you feel comfortable with?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 12:42:58 PM
Jason, Jason, Jason....  I ask the question again.  Should you not be summing readings over a day to arrive at a daily dose rate and shouldn't some type of multiplier be used to account for the fact that you were not continually monitoring.

Asked and answered. The data presented are daily dose rate equivalents. If you needed to do anything else they would not be presented in units of cGy/day.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 12:44:30 PM
I was under the assumption that I was promoting a range of .24-6 mg/day citing a NASA report as the basis of that assumption.  I thought I was trying to get everyone to accept NASA's minimum as the reference.  What did I miss?

Repeatedly, you missed us pointing out that NASA does not call this a minimum, but an average over a perod of years.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 12:45:37 PM
So no one but me has directly addressed the elephant in the room in regards to the CraTer data.  Do we need to correct it to a daily dose or not and if we do is that adjustment a multiplier of 24 times?

This has been addressed. Look at the units, then explain why I would take 24 measurements in cGy/day and multiply them by anything to get another measurement in cGy/day. Units are important, but you don't seem to get it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:46:34 PM
Jason, Jason, Jason....  I ask the question again.  Should you not be summing readings over a day to arrive at a daily dose rate and shouldn't some type of multiplier be used to account for the fact that you were not continually monitoring.

Asked and answered. The data presented are daily dose rate equivalents. If you needed to do anything else they would not be presented in units of cGy/day.

The Crater Data is literally 24 discrete captures taken each day.  How in your mind do you equate each discrete data point as a daily dose.  Please explain that slowly because I am not as smart as the rest of you guys.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 12:46:41 PM
The CraTer Data is correct.

I did not ask it the data was correct, I asked if was correct to use the data for cycle 20.

If Solar activity does not raise overall background radiation why would the average radiation be higher during solar peak?

Simply put, the three main areas of concern for dose are:


You need to stop interchanging between background radiation and dose. The solar wind and CME contribute to background radiation but do not contribute to dose as they are readily shielded owning to the low energy of the particles.

The GCR is modulated by solar activity. At a solar maximum the GCR dose is reduced. At a solar minimum the GCR dose is increased. Solar cycle 20 was a more active cycle than the current cycle. So, what do you think is going to happen to the GCR dose? The graph that you now like shows you the answer.

This means you cannot use the CRaTER data from Cycle 24 to assess dose in Cycle 20. If you do, then all you can do it say it was lower based on all the data. So you initial premise of < 0.22 was fallacious. That's the point.

Quote
If we took the data and eliminated peaks above a certain magnitude would not the remaining level be higher than GCR level.

No, why should it? We're talking about dose, not background flux.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:49:39 PM
So no one but me has directly addressed the elephant in the room in regards to the CraTer data.  Do we need to correct it to a daily dose or not and if we do is that adjustment a multiplier of 24 times?

This has been addressed. Look at the units, then explain why I would take 24 measurements in cGy/day and multiply them by anything to get another measurement in cGy/day. Units are important, but you don't seem to get it.
If you had a pocket dosimeter that measured radiation when you pressed a button and you pressed that button hourly then after one day would you dosimeter reflect your total esposure or would it simply reflect the exposure you had received in the 24 seconds of actual measurement?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 12:51:26 PM
This should clarify it all for me.  If you were planing a tourist trip to the moon, would you plan your trip during solar maximum or solar minimum or something in between?  Why?

Doesn't matter. You can skirt the van Allen belts with the right orbital mechanics, avoiding the inner proton belt.

The GCR dose is not sufficient to cause a hazardous accumulated dose on a short mission.

You can use a risk model to avoid SPEs. You might get unlucky, you might not.

The moon is not a radioactive wasteland.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:51:46 PM
Is anyone keeping score?  It seems like I am winning.  Am I winning?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 12:55:42 PM
This should clarify it all for me.  If you were planing a tourist trip to the moon, would you plan your trip during solar maximum or solar minimum or something in between?  Why?

Doesn't matter. You can skirt the van Allen belts with the right orbital mechanics, avoiding the inner proton belt.

The GCR dose is not sufficient to cause a hazardous accumulated dose on a short mission.

You can use a risk model to avoid SPEs. You might get unlucky, you might not.

The moon is not a radioactive wasteland.
That sounds like a serious cop out to me.  Are you throwing in the towel?  Before you do consider this amazing fact.  The lowest recorded level in all of the VAB is .0001 rads/sec.  Now if there existed a tunnel of radiation at this level in which a craft could travel then the transit directly through the VAB would still be 6 times the reported level of the apollo 11 mission.  Do the math and then throw that towel into the ring.  You just got knocked out.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 12:59:37 PM
The Crater Data is literally 24 discrete captures taken each day.  How in your mind do you equate each discrete data point as a daily dose.

Because those are the units given. Clearly. All over the place.

The data are not raw data showing how much radiation was detected that hour. This is clear from the headings and the units used.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 14, 2018, 12:59:48 PM
I'm waiting for your calculation why the delay?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 01:02:42 PM
Do the math and then throw that towel into the ring.  You just got knocked out.

I have stated on multiple occasions that I acknowledge the solar cycle is different but I am under the impression the current solar cycle is more active and as a consequence GCR levels are much higher in this cycle than in 20.

Says the man who thinks the current solar cycle is more active and that means the GCR levels are much higher, despite being told its cycle 20 that is more active, and more active cycles have lower GCR doses.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 01:03:24 PM
I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs.  You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter.  Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose.  There is no getting around the facts.  It can not have happened and therefore it didn't.  I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 14, 2018, 01:04:56 PM
So no one but me has directly addressed the elephant in the room in regards to the CraTer data.  Do we need to correct it to a daily dose or not and if we do is that adjustment a multiplier of 24 times?

This is why units matter. This is why terminology matters. This is why dimensional analysis matters. Gray is defined as absorbed energy in joules per kilogram. You don't get to throw in "time" or "area" or "flux" or whatever a second time.

Gray is also not seivert -- it has no quality factor imposed for the effect of that absorbed energy in human tissues.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 01:07:15 PM
The Crater Data is literally 24 discrete captures taken each day.  How in your mind do you equate each discrete data point as a daily dose.

Because those are the units given. Clearly. All over the place.

The data are not raw data showing how much radiation was detected that hour. This is clear from the headings and the units used.
What actually are the units of the 24 daily readings? and how did they arrive at them?  In your mind how does the detector convert discrete readings into daily averages and if it does then why isn't their a single reading for each day?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 01:08:26 PM
So no one but me has directly addressed the elephant in the room in regards to the CraTer data.  Do we need to correct it to a daily dose or not and if we do is that adjustment a multiplier of 24 times?

This is why units matter. This is why terminology matters. This is why dimensional analysis matters. Gray is defined as absorbed energy in joules per kilogram. You don't get to throw in "time" or "area" or "flux" or whatever a second time.

Gray is also not seivert -- it has no quality factor imposed for the effect of that absorbed energy in human tissues.
are you sure about that?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2018, 01:09:32 PM
I could halfway go along with that premise except for the glaring fact that they closed the thread.  Why would they do that if I were the problem and not the subject matter.

Because you violated the rules that YOU SPECIFICALLY AGREED TO when you signed up.
One last graph before I go to bed.  This is a very interesting one.  It plots GCR with SPE  ans Solar activity.  It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.
Why are you posting another graph? It has been demonstrated that you do not understand graphs at all.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 01:11:06 PM
21.5 hours on the lunar surface
Distance to the moon:  238,900 mi
Length of VAB =37000 miles
Time to the moon: 
Translunar injection engine cutout 1:40:50
Lunar orbit insertion 63:23:27
Elapsed time:  61:43:37
Average rate of travel:  238900 miles/ 61.76666 hours = 3870.92 miles/hour
We know that Apollo 11 entered the TLI at 24200 mph @ 12:22
We know that 2 hrs. and 32 minutes later it had traveled 22000 miles
22000/2.53 hrs. = an average speed of 8695.65 mph.
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long
22000/37000 = 59.5% of the VAB had been crossed
After 2.53 hours the Apollo 11 was traveling 12,914 feet per second.
12914 ft/sec * 3600sec/hr * 1 mile/5280 ft = 8805 mph
37000-22000 =15000 miles of VAB left to travel @ 8805 mph slowing
15000 miles/8805/miles/hr = 1.7 hrs plus 2.53 hours = 4.23 hours but let’s round it to 4.30 because the Apollo was in constant deceleration throughout the VAB transit.
Now the lowest radiation area in all of the VAB is the blue region which is .0001 rad/sec
.0001 rad/sec * 4.5 hrs * 3600 sec/hr * 10 mgy/rad = 5.22 mgy
5.22 mgy/8days = 0.6525 mgy/day
Now if we assume GCR of .24 mg/day and lunar radiation raises that 35% then 1.35* .24 mg/day = .324 mg/day for 2 days lunar orbit and 1 day on the surface or 3 days.
.324 mg/day * 3 days = .972 mgy
.972 mgy from lunar orbit and lunar landing plus 5.22 mgy from VAB transit plus 5.22 mgy return transit through the VAB = 11.412 mgy
11.412 mgy/8.33 days = 1.369 or as I originally said a full magnitude less than it should be.

https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/apollo11_log/log.htm
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 01:13:44 PM
If you had a pocket dosimeter that measured radiation when you pressed a button and you pressed that button hourly then after one day would you dosimeter reflect your total esposure or would it simply reflect the exposure you had received in the 24 seconds of actual measurement?

That would depend entirely upon the units the dosimeter reported in. If you have four dosimeters, do you add their readings together to get your total dose? If not, why not?

There really is no question about the CraTER data. It is presented in cGy/day, which means that every data point represents a calculated daily dose based on the radiation detected in that time period. Units are everything. Again, you seem determined to imply some other calcualtions have to be done or have been done with the data, just so you can avoid acepting that the graph proves you wrong, repeatedly, in every way,
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 14, 2018, 01:15:32 PM
You are still working on the assumption that they went straight through the middle of them.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 01:17:05 PM
If you had a pocket dosimeter that measured radiation when you pressed a button and you pressed that button hourly then after one day would you dosimeter reflect your total esposure or would it simply reflect the exposure you had received in the 24 seconds of actual measurement?

That would depend entirely upon the units the dosimeter reported in. If you have four dosimeters, do you add their readings together to get your total dose? If not, why not?

There really is no question about the CraTER data. It is presented in cGy/day, which means that every data point represents a calculated daily dose based on the radiation detected in that time period. Units are everything. Again, you seem determined to imply some other calcualtions have to be done or have been done with the data, just so you can avoid acepting that the graph proves you wrong, repeatedly, in every way,

Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so.  There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 01:19:03 PM
What actually are the units of the 24 daily readings?

cGy/day, as is clearly stated in the data file and on the y-axis of the graph.

Quote
In your mind how does the detector convert discrete readings into daily averages

It's not hard to do. If it picked up 0.001Gy in one hour then it only has to multiply by 24, doesn't it?

Quote
and if it does then why isn't their a single reading for each day?

Who knows? Maybe because this way it shows just how much fluctuation there is over time. Maybe they wanted a more comprehensive data set. Just because it doesn't match your naive expectatuions doesn't make it suspect.

The fact remains, the data are presented in cGy/day, therefore it matters not one jot what you think is going on, those are what the numbers represent.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 01:19:58 PM
Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so.  There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.

No, that is what you expect. If it was not as I state why is it presented in cGy/day in the first place?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 01:20:03 PM
You are still working on the assumption that they went straight through the middle of them.

No, I am not.  I assumed the most conservative measure possible.  I assumed the VAB consisted entirely of the lowest radiation level ever measured in it.  I took all of the other levels out.  I sweetened the pot.  Now climb in and stew.  How do you like me now?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 01:21:20 PM
Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so.  There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.

No, that is what you expect. If it was not as I state why is it presented in cGy/day in the first place?
It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time.  I'd say it represents an hour.  What do you say?  if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2018, 01:24:30 PM
Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so.  There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.

No, that is what you expect. If it was not as I state why is it presented in cGy/day in the first place?
It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time.  I'd say it represents an hour.  What do you say?  if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?
I say you have again demonstrated that you do not understand graphs or even raw data. It is amusing wathcing you flail about in total ignorance of the subject matter.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 01:25:28 PM
I thought the CraTer Data was off the table.  Pull up a chair and feast at the table of your inequities.  Calculate your way out of the VAB.  Use what ever numbers you can anally extract.  It matters not.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 14, 2018, 01:26:58 PM
Then the data would be labeled with the sample time frame. They don't just slap labels on these things randomly.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2018, 01:27:54 PM
Then the data would be labeled with the sample time frame. They don't just slap labels on these things randomly.


No they don't. How do they "slap" them on? You don't know, do you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 01:28:03 PM
Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so.  There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.

No, that is what you expect. If it was not as I state why is it presented in cGy/day in the first place?

It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time.  I'd say it represents an hour.  What do you say?  if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?
I say you have again demonstrated that you do not understand graphs or even raw data. It is amusing wathcing you flail about in total ignorance of the subject matter.
Abaddon, here is a wonderful opportunity for you to step in and provide much needed clarity.  Start with this question.  Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?  Do we pick one or sum them or average them  Help us find a path through this radiation minefield.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 01:31:38 PM
Dear Moderator, It seems many of my questions go unanswered.  I am not complaining but I wanted to point it out in case I was accused of such a dastardly act and was banned once again.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 01:34:49 PM
I thought the CraTer Data was off the table.

That's not what said or implied. There are conclusions that can be drawn from the CRaTER data, lots of them. We are saying that the dose from GCR would be lower in Cycle 20 owning to the increased activity of that cycle.

It draws nicely on the notion that SPEs are discrete events that does not mean that space is a region of searing radiation. That much I owe you, I'll be fair on that point. It shows quite clearly that once discrete events are removed, the GCR background is quite survivable on a short mission. Some HB's would cite astronauts receiving hundreds of rem.

The issue with the CRaTER data is that you won't accept that it refutes your initial premise of <0.22 for all the reasons discussed. So it's really up to you. Your initial claim was fallacious. So in some ways it is off the table, but in others it remains. It serves as a useful exercise in the merit of using scientific data to present a case for the hoax. Namely that there is no merit, you'll always have an apples and oranges comparison with the actual dosimeters.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 14, 2018, 01:34:54 PM
You are taking a set of measurements performed by averaging of the dosimeter tags sewn to the flightsuit (I assume...that's the most likely place to be looking at total flight dose taken in situ) of astronauts inside a spacecraft passing through multiple potential ionizing sources of wildly fluctuating magnitude, and comparing them against an off-the-cuff back-of-the-envelope attempt to sum up the data from a completely different set of instruments using nothing but arithmetic averaging, with no attempt to even define the range of variation.

And even when you start throwing in random multipliers you are still getting answers that are closer to NASA's than the error range of either method. I'd say every bit of work you are doing validates NASA's data (or, to be more honestly, fails to demonstrate anything).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 01:35:52 PM
Dear Moderator, It seems many of my questions go unanswered.  I am not complaining but I wanted to point it out in case I was accused of such a dastardly act and was banned once again.

If you feel that is the case then make a list, but I'm going out for 2 hours now, so don't expect me to reply immediately.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2018, 01:37:26 PM
Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so.  There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.

No, that is what you expect. If it was not as I state why is it presented in cGy/day in the first place?

It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time.  I'd say it represents an hour.  What do you say?  if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?
I say you have again demonstrated that you do not understand graphs or even raw data. It is amusing wathcing you flail about in total ignorance of the subject matter.
Abaddon, here is a wonderful opportunity for you to step in and provide much needed clarity.  Start with this question.  Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?  Do we pick one or sum them or average them  Help us find a path through this radiation minefield.
I am unsure that I can sufficiently dumb it down.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 01:37:34 PM
You are taking a set of measurements performed by averaging of the dosimeter tags sewn to the flightsuit (I assume...that's the most likely place to be looking at total flight dose taken in situ) of astronauts inside a spacecraft passing through multiple potential ionizing sources of wildly fluctuating magnitude, and comparing them against an off-the-cuff back-of-the-envelope attempt to sum up the data from a completely different set of instruments using nothing but arithmetic averaging, with no attempt to even define the range of variation.

And even when you start throwing in random multipliers you are still getting answers that are closer to NASA's than the error range of either method. I'd say every bit of work you are doing validates NASA's data (or, to be more honestly, fails to demonstrate anything).

Tim - This from nomuse. It sums it up and what I said about using scientific research to make claims against the real dosimeters.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 14, 2018, 01:41:19 PM
I got code that needs to work before tonight's rehearsal so will only be looking in sporadically (honestly, I shouldn't be here at all today...)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 01:44:16 PM
It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time.  I'd say it represents an hour.

If it represents one hour why is it in cGy/day? It is quite simply the estimated daily dose rate based on the radiation detected in that hour. This is not complex, but you insist on making it so.

Quote
if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?

Take an average, of course. Why would I do anything other than that?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 01:45:35 PM
Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?

Why should there not be? 'Because I don't think there should be' is not an adequate answer. NASA is under no obligation to cnform to your expectations for how it presents data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 01:47:46 PM
I thought the CraTer Data was off the table.

That's not what said or implied. There are conclusions that can be drawn from the CRaTER data, lots of them. We are saying that the dose from GCR would be lower in Cycle 20 owning to the increased activity of that cycle.

It draws nicely on the notion that SPEs are discrete events that does not mean that space is a region of searing radiation. That much I owe you, I'll be fair on that point. It shows quite clearly that once discrete events are removed, the GCR background is quite survivable on a short mission. Some HB's would cite astronauts receiving hundreds of rem.

The issue with the CRaTER data is that you won't accept that it refutes your initial premise of <0.22 for all the reasons discussed. So it's really up to you. Your initial claim was fallacious. So in some ways it is off the table, but in others it remains. It serves as a useful exercise in the merit of using scientific data to present a case for the hoax. Namely that there is no merit, you'll always have an apples and oranges comparison with the actual dosimeters.
I find  a reason to respect you for that concession and I reiterate, in an attempt to use only relevant Apollo era data I relied on NASA own belief that GCR radiation existed in a range of .24 mgy/day to 6.0 mgy/day.  I don't make these numbers up.  I am merely repeating what they said.  It really doesn't matter in proving the hoax because GCR radiation is a bit player in the game of total radiation received.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 14, 2018, 01:48:49 PM
Tim, I don't think you understand how this works.

The reality of Apollo has been proven to the satisfaction of all the world's experts in every relevant field.  Every single one, all over the world.  Therefore, when you are making claims counter to that, it is your obligation to show that you know what you're talking about.  Which, yes, means answering all questions.  And not necessarily having your own answered, because we are doing you the favour of assuming you're smart enough to figure things out on your own.

Further, let me explain a little about how "reasonable doubt" works.  The fact is, it is not reasonable to believe that your belief that a single thing doesn't work somehow proves that literally everything else was faked.  What is considerably more reasonable is that you don't know what you're talking about.  You have yet to explain why you believe that isn't the reasonable explanation.

And as for Cosmoquest?  Yeah, you were in violation of a whole bunch of rules there.  Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you set the rules for it.  Duh.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 01:50:12 PM
Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?

Why should there not be? 'Because I don't think there should be' is not an adequate answer. NASA is under no obligation to cnform to your expectations for how it presents data.

Obviously then interpreting the data requires some understanding of the fact that it is not a list of daily doses rather it is a list of discrete snapshots of multiple daily doses.  It makes a huge difference wouldn't you say?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2018, 01:54:56 PM
Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?

Why should there not be? 'Because I don't think there should be' is not an adequate answer. NASA is under no obligation to cnform to your expectations for how it presents data.

Obviously then interpreting the data requires some understanding of the fact that it is not a list of daily doses rather it is a list of discrete snapshots of multiple daily doses.  It makes a huge difference wouldn't you say?
Oh, so all of this is just your inexpert "intepretation" of the data. Fine. I claim that my "interpretation" of the data proves unicorns exist. Now what?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 01:56:44 PM
Tim, I don't think you understand how this works.

The reality of Apollo has been proven to the satisfaction of all the world's experts in every relevant field.  Every single one, all over the world.  Therefore, when you are making claims counter to that, it is your obligation to show that you know what you're talking about.  Which, yes, means answering all questions.  And not necessarily having your own answered, because we are doing you the favour of assuming you're smart enough to figure things out on your own.

Further, let me explain a little about how "reasonable doubt" works.  The fact is, it is not reasonable to believe that your belief that a single thing doesn't work somehow proves that literally everything else was faked.  What is considerably more reasonable is that you don't know what you're talking about.  You have yet to explain why you believe that isn't the reasonable explanation.

And as for Cosmoquest?  Yeah, you were in violation of a whole bunch of rules there.  Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you set the rules for it.  Duh.
Contraire mon ami.  If I prove your car has never had an engine then do I subsequently need to prove that you did not drive your car across country?  You say But I arrived across country therefore it is proof that I did.  Really?  Is it?  As far as you doing me favors,  well perspective is everything.  I feel I am doing you all favors by haring a perspective that does not exist in the singularity of thought within the group.  I feel you guys should create a go fund me account to compensate me for the effort.  What do I know?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 01:58:33 PM
Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?

Why should there not be? 'Because I don't think there should be' is not an adequate answer. NASA is under no obligation to cnform to your expectations for how it presents data.

Obviously then interpreting the data requires some understanding of the fact that it is not a list of daily doses rather it is a list of discrete snapshots of multiple daily doses.  It makes a huge difference wouldn't you say?
Oh, so all of this is just your inexpert "intepretation" of the data. Fine. I claim that my "interpretation" of the data proves unicorns exist. Now what?

Let's leave the unicorns in your stable and stay on point.  How do you correctly interpret the CraTer Data to make it a meaningful depiction of daily dose?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2018, 02:01:33 PM
Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?

Why should there not be? 'Because I don't think there should be' is not an adequate answer. NASA is under no obligation to cnform to your expectations for how it presents data.

Obviously then interpreting the data requires some understanding of the fact that it is not a list of daily doses rather it is a list of discrete snapshots of multiple daily doses.  It makes a huge difference wouldn't you say?
Oh, so all of this is just your inexpert "intepretation" of the data. Fine. I claim that my "interpretation" of the data proves unicorns exist. Now what?

Let's leave the unicorns in your stable and stay on point.  How do you correctly interpret the CraTer Data to make it a meaningful depiction of daily dose?
Really? Prove that I do not have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. You cannot.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 02:03:49 PM
It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time.  I'd say it represents an hour.

If it represents one hour why is it in cGy/day? It is quite simply the estimated daily dose rate based on the radiation detected in that hour. This is not complex, but you insist on making it so.

Quote
if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?

Take an average, of course. Why would I do anything other than that?
I missed this one.

I am good with averaging the doses over a day angraphing out the resultan asand actual depictions of daily cislunar radiation.  There is that caveat about silicon correction that has yhet to be resolved but why are we playing with hamburger when the steak on the VAB table is awaiting dissection?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 14, 2018, 02:04:53 PM
I'd fund a hoax believer that was worth the time. One that had interesting and well-worked out arguments and one whose arguments evolved during discussion.

This is not a non sequitur. You last post on log graphs, you mentioned the necessity of the minor divisions. I agree; they make the data easier to read. But here's a question; what if I look close at the graph and the data point I want to read falls between two of the minor divisions? How do you read that one? Say, if on the paper I am using, there is 1 cm between the minor division at "2" and the one at "3." A data point sits at .5 cm above the "2." What is that number?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 02:05:17 PM
Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?

Why should there not be? 'Because I don't think there should be' is not an adequate answer. NASA is under no obligation to cnform to your expectations for how it presents data.

Obviously then interpreting the data requires some understanding of the fact that it is not a list of daily doses rather it is a list of discrete snapshots of multiple daily doses.  It makes a huge difference wouldn't you say?
Oh, so all of this is just your inexpert "intepretation" of the data. Fine. I claim that my "interpretation" of the data proves unicorns exist. Now what?

Let's leave the unicorns in your stable and stay on point.  How do you correctly interpret the CraTer Data to make it a meaningful depiction of daily dose?
Really? Prove that I do not have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. You cannot.
So you have nothing and have decided distraction is the only tool left in you arsenal.  Pity, I am embarrassed for you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2018, 02:06:28 PM
Now prove that my invisible pink unicorn is not emitting your suspect particles.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 02:07:43 PM
I'd fund a hoax believer that was worth the time. One that had interesting and well-worked out arguments and one whose arguments evolved during discussion.

This is not a non sequitur. You last post on log graphs, you mentioned the necessity of the minor divisions. I agree; they make the data easier to read. But here's a question; what if I look close at the graph and the data point I want to read falls between two of the minor divisions? How do you read that one? Say, if on the paper I am using, there is 1 cm between the minor division at "2" and the one at "3." A data point sits at .5 cm above the "2." What is that number?
Remember the it is logarithmic.  When dividing between minor graduation it is still logarithmic.  Halfway between marks is roughly a third.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2018, 02:08:06 PM
Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?

Why should there not be? 'Because I don't think there should be' is not an adequate answer. NASA is under no obligation to cnform to your expectations for how it presents data.

Obviously then interpreting the data requires some understanding of the fact that it is not a list of daily doses rather it is a list of discrete snapshots of multiple daily doses.  It makes a huge difference wouldn't you say?
Oh, so all of this is just your inexpert "intepretation" of the data. Fine. I claim that my "interpretation" of the data proves unicorns exist. Now what?

Let's leave the unicorns in your stable and stay on point.  How do you correctly interpret the CraTer Data to make it a meaningful depiction of daily dose?
Really? Prove that I do not have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. You cannot.
So you have nothing and have decided distraction is the only tool left in you arsenal.  Pity, I am embarrassed for you.
Nope just making clear that you have no clue. Can you disprove my IPU? Or can you not?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2018, 02:09:25 PM
I'd fund a hoax believer that was worth the time. One that had interesting and well-worked out arguments and one whose arguments evolved during discussion.

This is not a non sequitur. You last post on log graphs, you mentioned the necessity of the minor divisions. I agree; they make the data easier to read. But here's a question; what if I look close at the graph and the data point I want to read falls between two of the minor divisions? How do you read that one? Say, if on the paper I am using, there is 1 cm between the minor division at "2" and the one at "3." A data point sits at .5 cm above the "2." What is that number?
Remember the it is logarithmic.  When dividing between minor graduation it is still logarithmic.  Halfway between marks is roughly a third.
Lie. There is no such requirement as has been demonstrated in this very thread.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 02:09:56 PM
Now prove that my invisible pink unicorn is not emitting your suspect particles.
Will you stop already? This is serious business.  If you have nothing to contribute then spectate.  You are embarrassing yourself.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: JayUtah on April 14, 2018, 02:11:43 PM
Obvious troll is obvious.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 02:13:59 PM
Obvious troll is obvious.
Is everyone who disagrees with convention a troll?  Does not the data validate the assertion.  Have I not penetrated deep into the institutional programming?  Is it time to drop the mic on this one?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2018, 02:14:06 PM
Now prove that my invisible pink unicorn is not emitting your suspect particles.
Will you stop already? This is serious business.  If you have nothing to contribute then spectate.  You are embarrassing yourself.
Nope. There is an important point to be illustrate in this. You are incapable of disproving my IPU in my garage. Not only are you incapable, your are comically unaware why it matters.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 14, 2018, 02:14:14 PM
I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs.  You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter.  Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose.  There is no getting around the facts.  It can not have happened and therefore it didn't.  I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..
No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled.  No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2018, 02:20:15 PM
Obvious troll is obvious.
Is everyone who disagrees with convention a troll? 
No, just you.

Does not the data validate the assertion.
No, we have already established that you might as well be looking up a trouser leg.

Have I not penetrated deep into the institutional programming?
No, we have established that you are unable to penetrate an intellectual bag. Institutional programming is amusingingly rubbish, only people who have no education and are somehow jealous of that education invent that baloney.

  Is it time to drop the mic on this one?
Perhaps you should.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 02:21:06 PM
I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs.  You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter.  Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose.  There is no getting around the facts.  It can not have happened and therefore it didn't.  I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..
No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled.  No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
NASA considered two trajectories.  The first was a direct one straight through the heart of the VAB to the moon and the second one a translunar injection using a technique invented and proven by the Russians.  They determined the direct shot would actually receive the least radiation because the speed and time in the heart of the VAB would actually reduce overall exposure.  The Russian method spent more time in the VAB but was far more fuel efficient.  They opted for the the Russian method.  There is no secret safe passage.  Many pretend it is but they cannot document it.  Why would we send the Orion into the heart of the VAB if such a path had been discovered?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2018, 02:21:57 PM
I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs.  You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter.  Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose.  There is no getting around the facts.  It can not have happened and therefore it didn't.  I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..
No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled.  No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
Timfinch cannot fathom 3D spatial reasoning. We established that already.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 02:25:45 PM
Abaddon are you a government troll?  Is it your job  to act as a diversion, to distract the intelligent exchange of information and perspective?  What is your agenda here.  You are a negative component detracting from the overall good of friendly discourse.  Why the moderators remain silent is a source of interest to me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 14, 2018, 02:28:26 PM
I'd fund a hoax believer that was worth the time. One that had interesting and well-worked out arguments and one whose arguments evolved during discussion.

This is not a non sequitur. You last post on log graphs, you mentioned the necessity of the minor divisions. I agree; they make the data easier to read. But here's a question; what if I look close at the graph and the data point I want to read falls between two of the minor divisions? How do you read that one? Say, if on the paper I am using, there is 1 cm between the minor division at "2" and the one at "3." A data point sits at .5 cm above the "2." What is that number?
Remember the it is logarithmic.  When dividing between minor graduation it is still logarithmic.  Halfway between marks is roughly a third.
Lie. There is no such requirement as has been demonstrated in this very thread.

Or to be precise, it depends on whether you listen to most of the world, or what Tim was arguing earlier in the thread.

The weasel is still there. The graph is log, top to bottom. It would be so if you had no index lines large, small, proportional or log spaced, red or blue or blinking.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 14, 2018, 02:29:16 PM
I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs.  You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter.  Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose.  There is no getting around the facts.  It can not have happened and therefore it didn't.  I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..
No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled.  No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
Timfinch cannot fathom 3D spatial reasoning. We established that already.

For me, the jury is still out on 2D.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 02:31:33 PM
I recommend we take a breather from all this and consider the implication of the information we have unveiled.  It is a lot to digest.  I don't want it to be true but intellectual integrity places it's demands on me.  I had hoped that my suspicions would unravel under close scrutiny but alas, it has not.  I will spend the rest of the day trying to correct the CraTer Data into an actual record of daily doses.  Until tomorrow.  Be vigilant and never abandon your wingman logic.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 14, 2018, 02:33:13 PM
Tim, I don't think you understand how this works.

The reality of Apollo has been proven to the satisfaction of all the world's experts in every relevant field.  Every single one, all over the world.  Therefore, when you are making claims counter to that, it is your obligation to show that you know what you're talking about.  Which, yes, means answering all questions.  And not necessarily having your own answered, because we are doing you the favour of assuming you're smart enough to figure things out on your own.

Further, let me explain a little about how "reasonable doubt" works.  The fact is, it is not reasonable to believe that your belief that a single thing doesn't work somehow proves that literally everything else was faked.  What is considerably more reasonable is that you don't know what you're talking about.  You have yet to explain why you believe that isn't the reasonable explanation.

And as for Cosmoquest?  Yeah, you were in violation of a whole bunch of rules there.  Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you set the rules for it.  Duh.
Contraire mon ami.  If I prove your car has never had an engine then do I subsequently need to prove that you did not drive your car across country?  You say But I arrived across country therefore it is proof that I did.  Really?  Is it?  As far as you doing me favors,  well perspective is everything.  I feel I am doing you all favors by haring a perspective that does not exist in the singularity of thought within the group.  I feel you guys should create a go fund me account to compensate me for the effort.  What do I know?

First off, it's au contraire.  Second, I'm not your ami, even leaving aside that I'd be your amie.  Third, you're still wrong, and this kind of patronizing nonsense is why you got suspended in the first place.

You have not proven the car has no engine.  At absolute best, you have proved that you don't understand how fuel efficiency works.  I have shown you ticket stubs from attractions across the country with my fingerprints on them.  I have shown you date-stamped pictures of me in front of buildings there, and other people have taken pictures showing me from different angles that show I was there.  You haven't looked at my car.  You have claimed, without knowing anything about my engine, that I haven't stopped for gas often enough.  But you don't know what mileage my car gets or what route I took to get there.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2018, 02:34:29 PM
I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs.  You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter.  Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose.  There is no getting around the facts.  It can not have happened and therefore it didn't.  I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..
No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled.  No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
NASA considered two trajectories. 
Wrong. You think two because those are the only two that you have been instructed to consider by your masters.

The first was a direct one straight through the heart of the VAB to the moon
And what were the others? You don't know.

and the second one a translunar injection using a technique invented and proven by the Russians.  They determined the direct shot would actually receive the least radiation because the speed and time in the heart of the VAB would actually reduce overall exposure.
And Apollo somehow didn't know that because???

The Russian method spent more time in the VAB but was far more fuel efficient.  They opted for the the Russian method. 
All of a sudden, you are claiming that living beings actually can traverse the VAB.

There is no secret safe passage.
Nobody claimed there was. That was your claim. Are you now stating you lied?

Many pretend it is but they cannot document it.
Sure, apart from all of the documentation. If one ignores that then there is no documentation.

Why would we send the Orion into the heart of the VAB if such a path had been discovered?
Wow. You really can't work that out. According to your very own rules, Orion is clearly a fake.

I have a serious aversion to the extent of a rule against calling anyone a moron. Please do not make me break that rule.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 14, 2018, 02:39:25 PM
Abaddon are you a government troll?  Is it your job  to act as a diversion, to distract the intelligent exchange of information and perspective?  What is your agenda here.  You are a negative component detracting from the overall good of friendly discourse.  Why the moderators remain silent is a source of interest to me.

There is no friendly discourse, just your pompous posturing. The wide-eyed "who me?" shtick is as tedious as it is unoriginal and transparent.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 02:40:23 PM
I recommend we take a breather from all this and consider the implication of the information we have unveiled.

No you won't, you'll just hunt around for something else to throw at the wall in the hope it will stick.

Quote
I don't want it to be true but intellectual integrity places it's demands on me.

Absolute cobblers. You've done everything in your power to avoid saying you were wrong about anything. That is not integrity.

Quote
I will spend the rest of the day trying to correct the CraTer Data into an actual record of daily doses.

It doesn't need any conversion beyond what has already been done, namely averaging across the 24 readings for a single day. The units of the graph mean something, you just don't want that to be true because you'd have to admit you were wrong about the signifcance of the data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2018, 02:48:57 PM
I recommend we take a breather from all this and consider the implication of the information we have unveiled. 
Why? All that has been revealed is that you are clueless about Apollo. Why would we conspire with you to hide your ignorance?

It is a lot to digest. 
For you, perhaps, but you have revealed your ignorance of the subject matter. Why should anyone pander to that ignorance?

I don't want it to be true but intellectual integrity places it's demands on me.
You clearly have none. Why else would you be appealing for you proposed crank beliefs to be given a bye?

I had hoped that my suspicions would unravel under close scrutiny but alas, it has not.
They have.
I will spend the rest of the day trying to correct the CraTer Data into an actual record of daily doses.  Until tomorrow.
You can't, You have demonstrated that you can't. Your credibility is not a boomerang. It is not coming back.

Be vigilant and never abandon your wingman logic.
Sure. Cranks need to be exposed. We agree.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2018, 03:09:26 PM
Abaddon are you a government troll?  Is it your job  to act as a diversion, to distract the intelligent exchange of information and perspective?  What is your agenda here.  You are a negative component detracting from the overall good of friendly discourse.  Why the moderators remain silent is a source of interest to me.
Not American, don't live in America, don't have much contact with Americans.

I inhabit the other 95% of humanity. Is that the best you can up with? Insults based on BS? That is it? Sure, in the past, I have had copious contact with various Americans, and still do to an extent. Without exception, all of them agree that your contentions are full of it. Your own compadres agree that you contentions are nucky futs.  In fact, the only thing preventing  me concluding that the USA is a third world country ARE the sane americans that I know personally.

So go take a break for as long as you like. Your crank notions will remain crank notions no matter how long you wait.

And promoting such notions simply make your country seem like a dick. If the US faked it all, then everyone will think that the US is an abject liar. Is that what you want? You want to discredit the US and make it a pariah state? That is your goal?

Hardly seems like the action of a patriot, does it?

For me, it's thousands of miles away and is becoming increasingly irrelevant on a world stage. I understand that bends you out of shape, but I don't care. America does not matter anymore on a world stage. They could, but they have chosen not to. Not my problem.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2018, 03:21:12 PM
I recommend we take a breather from all this and consider the implication of the information we have unveiled.  It is a lot to digest.  I don't want it to be true but intellectual integrity places it's demands on me.  I had hoped that my suspicions would unravel under close scrutiny but alas, it has not.  I will spend the rest of the day trying to correct the CraTer Data into an actual record of daily doses.  Until tomorrow.  Be vigilant and never abandon your wingman logic.
You must be hating the Chinese doing a manned mission. and the Indians, and the japenese. That must really annoy you because  that will demonstrate the trajectory and all of a sudden you have nothing.
 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 03:26:43 PM
Abaddon are you a government troll?

I repeat my earlier question: which government? And why do you assume Abbadon (or any of us) have anything to do with that government?

Quote
Is it your job  to act as a diversion, to distract the intelligent exchange of information and perspective?

No-one has been distracted. There are dozens of pages of answers to all your questions.

Quote
Why the moderators remain silent is a source of interest to me.

Leaving aside the obvious implication, maybe it's because you've been back a day and perhaps the one single moderator on this privately-owned messageboard has other things to be doing with his time. Of course if he was here policing the board you'd accuse him of being a paid government shill because why else would he be spending so much time on a messageboard. Do you honestly think we haven't seen this all before?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 14, 2018, 03:34:44 PM
You have not proven the car has no engine.  At absolute best, you have proved that you don't understand how fuel efficiency works.  I have shown you ticket stubs from attractions across the country with my fingerprints on them.  I have shown you date-stamped pictures of me in front of buildings there, and other people have taken pictures showing me from different angles that show I was there.  You haven't looked at my car.  You have claimed, without knowing anything about my engine, that I haven't stopped for gas often enough.  But you don't know what mileage my car gets or what route I took to get there.
Thanks Gillian - an excellent analogy!

Tim is at the stage of having doubts about the receipts produced for buying fuel on the trip, despite having demonstrated no understanding of how a car engine works, or what the factory fuel efficency is for your model...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 14, 2018, 03:37:16 PM
...

How do you like me now?
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." </Mal>   ;D
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 14, 2018, 03:41:22 PM
I personally have 3 questions about tims maths. I mean the big maths bit a few pages back. he says 0.0001 per second but the graph says silican. what does this mean. also he says 4.5 hours but I believe it was 3.5 there and 2.5 back so that would make a difference. also he gets from 0.0001 to about 5 mgy. how does he do this. he multiplies by 3600 to get from seconds to hours and then by 4.5 for the hours but why does he times by 10 to get to mgy.

also he says 0.24 for GCR. am I correct in saying this is too high. also there does this 35% figure come from about the lunar radiation
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 04:07:04 PM
While creating my new Crater graph I ran across this bit of documentation that shows the silicon to water correction factor has indeed been added.  FYI.

# CRaTER (GCR+SEP) dose rates for individual and combined detectors
#    from 2009-06-26 DOY:177
# through 2017-03-26 DOY:085
#
# Columns are separated by a tab character.
# All dose rate units: cGy / day
# All dose rates have a silicon to water correction applied and are altitude corrected to the lunar surface.
#
# column_titles: Julian Date,Year,DOY,Year Fraction,H2O Factor,Altitude Factor,Good Event Factor,D1&2 dose rate,D3&4 dose rate,D5&6 dose rate,D1 dose rate,D2 dose rate,D3 dose rate,D4 dose rate,D5 dose rate,D6 dose rate
# column_units: ,,,,,,,cGy/day,cGy/day,cGy/day,cGy/day,cGy/day,cGy/day,cGy/day,cGy/day,cGy/day
# start_year: 2009
# start_doy: 177
# end_year: 2017
# end_doy: 085
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 04:15:31 PM
That would be the 'bit of documentation' that is right at the top of the data file you supposedly downloaded some time ago? Super sluething skills there....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 14, 2018, 04:24:02 PM
You have not proven the car has no engine.  At absolute best, you have proved that you don't understand how fuel efficiency works.  I have shown you ticket stubs from attractions across the country with my fingerprints on them.  I have shown you date-stamped pictures of me in front of buildings there, and other people have taken pictures showing me from different angles that show I was there.  You haven't looked at my car.  You have claimed, without knowing anything about my engine, that I haven't stopped for gas often enough.  But you don't know what mileage my car gets or what route I took to get there.
Thanks Gillian - an excellent analogy!

Tim is at the stage of having doubts about the receipts produced for buying fuel on the trip, despite having demonstrated no understanding of how a car engine works, or what the factory fuel efficency is for your model...

Thank you kindly!  To my mind, proving the car had no engine would be more like proving that the capsule couldn't have had enough fuel to get to the Moon and back, which of course would take quite a lot of understanding of engineering to get.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 04:28:17 PM
That would be the 'bit of documentation' that is right at the top of the data file you supposedly downloaded some time ago? Super sluething skills there....

It didn't transfer over to the excel sheet and was lost for a minute but I found it.  I did note that it eluded you for the better part of a day. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 04:30:22 PM
You have not proven the car has no engine.  At absolute best, you have proved that you don't understand how fuel efficiency works.  I have shown you ticket stubs from attractions across the country with my fingerprints on them.  I have shown you date-stamped pictures of me in front of buildings there, and other people have taken pictures showing me from different angles that show I was there.  You haven't looked at my car.  You have claimed, without knowing anything about my engine, that I haven't stopped for gas often enough.  But you don't know what mileage my car gets or what route I took to get there.
Thanks Gillian - an excellent analogy!

Tim is at the stage of having doubts about the receipts produced for buying fuel on the trip, despite having demonstrated no understanding of how a car engine works, or what the factory fuel efficency is for your model...

Thank you kindly!  To my mind, proving the car had no engine would be more like proving that the capsule couldn't have had enough fuel to get to the Moon and back, which of course would take quite a lot of understanding of engineering to get.

Car engine =Rocket engine.... Rocket fuel = Gasoline.  The ASVAB must have been a challenge for you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 04:33:03 PM
Averaging out the Crater Data to a daily average is proving a bit challenging.  Has anyone else accomplished this or does anyone have an algorithm to efficiently accomplish this?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 14, 2018, 04:40:45 PM
Averaging out the Crater Data to a daily average is proving a bit challenging.  Has anyone else accomplished this or does anyone have an algorithm to efficiently accomplish this?

Yay! You are starting to get it.

A coin is isolated. Toss a coin a hundred times, or a hundred coins one time, it's the same thing. Dice -- unless they are loaded -- all numbers occur with equal frequency.

But take for an example asteroids. Frequency maps to size; roughly, for every doubling in diameter you get 1/10 the number of them. So you can't strike a number through the center and call that meaningful. If you need to know aggregate weight per volume space then arithmetic average won't cut it.

The Crater data has patterns. It has an SD that is significantly higher than 1.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Valis on April 14, 2018, 04:46:21 PM
Averaging out the Crater Data to a daily average is proving a bit challenging.  Has anyone else accomplished this or does anyone have an algorithm to efficiently accomplish this?
That's trivial with any scripting. If you don't know how to do that, take in Excel in another column the sum of the day's hourly values divided by 24 (=SUM(B1:B24)/24 for example), and copy-paste that for every day in steps of 24.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 04:52:55 PM
Car engine =Rocket engine.... Rocket fuel = Gasoline.  The ASVAB must have been a challenge for you.

When you can figure out why there's a difference between the relationship between distance and fuel requirements of a land-based vehicle and a space-based vehicle you might begin to understand the point being made...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 04:54:19 PM
It didn't transfer over to the excel sheet and was lost for a minute but I found it.  I did note that it eluded you for the better part of a day. 

Did it? Sure about that are you? I asked you about it. That doesn't mean I didn't already happen to know it was there. Clearly I was wasting my time trying to lead you to see the problem with your original statement about it. Simple answers only from now on....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 04:58:39 PM
It didn't transfer over to the excel sheet and was lost for a minute but I found it.  I did note that it eluded you for the better part of a day. 

Did it? Sure about that are you? I asked you about it. That doesn't mean I didn't already happen to know it was there. Clearly I was wasting my time trying to lead you to see the problem with your original statement about it. Simple answers only from now on....
If you had known you would still be rubbing my nose in it.  What is wrong with intellectual integrity that you shun it so?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 05:00:55 PM
Averaging out the Crater Data to a daily average is proving a bit challenging.  Has anyone else accomplished this or does anyone have an algorithm to efficiently accomplish this?
That's trivial with any scripting. If you don't know how to do that, take in Excel in another column the sum of the day's hourly values divided by 24 (=SUM(B1:B24)/24 for example), and copy-paste that for every day in steps of 24.
There is almost 70 thousand entries and I was actually looking for something a bit more elegant but thank you for the attempt.  If you find this type of repetitive work thrilling then I will patiently wait to savor the fruits of your efforts.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 05:03:48 PM
Averaging out the Crater Data to a daily average is proving a bit challenging.  Has anyone else accomplished this or does anyone have an algorithm to efficiently accomplish this?

Yay! You are starting to get it.

A coin is isolated. Toss a coin a hundred times, or a hundred coins one time, it's the same thing. Dice -- unless they are loaded -- all numbers occur with equal frequency.

But take for an example asteroids. Frequency maps to size; roughly, for every doubling in diameter you get 1/10 the number of them. So you can't strike a number through the center and call that meaningful. If you need to know aggregate weight per volume space then arithmetic average won't cut it.

The Crater data has patterns. It has an SD that is significantly higher than 1.
You are trying to complicate a simple matter.  This is simply converting multiple reading taken during a day to a single daily equivalent.  Don't make this difficult.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 14, 2018, 05:50:26 PM
Car engine =Rocket engine.... Rocket fuel = Gasoline.  The ASVAB must have been a challenge for you.
Just out of interest, I had a look at a practice ASVAB test.  Honestly, there's less of a challenge in that than an average pub quiz...

There is almost 70 thousand entries and I was actually looking for something a bit more elegant but thank you for the attempt.  If you find this type of repetitive work thrilling then I will patiently wait to savor the fruits of your efforts.
Responding in kind - I guess learning to use Excel efficiently is a challenge for you...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 14, 2018, 05:55:17 PM
21.5 hours on the lunar surface
Distance to the moon:  238,900 mi
Length of VAB =37000 miles
Time to the moon: 
Translunar injection engine cutout 1:40:50
Lunar orbit insertion 63:23:27
Elapsed time:  61:43:37
Average rate of travel:  238900 miles/ 61.76666 hours = 3870.92 miles/hour
We know that Apollo 11 entered the TLI at 24200 mph @ 12:22
We know that 2 hrs. and 32 minutes later it had traveled 22000 miles
22000/2.53 hrs. = an average speed of 8695.65 mph.
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long
22000/37000 = 59.5% of the VAB had been crossed
After 2.53 hours the Apollo 11 was traveling 12,914 feet per second.
12914 ft/sec * 3600sec/hr * 1 mile/5280 ft = 8805 mph
37000-22000 =15000 miles of VAB left to travel @ 8805 mph slowing
15000 miles/8805/miles/hr = 1.7 hrs plus 2.53 hours = 4.23 hours but let’s round it to 4.30 because the Apollo was in constant deceleration throughout the VAB transit.
Now the lowest radiation area in all of the VAB is the blue region which is .0001 rad/sec
.0001 rad/sec * 4.5 hrs * 3600 sec/hr * 10 mgy/rad = 5.22 mgy
5.22 mgy/8days = 0.6525 mgy/day
Now if we assume GCR of .24 mg/day and lunar radiation raises that 35% then 1.35* .24 mg/day = .324 mg/day for 2 days lunar orbit and 1 day on the surface or 3 days.
.324 mg/day * 3 days = .972 mgy
.972 mgy from lunar orbit and lunar landing plus 5.22 mgy from VAB transit plus 5.22 mgy return transit through the VAB = 11.412 mgy
11.412 mgy/8.33 days = 1.369 or as I originally said a full magnitude less than it should be.

https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/apollo11_log/log.htm

It really is amusing how you don't understand much beyond basic physics and math.  The spacecraft will be travelling at its fastest during its transit through the VAB's, after its TLI burn, then slowly decelerating until it reached the Earth/Moon Lagrangian point.  You cannot use the average to determine the speed at any specific point, but I hold no hope that you will get this, as you probably still do not understand how averages work.  So, to be crystal clear, from your own reference contained in the above quote:

"12:22 p.m.- Another firing of the third-stage engine, still attached to the command service module, boosts Apollo 11 out of orbit midway in its second trip around the Earth and onto its lunar trajectory at an initial speed of 24,200 miles an hour."

You also omitted the fact that the radiation levels you used for the blue portion(s) of the VABs is for UNSHIELDED people/detectors, and the lower the energies of the electrons (the lowest of which are the ones seen in the blue portions of the illustration), the higher the attenuation rate of the shielding in the Apollo spacecraft (meaning MUCH lower doses to the astronauts).

So, in essence, you provided more numbers, but indicate you don't understand their significance and you have erroneously assumed factors that are completely off-base for accurate calculations.  Therefor, your entire worksheet above is an immaterial labor.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 14, 2018, 06:02:29 PM
All I know is every attempt to get the information I have discerned out is resisted.

Is it resistance to correct someone that repeatedly insists that 2 + 2 = 5? Are we wrong to not be swayed by your incorrect interpretation of the radiation data?

Quote
My voice is silenced for unfounded an unjust reasons.  The universal claim "He was trolling" seems to be the excuse de Jour.  If disagreeing with the mainstream herd is trolling then I will always be guilty of that crime.

I see two possibilities. Either you're misinterpreting the data and very stubbornly resisting our attempts to show you your error; or you don't really believe what you're saying and you're only saying it to provoke a negative response from us.

Being stubborn in your ignorance is frustrating to us, for sure, but as long as no ill will is intended it won't get you banned. I certainly wouldn't be proud of it if I were you though.

But coming here with the intention to provoke anger or any other negative response is trolling. It will get you banned, and I don't really care if it gets you a merit badge in your little troll club.

This forum has been around for almost 20 years now. We have encountered conspiracy theorists with far more talent than you in that time, and not a single one of them has ever been banned because their claims were too challenging or dangerous for us to allow. In all of that time I have not deleted a single post that was on the topic of the Apollo hoax theory.

So far you have made over 580 posts. If I was as scared of your flawed little theory as you think I am you'd have been gone long ago. Get over yourself. You're here, you've said a whole lot of nothing, and the only take away is that you can't read a graph.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 14, 2018, 06:03:21 PM
You have not proven the car has no engine.

He thinks he has, because he looked in the trunk.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 14, 2018, 06:05:52 PM
Everything NASA claims that man accomplished on the moon can be and has been accomplished on unmanned lunar missions.

Who developed the hardware used on these alleged unmanned missions? When and where were they tested? When were they launched? When did they return. Show me a photograph of the hardware.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 06:06:51 PM
21.5 hours on the lunar surface
Distance to the moon:  238,900 mi
Length of VAB =37000 miles
Time to the moon: 
Translunar injection engine cutout 1:40:50
Lunar orbit insertion 63:23:27
Elapsed time:  61:43:37
Average rate of travel:  238900 miles/ 61.76666 hours = 3870.92 miles/hour
We know that Apollo 11 entered the TLI at 24200 mph @ 12:22
We know that 2 hrs. and 32 minutes later it had traveled 22000 miles
22000/2.53 hrs. = an average speed of 8695.65 mph.
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long
22000/37000 = 59.5% of the VAB had been crossed
After 2.53 hours the Apollo 11 was traveling 12,914 feet per second.
12914 ft/sec * 3600sec/hr * 1 mile/5280 ft = 8805 mph
37000-22000 =15000 miles of VAB left to travel @ 8805 mph slowing
15000 miles/8805/miles/hr = 1.7 hrs plus 2.53 hours = 4.23 hours but let’s round it to 4.30 because the Apollo was in constant deceleration throughout the VAB transit.
Now the lowest radiation area in all of the VAB is the blue region which is .0001 rad/sec
.0001 rad/sec * 4.5 hrs * 3600 sec/hr * 10 mgy/rad = 5.22 mgy
5.22 mgy/8days = 0.6525 mgy/day
Now if we assume GCR of .24 mg/day and lunar radiation raises that 35% then 1.35* .24 mg/day = .324 mg/day for 2 days lunar orbit and 1 day on the surface or 3 days.
.324 mg/day * 3 days = .972 mgy
.972 mgy from lunar orbit and lunar landing plus 5.22 mgy from VAB transit plus 5.22 mgy return transit through the VAB = 11.412 mgy
11.412 mgy/8.33 days = 1.369 or as I originally said a full magnitude less than it should be.

https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/apollo11_log/log.htm

It really is amusing how you don't understand much beyond basic physics and math.  The spacecraft will be travelling at its fastest during its transit through the VAB's, after its TLI burn, then slowly decelerating until it reached the Earth/Moon Lagrangian point.  You cannot use the average to determine the speed at any specific point, but I hold no hope that you will get this, as you probably still do not understand how averages work.  So, to be crystal clear, from your own reference contained in the above quote:

"12:22 p.m.- Another firing of the third-stage engine, still attached to the command service module, boosts Apollo 11 out of orbit midway in its second trip around the Earth and onto its lunar trajectory at an initial speed of 24,200 miles an hour."

You also omitted the fact that the radiation levels you used for the blue portion(s) of the VABs is for UNSHIELDED people/detectors, and the lower the energies of the electrons (the lowest of which are the ones seen in the blue portions of the illustration), the higher the attenuation rate of the shielding in the Apollo spacecraft (meaning MUCH lower doses to the astronauts).

So, in essence, you provided more numbers, but indicate you don't understand their significance and you have erroneously assumed factors that are completely off-base for accurate calculations.  Therefor, your entire worksheet above is an immaterial labor.

We know that Apollo 11 entered the TLI at 24200 mph @ 12:22
We know that 2 hrs. and 32 minutes later it had traveled 22000 miles
22000/2.53 hrs. = an average speed of 8695.65 mph.
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long
22000/37000 = 59.5% of the VAB had been crossed
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 06:08:20 PM
Everything NASA claims that man accomplished on the moon can be and has been accomplished on unmanned lunar missions.

Who developed the hardware used on these alleged unmanned missions? When and where were they tested? When were they launched? When did they return. Show me a photograph of the hardware.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 06:09:59 PM
Everything NASA claims that man accomplished on the moon can be and has been accomplished on unmanned lunar missions.

Who developed the hardware used on these alleged unmanned missions? When and where were they tested? When were they launched? When did they return. Show me a photograph of the hardware.

Where do I start?  We know the Russians and the Chinese both have landed rovers on the moon and retrieved samples.  We know the Americans have claimed to do as much.  Did you want something more specific?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 14, 2018, 06:13:45 PM
We know the Russians and the Chinese both have landed rovers on the moon and retrieved samples.

Not 840lbs. of it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 14, 2018, 06:16:34 PM
Who developed the hardware used on these alleged unmanned missions? When and where were they tested? When were they launched? When did they return. Show me a photograph of the hardware.

Where do I start?

You know what? Don't bother. I don't want to sidetrack you from the radiation discussion until that is resolved. Stay on topic.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 06:16:52 PM
We know that Apollo 11 entered the TLI at 24200 mph @ 12:22...

You are aware that the CM had a surface density of 8 g cm-2. Now, what was the variation in flux with energy for the outer electrons in the outer belts again? I don't believe you accounted for the performance of the CM materials against this flux profile in your calculations. Please add that information.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 14, 2018, 06:19:46 PM
Is anyone keeping score?  It seems like I am winning.  Am I winning?

Umm... is that you, Mr. Trump? You seem to have a skewed interpretation of what it means to be winning.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 06:21:42 PM
We know that Apollo 11 entered the TLI at 24200 mph @ 12:22...

You are aware that the CM had a surface density of 8 g cm-2. Now, what was the variation in flux with energy for the outer electrons in the outer belts again? I don't believe you accounted for the performance of the CM materials against this flux profile in your calculations. Please add that information.
Do I need remind all involved that I forego including all but the lowest of radiations of the VAB.  You can look for kernels in that turd if you choose but you have to realize if the lowest radiations produce an exposure rate 6 times as high as the reported dose then anything else is simply adding fuel to a raging fire.  Know when to say "No".
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 06:22:39 PM
Is anyone keeping score?  It seems like I am winning.  Am I winning?

Umm... is that you, Mr. Trump? You seem to have a skewed interpretation of what it means to be winning.
I am easily confused but didn't Trump win the presidential race?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 06:26:17 PM
Do I need remind all involved that I forego including all but the lowest of radiations of the VAB.

You need to understand that the outer belts, where Apollo traversed is mainly electrons. The values you cite are unprotected doses.

Can you please explain how well the 8 g cm-2 will perform against the electrons in the electron flux for different electron energies?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 14, 2018, 06:26:54 PM
We know that Apollo 11 entered the TLI at 24200 mph @ 12:22...

You are aware that the CM had a surface density of 8 g cm-2. Now, what was the variation in flux with energy for the outer electrons in the outer belts again? I don't believe you accounted for the performance of the CM materials against this flux profile in your calculations. Please add that information.
Do I need remind all involved that I forego including all but the lowest of radiations of the VAB.  You can look for kernels in that turd if you choose but you have to realize if the lowest radiations produce an exposure rate 6 times as high as the reported dose then anything else is simply adding fuel to a raging fire.  Know when to say "No".

yes but as MBDK has stated you are comparing apples and sausages again. the 0.0001 figure you state was collected from unshielded technology. the Apollo vehicles were not unshielded
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 06:27:00 PM
You guys took a lot out of me today.  I had intended to tackle that CraTer data but I find myself unmotivated and easily distracted.  How about we tackle some other mystery that troubles mankind.  I can bring my Sherlock Holmes like intellect to bear on it and we can solve it like we did the Lunar Hoax.  What have you got?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 06:27:43 PM
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long

Along the geomagentic equator maybe, but as you have been told and shown repeatedly, the Apollo spacecraft did not take that route (indeed it was virtually impossible for it to do so due to the different inclinations ot the orbit and the geomagentic plane) so why do you think using the full thickness of the belt is valid?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 06:28:47 PM
Do I need remind all involved that I forego including all but the lowest of radiations of the VAB.

You need to understand that the outer belts, where Apollo traversed is mainly electrons. The values you cite are unprotected doses.

Can you please explain how well the 8 g cm-2 will perform against the electrons in the electron flux for different electron energies?
I'm sorry but is the Outer VAb entirely consisting of electrons?  I din't know that.  Even a genius like me can learn something.  Reference?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2018, 06:29:09 PM
You guys took a lot out of me today.  I had intended to tackle that CraTer data but I find myself unmotivated and easily distracted.  How about we tackle some other mystery that troubles mankind.  I can bring my Sherlock Holmes like intellect to bear on it and we can solve it like we did the Lunar Hoax.  What have you got?

Again, obvious trolling. I would love to know what motivates you to pull this kind of crap. You're clearly not interested in any kind of truth.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 14, 2018, 06:29:55 PM
I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs.  You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter.  Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose.  There is no getting around the facts.  It can not have happened and therefore it didn't.  I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..
No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled.  No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
NASA considered two trajectories.  The first was a direct one straight through the heart of the VAB to the moon and the second one a translunar injection using a technique invented and proven by the Russians.  They determined the direct shot would actually receive the least radiation because the speed and time in the heart of the VAB would actually reduce overall exposure.  The Russian method spent more time in the VAB but was far more fuel efficient.  They opted for the the Russian method.  There is no secret safe passage.  Many pretend it is but they cannot document it.  Why would we send the Orion into the heart of the VAB if such a path had been discovered?

Red herring.  Besides you have already been informed why the Orion trajectory was not the same as Apollo's general trajectory.  You really don't understand anything concerning orbital mechanics.  The Russians didn't "invent" any trajectory it is all in the mathematics.
Apollo's trajectory was to skirt the more intense areas of the VARB, look at the image you plotted the 2 dimensional representation of the 3 dimensional torus.  You can see for your self that the trajectory was a the edges and did not go through the whole VARB.  Not 4.5 hrs. but around 2 hrs. as Bob B. indicated in his computations, you're what, I think Jay coined the phrase, willfully ignorant.  The data is there you either refuse to accept it or hand wave it away.

Now for your calculation please, show your work as Bob did.

Edited to correct spelling
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 06:30:30 PM
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long

Along the geomagentic equator maybe, but as you have been told and shown repeatedly, the Apollo spacecraft did not take that route (indeed it was virtually impossible for it to do so due to the different inclinations ot the orbit and the geomagentic plane) so why do you think using the full thickness of the belt is valid?
Actually a good question.  I used it because we all know the VAB expansds thousands of miles during Solar max and not having any reference I thought it a fairly conservative estimate.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 06:32:26 PM
You guys took a lot out of me today.

There wasn't much to take in the first place. Please, save us from your delusions of grandeur; your smugness doesn't escape the fact that you couldn't read a graph in the first place and are back pedalling faster that a nuclear submarine electrician who waded into the deep water when the hull sprung a leak, and is now shouting 'don't panic!' at the top of his voice... oh wait...

Now, the CM was shielded at 8 g cm-2. Please explain how the energies of the electrons in the outer VAB are distributed across the energies, say from 0.5 MeV - 20 MeV.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 06:32:53 PM
I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs.  You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter.  Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose.  There is no getting around the facts.  It can not have happened and therefore it didn't.  I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..
No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled.  No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
NASA considered two trajectories.  The first was a direct one straight through the heart of the VAB to the moon and the second one a translunar injection using a technique invented and proven by the Russians.  They determined the direct shot would actually receive the least radiation because the speed and time in the heart of the VAB would actually reduce overall exposure.  The Russian method spent more time in the VAB but was far more fuel efficient.  They opted for the the Russian method.  There is no secret safe passage.  Many pretend it is but they cannot document it.  Why would we send the Orion into the heart of the VAB if such a path had been discovered?

Red herring.  Besides you have already been informed why the Orion trajectory was not the same as Apollo's general trajectory.  You really don't understand anything concerning orbital mechanics.  The Russians didn't "invent" sny trajectory it is all in the mathematics.
Apollo's trajectory was to skirt the more intense areas of the VARB, look at the image you plotted the 2 dimensional representation of the 3 dimensional torus.  You can see for your self that the trajectory was a the edges and did not go through the whole VARB.  Not 4.5 hrs. but around 2 hrs. as Bob B. indicated in his computations, you're what, I think Jay coined the phrase, willfully ignorant.  The data is there you either refuse to accept it or hand wave it away.

Now for your calculation please, show your work as Bob did.
Just glancing through the threads are you.  Try a more detailed approach Johnny come lately. I already posted the math for the inquisitive.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 14, 2018, 06:33:32 PM
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long

Along the geomagentic equator maybe, but as you have been told and shown repeatedly, the Apollo spacecraft did not take that route (indeed it was virtually impossible for it to do so due to the different inclinations ot the orbit and the geomagentic plane) so why do you think using the full thickness of the belt is valid?
Actually a good question.  I used it because we all know the VAB expansds thousands of miles during Solar max and not having any reference I thought it a fairly conservative estimate.

Jason with regard to this 37000 figure do you know of a 3d picture or chat which shows the 3d path the vehicles took to transverse the edges. I have seen many 2d's but not 3d
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 06:36:06 PM
You need to understand that the outer belts, where Apollo traversed is mainly electrons. The values you cite are unprotected doses.
I'm sorry but is the Outer VAb entirely consisting of electrons?  I din't know that.  Even a genius like me can learn something.  Reference?

I didn't say entirely, I said mainly. See what you did there, you tried to change my words? Why did you change my words?

The main issue in the outer belts are the electron. The inner belts, is where there is a higher flux of high energy protons. Now what is the flux of those pesky electrons, versus their energy?

Do you also accept that you need to account for the shielding of the CM?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 14, 2018, 06:40:26 PM
Is anyone keeping score?  It seems like I am winning.  Am I winning?

Umm... is that you, Mr. Trump? You seem to have a skewed interpretation of what it means to be winning.
I am easily confused but didn't Trump win the presidential race?

Yes, you are easily confused. Especially by graphs.

And Trump did not win in the way that matters. He won because the United States has the Electoral College... which is basically like a sports handicap for politicians who can't win otherwise. It's like me beating Michael Jordan at basketball... but only because every ball I get in the net is worth 1000 points while his are worth 1. But that's off topic, so I'll slap myself on the wrist and stop now.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 06:41:35 PM
You guys took a lot out of me today.

There wasn't much to take in the first place. Please, save us from your delusions of grandeur; your smugness doesn't escape the fact that you couldn't read a graph in the first place and are back pedalling faster that a nuclear submarine electrician who waded into the deep water when the hull sprung a leak, and is now shouting 'don't panic!' at the top of his voice... oh wait...

Now, the CM was shielded at 8 g cm-2. Please explain how the energies of the electrons in the outer VAB are distributed across the energies, say from 0.5 MeV - 20 MeV.

Why do you persist with this fabrication about graphs.  It took you two full days to grasp the significance of logarithmic scaling and why the graduations are essential in interpreting the graph.  You are trying to hide behind you bluster and I am not fooled.  Let it go, I did.  We all need an occasional tune up.  This was yours.  Why concentrate on electrons when the share territory with protons?  You know what would silence the peanut gallery?  You providing contrary readings that show a transit through the van allen belts can be in less than oh, say .01 mgy/day because if you can't then no amount of distraction can hide the fact that apollo claimed it did amidst a GCR background greater than tow and a lunar radiation level 30 % higher.  Pardner this is going to hurt because some serious anal extraction is required.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 06:44:02 PM
I'm sorry but is the Outer VAB entirely consisting of electrons?  I didn't know that.  Even a genius like me can learn something. 

You are here talking about the finer nuances of radiation in space, and you didn't know the outer belts is mainly electrons. You didn't know that? I never thought I'd speak in a positive manner about Jarrah White, but Jarrah understands this. At least the bloke has gone out to understand the basics of the belts.

Quote
Reference?

Please, don't come here asking me to give you reference about the most basic facts regarding the van Allen belts while simultaneously arguing that the provide an insurmountable barrier. If you don't know about the structure of the belts how can you talk about them, in any meaningful way? Go out and do some research, I'm not here to do that for you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 14, 2018, 06:45:11 PM
I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs.  You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter.  Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose.  There is no getting around the facts.  It can not have happened and therefore it didn't.  I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..
No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled.  No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
NASA considered two trajectories.  The first was a direct one straight through the heart of the VAB to the moon and the second one a translunar injection using a technique invented and proven by the Russians.  They determined the direct shot would actually receive the least radiation because the speed and time in the heart of the VAB would actually reduce overall exposure.  The Russian method spent more time in the VAB but was far more fuel efficient.  They opted for the the Russian method.  There is no secret safe passage.  Many pretend it is but they cannot document it.  Why would we send the Orion into the heart of the VAB if such a path had been discovered?

Red herring.  Besides you have already been informed why the Orion trajectory was not the same as Apollo's general trajectory.  You really don't understand anything concerning orbital mechanics.  The Russians didn't "invent" sny trajectory it is all in the mathematics.
Apollo's trajectory was to skirt the more intense areas of the VARB, look at the image you plotted the 2 dimensional representation of the 3 dimensional torus.  You can see for your self that the trajectory was a the edges and did not go through the whole VARB.  Not 4.5 hrs. but around 2 hrs. as Bob B. indicated in his computations, you're what, I think Jay coined the phrase, willfully ignorant.  The data is there you either refuse to accept it or hand wave it away.

Now for your calculation please, show your work as Bob did.
Just glancing through the threads are you.  Try a more detailed approach Johnny come lately. I already posted the math for the inquisitive.

No radiation computations, try to stay up with me.  And use the correct time and it isn't 4.5 hrs.  Tell you what read Bob" page again tonight, it might give you some ideas/leads.  And look at the 3'd video of the trajectory.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 06:45:15 PM
Is anyone keeping score?  It seems like I am winning.  Am I winning?

Umm... is that you, Mr. Trump? You seem to have a skewed interpretation of what it means to be winning.
I am easily confused but didn't Trump win the presidential race?

Yes, you are easily confused. Especially by graphs.

And Trump did not win in the way that matters. He won because the United States has the Electoral College... which is basically like a sports handicap for politicians who can't win otherwise. It's like me beating Michael Jordan at basketball... but only because every ball I get in the net is worth 1000 points while his are worth 1. But that's off topic, so I'll slap myself on the wrist and stop now.
I feel your pain.  I was the same way about George Bush.  I resorted to recreational pharmaceuticals, alcohol and ************.  The ************ really helped a lot.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 14, 2018, 06:45:27 PM

We know that 2 hrs. and 32 minutes later it had traveled 22000 miles


Wrong.  We know that it was 22,000 NAUTICAL miles in a straight line from Earth (that's just over 25,000 statute miles), but Apollo traveled in an arc, so actual distance traveled was greater.  I point this out to show that you still cannot seem to comprehend the actualities of your data.



We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long

We also know that Apollo 11 didn't travel anywhere near the entire breadth of the belts, so that number cannot be used for accurate calculations, either.  You also haven't addressed how the shielding of the spacecraft radically lowers the exposure for the astronauts.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 06:48:08 PM
Why concentrate on electrons when the share territory with protons?

... because the Apollo craft followed a trajectory that skirted the outer belts. The main flux in the outer belts are due to electrons. It's a bit like someone firing 1000 paintballs at you, 999 are green and 1 are red. The electrons are the green ones.

Now, how does the shielding perform against the electron flux at the electron energies that are relevant to the problem? You need to perform an integrated flux attenuated against shielding at 8 g cm-2.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 06:49:33 PM
I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs.  You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter.  Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose.  There is no getting around the facts.  It can not have happened and therefore it didn't.  I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..
No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled.  No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
NASA considered two trajectories.  The first was a direct one straight through the heart of the VAB to the moon and the second one a translunar injection using a technique invented and proven by the Russians.  They determined the direct shot would actually receive the least radiation because the speed and time in the heart of the VAB would actually reduce overall exposure.  The Russian method spent more time in the VAB but was far more fuel efficient.  They opted for the the Russian method.  There is no secret safe passage.  Many pretend it is but they cannot document it.  Why would we send the Orion into the heart of the VAB if such a path had been discovered?

Red herring.  Besides you have already been informed why the Orion trajectory was not the same as Apollo's general trajectory.  You really don't understand anything concerning orbital mechanics.  The Russians didn't "invent" sny trajectory it is all in the mathematics.
Apollo's trajectory was to skirt the more intense areas of the VARB, look at the image you plotted the 2 dimensional representation of the 3 dimensional torus.  You can see for your self that the trajectory was a the edges and did not go through the whole VARB.  Not 4.5 hrs. but around 2 hrs. as Bob B. indicated in his computations, you're what, I think Jay coined the phrase, willfully ignorant.  The data is there you either refuse to accept it or hand wave it away.

Now for your calculation please, show your work as Bob did.
Just glancing through the threads are you.  Try a more detailed approach Johnny come lately. I already posted the math for the inquisitive.

No radiation computations, try to stay up with me.  And use the correct time and it isn't 4.5 hrs.  Tell you what read Bob" page again tonight, it might give you some ideas/leads.  And look at the 3'd video of the trajectory.
I explained this to those that were on time to class already.  The VAB expands during solar maximums by thousands of miles and even a third ring is created.  I thought it a conservative estimate to simply use the the stated size of 37000 miles for computation.  If I had access to better data I could accomplish miracles considering my mental acumen is exceptionally great and I stayedd at a Holiday Express once.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 06:49:59 PM
The ************ really helped a lot.

Looking at your posts, I'm assuming that is was verbal ************?

Is this an attempt at moderation suicide I see before me?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 14, 2018, 06:50:29 PM
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long

Along the geomagentic equator maybe, but as you have been told and shown repeatedly, the Apollo spacecraft did not take that route (indeed it was virtually impossible for it to do so due to the different inclinations ot the orbit and the geomagentic plane) so why do you think using the full thickness of the belt is valid?
Actually a good question.  I used it because we all know the VAB expansds thousands of miles during Solar max and not having any reference I thought it a fairly conservative estimate.

Jason with regard to this 37000 figure do you know of a 3d picture or chat which shows the 3d path the vehicles took to transverse the edges. I have seen many 2d's but not 3d

Ben here is the video
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 06:53:50 PM
I explained this to those that were on time to class already.  The VAB expands during solar maximums by thousands of miles and even a third ring is created.

Ring? Do you mean torus. See the difference between me being able to visualise in 3D and you default to 2D?

There's even a suggestion that the second torus is made of two smaller belts, if I recall the literature correctly. Oh, see what I did there. I referred to literature as I'm a little bit of an expert in this area. You on the other hand didn't even know the outer belts mainly consist of electrons. That is lamentable.

So how did the CM hull perform against the electrons in the outer belt for different energies across the flux? I'll give you an helping hand, you're going to have to perform an integrated flux calculation here.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 06:54:50 PM
Why concentrate on electrons when the share territory with protons?

... because the Apollo craft followed a trajectory that skirted the outer belts. The main flux in the outer belts are due to electrons. It's a bit like someone firing 1000 paintballs at you, 999 are green and 1 are red. The electrons are the green ones.

Now, how does the shielding perform against the electron flux at the electron energies that are relevant to the problem? You need to perform an integrated flux attenuated against shielding at 8 g cm-2.
I am not the brightest candle in the candelera ( yes I am but I am trying to be modest) but the TLI is an elliptical orbit somewhere around 30% off the equatorial plane or 15% if you are using the lunar plane so realizing this elliptical orbit would be like slicing diagonally through the proverbial donut, just exactly how do you think they "Skirted" the VAB?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 14, 2018, 06:57:43 PM
...
I explained this to those that were on time to class already.  The VAB expands during solar maximums by thousands of miles and even a third ring is created.  I thought it a conservative estimate to simply use the the stated size of 37000 miles for computation.  If I had access to better data I could accomplish miracles considering my mental acumen is exceptionally great and I stayedd at a Holiday Express once.

Where is there any radiation computations and quit being condescending to me, I don't appreciate it. 

It matters not that you show the VARB expands with solar maximums, Apollo DID NOT TRAVEL the width of the belts, they skirt it, remember the video, remember the 2-D image you posted showing their path?  The craft was outside the VARB after about 2 hours, come to grips with reality not your fantasy land ideas.
Now show your radiation computations.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 14, 2018, 07:00:36 PM
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long

Along the geomagentic equator maybe, but as you have been told and shown repeatedly, the Apollo spacecraft did not take that route (indeed it was virtually impossible for it to do so due to the different inclinations ot the orbit and the geomagentic plane) so why do you think using the full thickness of the belt is valid?
Actually a good question.  I used it because we all know the VAB expansds thousands of miles during Solar max and not having any reference I thought it a fairly conservative estimate.

Jason with regard to this 37000 figure do you know of a 3d picture or chat which shows the 3d path the vehicles took to transverse the edges. I have seen many 2d's but not 3d

Ben here is the video



brill thanks for that
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 07:01:11 PM
I am not the brightest candle in the candelera ( yes I am but I am trying to be modest) but the TLI is an elliptical orbit somewhere around 30% off the equatorial plane or 15% if you are using the lunar plane so realizing this elliptical orbit would be like slicing diagonally through the proverbial donut, just exactly how do you think they "Skirted" the VAB?

The point is that the Apollo craft did not pass through the most intense inner proton regions. It passed through the outer belt which is mainly populated electrons, which you have only just found out if I recall.

Now, how did the hull perform against the electrons across the range of energies for different electron fluxes? You cannot cite the unshielded dose.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 14, 2018, 07:01:23 PM
I explained this to those that were on time to class already.  The VAB expands during solar maximums by thousands of miles and even a third ring is created.

Ring? Do you mean torus. See the difference between me being able to visualise in 3D and you default to 2D?

There's even a suggestion that the second torus is made of two smaller belts, if I recall the literature correctly. Oh, see what I did there. I referred to literature as I'm a little bit of an expert in this area. You on the other hand didn't even know the outer belts mainly consist of electrons. That is lamentable.

So how did the CM hull perform against the electrons in the outer belt for different energies across the flux? I'll give you an helping hand, you're going to have to perform an integrated flux calculation here.

Nice catch Luke I completely looked over that part.  I've been attempting to get it across to tim that A11 was out of the second torus by about 2 hours, not the 4.5 he keeps trying to invent, but you know that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 07:01:49 PM
I explained this to those that were on time to class already.  The VAB expands during solar maximums by thousands of miles and even a third ring is created.

Ring? Do you mean torus. See the difference between me being able to visualise in 3D and you default to 2D?

There's even a suggestion that the second torus is made of two smaller belts, if I recall the literature correctly. Oh, see what I did there. I referred to literature as I'm a little bit of an expert in this area. You on the other hand didn't even know the outer belts mainly consist of electrons. That is lamentable.

So how did the CM hull perform against the electrons in the outer belt for different energies across the flux? I'll give you an helping hand, you're going to have to perform an integrated flux calculation here.
Allow my little Friend at NASA help you with the math.  They did this for children so I am fully confident that you will have no problems with it.  We can use NASA's figures if you like or your personal ones if it makes you feel any better.  https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/3Page7.pdf
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 14, 2018, 07:03:09 PM
Is anyone keeping score?  It seems like I am winning.  Am I winning?

Umm... is that you, Mr. Trump? You seem to have a skewed interpretation of what it means to be winning.
I am easily confused but didn't Trump win the presidential race?

Yes, you are easily confused. Especially by graphs.

And Trump did not win in the way that matters. He won because the United States has the Electoral College... which is basically like a sports handicap for politicians who can't win otherwise. It's like me beating Michael Jordan at basketball... but only because every ball I get in the net is worth 1000 points while his are worth 1. But that's off topic, so I'll slap myself on the wrist and stop now.
I feel your pain.  I was the same way about George Bush.  I resorted to recreational pharmaceuticals, alcohol and ************.  The ************ really helped a lot.

If you continue making crude comments like that you will be banned.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 07:03:47 PM
Allow my little Friend at NASA help you with the math.  They did this for children so I am fully confident that you will have no problems with it.  We can use NASA's figures if you like or your personal ones if it makes you feel any better.

Is this the one you used a CosmoQuest, counting the squares?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 14, 2018, 07:04:43 PM
If I had access to better data I could accomplish miracles considering my mental acumen is exceptionally great and I stayedd at a Holiday Express once.

What you consider mental acumen, has been shown to be more mental "inaccu-meh".  Now, please address the effect of Apollo shielding during its VAB journey. 

I also want you to examine the lens dose behind 0.22 g/cm2 Al  on graph of figure 2 from http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf for the dose expected during the Apollo missions.  And before you make some ignorant complaint about why I chose that dose data, I am including THIS quote from that reference:

"The lens dose behind 0.22 g/cm2 Al is an excellent proxy for the combined dose from the D1-D2 detector [Spence et al., 2010] of the CRaTER instrument.  Calculation of the dose is detailed in Appendix A"
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 07:08:56 PM
If you continue making crude comments like that you will be banned.

If need be I apologise for responding to it and my comment above it being verbal. My quote was based on an old Marillion song. In the context of my reply it's another term for describing double speak and the evasion of the point we are seeing here.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 14, 2018, 07:11:41 PM
I explained this to those that were on time to class already.  The VAB expands during solar maximums by thousands of miles and even a third ring is created.

Ring? Do you mean torus. See the difference between me being able to visualise in 3D and you default to 2D?

There's even a suggestion that the second torus is made of two smaller belts, if I recall the literature correctly. Oh, see what I did there. I referred to literature as I'm a little bit of an expert in this area. You on the other hand didn't even know the outer belts mainly consist of electrons. That is lamentable.

So how did the CM hull perform against the electrons in the outer belt for different energies across the flux? I'll give you an helping hand, you're going to have to perform an integrated flux calculation here.
Allow my little Friend at NASA help you with the math.  They did this for children so I am fully confident that you will have no problems with it.  We can use NASA's figures if you like or your personal ones if it makes you feel any better.  https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/3Page7.pdf

Once again, reading comprehension isn't exactly your forte, is it?  From your latest reference:

"Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through
the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is
completely harmless."

So, not only did your reference fail to provide the computational data from the shielding, it made a general statement that completely supports the position that the exposure was of no concern (as mitigated by the shielding and trajectory).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 07:15:59 PM
"Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is completely harmless."

You entertained opening the document? I take off my hat for your patience. He produced the same source at CosmoQuest and it was received with identical rebuke.

The citing of resources that contradict his point is getting embarrassing for Tim.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 07:17:40 PM
Is anyone keeping score?  It seems like I am winning.  Am I winning?

Umm... is that you, Mr. Trump? You seem to have a skewed interpretation of what it means to be winning.
I am easily confused but didn't Trump win the presidential race?

Yes, you are easily confused. Especially by graphs.

And Trump did not win in the way that matters. He won because the United States has the Electoral College... which is basically like a sports handicap for politicians who can't win otherwise. It's like me beating Michael Jordan at basketball... but only because every ball I get in the net is worth 1000 points while his are worth 1. But that's off topic, so I'll slap myself on the wrist and stop now.
I feel your pain.  I was the same way about George Bush.  I resorted to recreational pharmaceuticals, alcohol and ************.  The ************ really helped a lot.

If you continue making crude comments like that you will be banned.
Which part do you find crude?  The George Bush or the ************ part or the combination or was it the recreational pharmaceuticals?  What is it ************?  was that on the list of words you can't sayA?  I missed it.  I will avoid it's use in the future and apologize for my discretion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 14, 2018, 07:19:20 PM
Is anyone keeping score?  It seems like I am winning.  Am I winning?

tim really. is that not a little bit childish.

Umm... is that you, Mr. Trump? You seem to have a skewed interpretation of what it means to be winning.
I am easily confused but didn't Trump win the presidential race?

Yes, you are easily confused. Especially by graphs.

And Trump did not win in the way that matters. He won because the United States has the Electoral College... which is basically like a sports handicap for politicians who can't win otherwise. It's like me beating Michael Jordan at basketball... but only because every ball I get in the net is worth 1000 points while his are worth 1. But that's off topic, so I'll slap myself on the wrist and stop now.
I feel your pain.  I was the same way about George Bush.  I resorted to recreational pharmaceuticals, alcohol and ************.  The ************ really helped a lot.

If you continue making crude comments like that you will be banned.
Which part do you find crude?  The George Bush or the ************ part or the combination or was it the recreational pharmaceuticals?  What is it ************?  was that on the list of words you can't sayA?  I missed it.  I will avoid it's use in the future and apologize for my discretion.


tim really. is that not a little but childish.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 07:19:50 PM
Nice catch Luke I completely looked over that part.  I've been attempting to get it across to tim that A11 was out of the second torus by about 2 hours, not the 4.5 he keeps trying to invent, but you know that.

There's so much information about the trajectory and the belts. The video is a lovely resource and shows how the spacecraft misses the 'red bit' nicely. It's knowing the composition of the belts, the flux of the particles, and how the flux differentiates with energy. Which you know...  ;)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 14, 2018, 07:21:16 PM
Nice catch Luke I completely looked over that part.  I've been attempting to get it across to tim that A11 was out of the second torus by about 2 hours, not the 4.5 he keeps trying to invent, but you know that.

There's so much information about the trajectory and the belts. The video is a lovely resource and shows how the spacecraft misses the 'red bit' nicely. It's knowing what's in the ts and how it relaters to the flux of the particles, and how the flux changes with energy. Which you know...  ;)


am I correct in saying they were In the belts in total for about 3.5 hours going and 2.5 returning
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 07:25:44 PM
I explained this to those that were on time to class already.  The VAB expands during solar maximums by thousands of miles and even a third ring is created.

Ring? Do you mean torus. See the difference between me being able to visualise in 3D and you default to 2D?

There's even a suggestion that the second torus is made of two smaller belts, if I recall the literature correctly. Oh, see what I did there. I referred to literature as I'm a little bit of an expert in this area. You on the other hand didn't even know the outer belts mainly consist of electrons. That is lamentable.

So how did the CM hull perform against the electrons in the outer belt for different energies across the flux? I'll give you an helping hand, you're going to have to perform an integrated flux calculation here.
Allow my little Friend at NASA help you with the math.  They did this for children so I am fully confident that you will have no problems with it.  We can use NASA's figures if you like or your personal ones if it makes you feel any better.  https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/3Page7.pdf

Once again, reading comprehension isn't exactly your forte, is it?  From your latest reference:

"Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through
the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is
completely harmless."

So, not only did your reference fail to provide the computational data from the shielding, it made a general statement that completely supports the position that the exposure was of no concern (as mitigated by the shielding and trajectory).
I am so glad you pointed out that little tidbit and I didn't.  It might have seemed a bit self serving if I had.  Let us assume both you and NASA are entirely correct and it was a mere 13 rads accumulated over the VAB  transit.  Could you please explain to all your fans and friends and the audience how you can squeeze that into a mission dosage of .22 mgy/day.  I am going to get a bag of popcorn because I love a good magics show.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 07:27:48 PM
Did that hurt?  I seemed it would hurt from my perspective.  Maybe a virtual "Ouch!" would be order?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 14, 2018, 07:28:04 PM
I explained this to those that were on time to class already.  The VAB expands during solar maximums by thousands of miles and even a third ring is created.

Ring? Do you mean torus. See the difference between me being able to visualise in 3D and you default to 2D?

There's even a suggestion that the second torus is made of two smaller belts, if I recall the literature correctly. Oh, see what I did there. I referred to literature as I'm a little bit of an expert in this area. You on the other hand didn't even know the outer belts mainly consist of electrons. That is lamentable.

So how did the CM hull perform against the electrons in the outer belt for different energies across the flux? I'll give you an helping hand, you're going to have to perform an integrated flux calculation here.
Allow my little Friend at NASA help you with the math.  They did this for children so I am fully confident that you will have no problems with it.  We can use NASA's figures if you like or your personal ones if it makes you feel any better.  https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/3Page7.pdf

Once again, reading comprehension isn't exactly your forte, is it?  From your latest reference:

"Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through
the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is
completely harmless."

So, not only did your reference fail to provide the computational data from the shielding, it made a general statement that completely supports the position that the exposure was of no concern (as mitigated by the shielding and trajectory).
I am so glad you pointed out that little tidbit and I didn't.  It might have seemed a bit self serving if I had.  Let us assume both you and NASA are entirely correct and it was a mere 13 rads accumulated over the VAB  transit.  Could you please explain to all your fans and friends and the audience how you can squeeze that into a mission dosage of .22 mgy/day.  I am going to ge a bag of popcorn because I love a good magics show.

can I have a go at this one. and i'm thick bear in mind. isn't the 13 a figure for outside of the spacecraft. the astranauts were inside.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 14, 2018, 07:29:08 PM
Nice catch Luke I completely looked over that part.  I've been attempting to get it across to tim that A11 was out of the second torus by about 2 hours, not the 4.5 he keeps trying to invent, but you know that.

There's so much information about the trajectory and the belts. The video is a lovely resource and shows how the spacecraft misses the 'red bit' nicely. It's knowing what's in the ts and how it relaters to the flux of the particles, and how the flux changes with energy. Which you know...  ;)


am I correct in saying they were In the belts in total for about 3.5 hours going and 2.5 returning

Using Bob's numbers that is about right
214 min
140 min

https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

About a 1/3 of the way down.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 14, 2018, 07:29:43 PM
Nice catch Luke I completely looked over that part.  I've been attempting to get it across to tim that A11 was out of the second torus by about 2 hours, not the 4.5 he keeps trying to invent, but you know that.

There's so much information about the trajectory and the belts. The video is a lovely resource and shows how the spacecraft misses the 'red bit' nicely. It's knowing what's in the ts and how it relaters to the flux of the particles, and how the flux changes with energy. Which you know...  ;)


am I correct in saying they were In the belts in total for about 3.5 hours going and 2.5 returning

Using Bob's numbers that is about right
214 min
140 min

https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

About a 1/3 of the way down.

cool thanks for that
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 07:31:18 PM
Let us assume both you and NASA are entirely correct and it was a mere 13 rads accumulated over the VAB  transit.


... and what part did you not understand that the 13 rads is the unshielded dose. Even your own source tells you that. Your source...

Quote
"Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 rads/hour exposure so that it is completely harmless."

Quote
I am going to get a bag of popcorn because I love a good magics show.

Make sure you wash your hands.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 14, 2018, 07:31:36 PM
I am so glad you pointed out that little tidbit and I didn't.  It might have seemed a bit self serving if I had.  Let us assume both you and NASA are entirely correct and it was a mere 13 rads accumulated over the VAB  transit.  Could you please explain to all your fans and friends and the audience how you can squeeze that into a mission dosage of .22 mgy/day.  I am going to ge a bag of popcorn because I love a good magics show.

Ignoring the point of my rebuke is classic troll behavior.  Now deal with the point, and if you can't figure out what that is, you really have no business even walking outside, much less trying to discuss anything here.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 07:33:11 PM
...and i'm thick bear in mind. Isn't the 13 a figure for outside of the spacecraft. The astronauts were inside.

I think they were outside, but I guess Tim would probably argue that point too. There's only one person being thick here. It's not you, and it's not me.  ::)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 14, 2018, 07:33:33 PM
Make sure you wash your hands.

Now THAT is funny! ;)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 14, 2018, 07:38:42 PM
...and i'm thick bear in mind. Isn't the 13 a figure for outside of the spacecraft. The astronauts were inside.

I think they were outside, but I guess Tim would probably argue that point too. There's only one person being thick here. It's not you, and it's not me.  ::)


after reading this very short thread (again sorry for that) it seems to me (and compared to everybody including tim I am very inexperienced and uneducated) there are a few bits which tangle him. firstly the trajectory through the VAB. I believe this region to be a 3d donut shaped region in space. the tli were inclined about 30 degrees which allowed them to bypass the inner more dangerous regions. then for the GCR. tim has tried to compare data on Apollo with other more recent missions which had both different vehicles, were unmanned, and occurred at different solar cycles. finally the neutron radiation which tim claims is increased by 35 percent in orbit. again this figure is derived from a more recent mission with a higher solar cycle. is what I have written here basically the crux of all this
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 07:46:35 PM
after reading this very short thread (again sorry for that) it seems to me (and compared to everybody including Tim I am very inexperienced and uneducated) there are a few bits which tangle him. firstly the trajectory through the VAB. I believe this region to be a 3D donut shaped region in space. the TLI were inclined about 30 degrees which allowed them to bypass the inner more dangerous regions. then for the GCR. Tim has tried to compare data on Apollo with other more recent missions which had both different vehicles, were unmanned, and occurred at different solar cycles. finally the neutron radiation which Tim claims is increased by 35 percent in orbit. again this figure is derived from a more recent mission with a higher solar cycle. is what I have written here basically the crux of all this

These are the salient points of the argument, but the real issue being that the problem is very complicated and cannot be distilled into convenient back of the envelope calculations and extrapolating scientific research and mapping that research on to the mission data.

The main thrust here has shown Tim is illiterate in the fields at every turn, and invokes literature that refutes his own claims. For him to ask for a reference pertaining to the VAB composition shows he's behind the curve ball. He shouldn't even be in the same 'room' as people here. We've hardly scratched the surface of the problem he's trying to boil into a few bones.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 14, 2018, 07:50:56 PM
after reading this very short thread (again sorry for that) it seems to me (and compared to everybody including Tim I am very inexperienced and uneducated) there are a few bits which tangle him. firstly the trajectory through the VAB. I believe this region to be a 3D donut shaped region in space. the TLI were inclined about 30 degrees which allowed them to bypass the inner more dangerous regions. then for the GCR. Tim has tried to compare data on Apollo with other more recent missions which had both different vehicles, were unmanned, and occurred at different solar cycles. finally the neutron radiation which Tim claims is increased by 35 percent in orbit. again this figure is derived from a more recent mission with a higher solar cycle. is what I have written here basically the crux of all this

These are the salient points of the argument, but the real issue being that the problem is very complicated and cannot be distilled into convenient back of the envelope calculations and extrapolating scientific research and mapping that research on to the mission data.

The main thrust here has shown Tim is illiterate in the fields at every turn, and invokes literature that refutes his own claims. For him to ask for a reference pertaining to the VAB composition shows he's behind the curve ball. He shouldn't even be in the same 'room' as people here. We've hardly scratched the surface of the problem he's trying to boil into a few bones.

yeah over simplification. I suppose also the missions being compared are radiation received by the craft and radiation received by the astranauts. 2 different things am I right. can I just ask 1 final question before I hit the hay. how does one calculate that 30 degrees (the launch angle) would be enough to miss the bad bits of the belts. does it depend where the earth is in its cycle or ....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 07:53:58 PM
yeah over simplification. I suppose also the missions being compared are radiation received by the craft and radiation received by the astranauts. 2 different things am I right. can I just ask 1 final question before I hit the hay. how does one calculate that 30 degrees (the launch angle) would be enough to miss the bad bits of the belts. does it depend where the earth is in its cycle or ....

I defer to an expert on this, or an Apollo enthusiast. I think the 30 degrees was a little more than 'missing' the 'bad bits' - if I recall. It achieved other mission criteria/objectives.

Jay?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 07:54:43 PM
I am so glad you pointed out that little tidbit and I didn't.  It might have seemed a bit self serving if I had.  Let us assume both you and NASA are entirely correct and it was a mere 13 rads accumulated over the VAB  transit.  Could you please explain to all your fans and friends and the audience how you can squeeze that into a mission dosage of .22 mgy/day.  I am going to ge a bag of popcorn because I love a good magics show.

Ignoring the point of my rebuke is classic troll behavior.  Now deal with the point, and if you can't figure out what that is, you really have no business even walking outside, much less trying to discuss anything here.

So now you want me to believe that the Apollo had some form of shielding other than superstructure and equipment and and this space age shielding while highly effective to VAB proton and electron fluxes is permeable to GCR and SPE and neutron flux.  Right..  You expect me to believe that the shielding on the Apollo 11 craft was superior to the orion craft that launched 50 years later and probed the heart of the VAB?  Is that what you want me to believe.  Really?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 08:00:12 PM
So now you want me to believe that the Apollo had some form of shielding other than superstructure and equipment and and this space age shielding while highly effective to VAB proton and electron fluxes is permeable to GCR and SPE and neutron flux.

Strawman. It was explained an early point that we agree that the CM offered little protection against GCR. We agree that the CM would only attenuate SPEs, and in the event of a very extreme SPE, it is probable the astronauts would have been incapacitated.

There were no SPEs during the Apollo flights. So all we have to deal with is the GCR and VABs.

Now, what electron flux in the outer VAB and how is this differentiated across electron energies?
How would the craft, rated at 8 g cm-2, perform attenuating these electrons - can you perform the integrated flux calculation? Yes or no?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 08:08:00 PM
So now you want me to believe that the Apollo had some form of shielding other than superstructure and equipment and and this space age shielding while highly effective to VAB proton and electron fluxes is permeable to GCR and SPE and neutron flux.

Strawman. It was explained an early point that we agree that the CM offered little protection against GCR. We agree that the CM would only attenuate SPEs, and in a very extreme SPE would have left the astronauts  incapacitated.

There were no SPEs during the Apollo flights. So all we have to deal with is the GCR and VABs.

Now, what electron flux in the outer VAB and how is this differentiated across electron energies?
How would the craft, rated at 8 g cm-2 perform attenuating these electrons - can you perform the integrated flux calculation? Yes or no?
They engaged proton shields and could disregard them in their entirety.  I like it.  You provide be the radiation shielding thickness of the apollo( she had zero) and I will due the exposure calculation for you.  I am an ex Navy nuke remember.  I contend the Apollo had no radiation shielding so I need something definitive to prove otherwise.  I want to make this work for you.  I must admit I do love watching you wriggle on that hook firmly implanted in your gullet
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 14, 2018, 08:08:51 PM
I am so glad you pointed out that little tidbit and I didn't.  It might have seemed a bit self serving if I had.  Let us assume both you and NASA are entirely correct and it was a mere 13 rads accumulated over the VAB  transit.  Could you please explain to all your fans and friends and the audience how you can squeeze that into a mission dosage of .22 mgy/day.  I am going to ge a bag of popcorn because I love a good magics show.

Ignoring the point of my rebuke is classic troll behavior.  Now deal with the point, and if you can't figure out what that is, you really have no business even walking outside, much less trying to discuss anything here.

So now you want me to believe that the Apollo had some form of shielding other than superstructure and equipment and and this space age shielding while highly effective to VAB proton and electron fluxes is permeable to GCR and SPE and neutron flux.  Right..  You expect me to believe that the shielding on the Apollo 11 craft was superior to the orion craft that launched 50 years later and probed the heart of the VAB?  Is that what you want me to believe.  Really?

I don't care WHAT you believe, I am asking you what you have done to calculate the dose to the astronauts themselves.  So far, all you have shown is incredulity, but no indication of understanding.  If that is all you can bring to the table, your entire argument is pure conjecture, void of scientific *ahem* acumen.

Also, were you able to examine the dose graph I mentioned?  Have you reached any meaningful understanding of it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 14, 2018, 08:11:14 PM
Tim you sound ridiculous this has been gone over so many times.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 14, 2018, 08:12:12 PM
I am an ex Navy nuke remember.

And remember that I know just how little that relates to this discussion.  You were given the same radiological training as is given to a bilge cleaner who must perform their duties in a radiation area.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 08:12:21 PM
You provide be the radiation shielding thickness of the apollo( she had zero) and I will due the exposure calculation for you.

Certainly. The hull was rated at 8 g cm-2. Now perform the exposure calculation for electrons in the outer belts.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 08:22:40 PM
I am an ex Navy nuke remember.

OK, I have a pure alpha source, no beta or gamma. What materials would I need to ensure that alpha particles were completely absorbed, but reach a trade off that my protection system was light weight as possible?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 14, 2018, 08:59:41 PM
Tim.  Why is the solution not simply that you don't understand?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 14, 2018, 09:06:38 PM
You provide be the radiation shielding thickness of the apollo( she had zero) and I will due the exposure calculation for you.

Certainly. The hull was rated at 8 g cm-2. Now perform the exposure calculation for electrons in the outer belts.

Show me.  I reject that as false and purely speculative.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 14, 2018, 09:40:19 PM
Show me.  I reject that as false and purely speculative.

Erik Seedhouse - Space Radiation and Astronaut Safety (attached image of a footnote).

So now you have been provided with the surface density, compute the the exposure in the outer van Allen belts. That's what you said you'd do? Right?

You provide be the radiation shielding thickness of the apollo (she had zero) and I will due the exposure calculation for you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Valis on April 15, 2018, 02:21:33 AM
Averaging out the Crater Data to a daily average is proving a bit challenging.  Has anyone else accomplished this or does anyone have an algorithm to efficiently accomplish this?
That's trivial with any scripting. If you don't know how to do that, take in Excel in another column the sum of the day's hourly values divided by 24 (=SUM(B1:B24)/24 for example), and copy-paste that for every day in steps of 24.
There is almost 70 thousand entries and I was actually looking for something a bit more elegant but thank you for the attempt.  If you find this type of repetitive work thrilling then I will patiently wait to savor the fruits of your efforts.
I see that the thread has moved on from this, but anyway, as said, it's a trivial exercise if you take the time to learn to use the proper tools of the trade. Excel really isn't what you'll want to use for any larger datasets, though if that's all you can use, I'd guess plotting a rolling average with an interval of 24 and ignoring the extra points it produces would work.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 15, 2018, 03:32:12 AM
So now you want me to believe that the Apollo had some form of shielding other than superstructure and equipment

No, the shielding is provided by the superstructure and equipment. The composition of the command module is not hard to come by in technical documentation. Can you do the calculation yourself to show that those layers of aluminium, steel, phenolic resin, kapton, plastics and so on are actually 'zero' shielding?

Quote
and and this space age shielding while highly effective to VAB proton and electron fluxes is permeable to GCR and SPE and neutron flux.

Yes, because they have different energies. This is the whole point of this entire discussion. I honestly cannot believe you don't actually get this at this point.

Quote
You expect me to believe that the shielding on the Apollo 11 craft was superior to the orion craft that launched 50 years later and probed the heart of the VAB?

Again no. The Apollo shielding was adequate for the part of the belts it actually passed through. You have been told and shown countless times how it avoided the 'heart' of the belts. Again, this is looking like wilful obtuseness designed to provoke us.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 15, 2018, 05:23:43 AM
...

You expect me to believe that the shielding on the Apollo 11 craft was superior to the orion craft that launched 50 years later and probed the heart of the VAB?  Is that what you want me to believe.  Really?
No, "belief" has nothing to do with it.  A rigorous approach would be to find out from verifiable sources (peer-reviewed if possible) what sheilding is incorporated into the designs of the Apollo and Orion modules, what radiation environments they encountered, and what dosage rates were measured in each.

And remember, not all space missions are equal.  The Orion unmanned test flight was sent through higher energy regions of the VARB for various reasons which, again, are well documented.

There is a huge amount of data available these days on almost every aspect of manned and unmanned spaceflight (apart, obviously, from most military and many commercial missions) which will provide input to, or directly answer, these issues.  Your approach to date seems to be to google a specific term and copy'n'paste a wall of text from the first hit.

As I've said before, you need to read the papers (not just the abstracts), understand them, go through the calulations, follow important references to other material, rinse and repeat.  A scattershot approach of repeating information which many people here already know, and not taking the time to understand it, is not helping your case.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 15, 2018, 06:01:15 AM
So now you want me to believe that the Apollo had some form of shielding other than superstructure and equipment

No, the shielding is provided by the superstructure and equipment. The composition of the command module is not hard to come by in technical documentation. Can you do the calculation yourself to show that those layers of aluminium, steel, phenolic resin, kapton, plastics and so on are actually 'zero' shielding?

Quote
and and this space age shielding while highly effective to VAB proton and electron fluxes is permeable to GCR and SPE and neutron flux.

Yes, because they have different energies. This is the whole point of this entire discussion. I honestly cannot believe you don't actually get this at this point.

Quote
You expect me to believe that the shielding on the Apollo 11 craft was superior to the orion craft that launched 50 years later and probed the heart of the VAB?

Again no. The Apollo shielding was adequate for the part of the belts it actually passed through. You have been told and shown countless times how it avoided the 'heart' of the belts. Again, this is looking like wilful obtuseness designed to provoke us.

tim's approach is a great example of failure to understand that things in engineering are often designed with more than one purpose in mind and that very often, design features are multiply interconnected.

A good example of this is your car; it almost certainly has a windscreen. Ostensibly, it is there to protect the driver from the wind and the elements, but of course this is not its only purpose, if it were, then it could be made of steel. The windscreen also acts as a structural element of the car; it keeps the roof from collapsing. It also acts as a kind of backing plate for the passenger side airbag.

Of course, the reason it is made of glass is so that the driver can see where he is going.

CT's like tim think very one-dimensionally... if Apollo didn't have something that was specifically called "radiation shielding" then they conclude this means it had no shielding at all and was unprotected from radiation. Such a claim is just as ridiculous as claiming that you are totally unprotected from the car roof collapsing in an accident simply because the windscreen isn't called a roof brace
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 15, 2018, 06:25:30 AM
You have not proven the car has no engine.  At absolute best, you have proved that you don't understand how fuel efficiency works.  I have shown you ticket stubs from attractions across the country with my fingerprints on them.  I have shown you date-stamped pictures of me in front of buildings there, and other people have taken pictures showing me from different angles that show I was there.  You haven't looked at my car.  You have claimed, without knowing anything about my engine, that I haven't stopped for gas often enough.  But you don't know what mileage my car gets or what route I took to get there.
Thanks Gillian - an excellent analogy!

Tim is at the stage of having doubts about the receipts produced for buying fuel on the trip, despite having demonstrated no understanding of how a car engine works, or what the factory fuel efficency is for your model...

Thank you kindly!  To my mind, proving the car had no engine would be more like proving that the capsule couldn't have had enough fuel to get to the Moon and back, which of course would take quite a lot of understanding of engineering to get.

Car engine =Rocket engine.... Rocket fuel = Gasoline.  The ASVAB must have been a challenge for you.
Amusingly, you seem to labour under the delusion that Saturn burned all the way to the moon.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 15, 2018, 06:29:43 AM
We know that Apollo 11 entered the TLI at 24200 mph @ 12:22...

You are aware that the CM had a surface density of 8 g cm-2. Now, what was the variation in flux with energy for the outer electrons in the outer belts again? I don't believe you accounted for the performance of the CM materials against this flux profile in your calculations. Please add that information.
Do I need remind all involved that I forego including all but the lowest of radiations of the VAB.  You can look for kernels in that turd if you choose but you have to realize if the lowest radiations produce an exposure rate 6 times as high as the reported dose then anything else is simply adding fuel to a raging fire.  Know when to say "No".
No, we know already that 3 dimensions are outside of your understanding. There is no need to remind us.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 15, 2018, 06:32:34 AM
I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs.  You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter.  Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose.  There is no getting around the facts.  It can not have happened and therefore it didn't.  I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..
No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled.  No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
NASA considered two trajectories.  The first was a direct one straight through the heart of the VAB to the moon and the second one a translunar injection using a technique invented and proven by the Russians.  They determined the direct shot would actually receive the least radiation because the speed and time in the heart of the VAB would actually reduce overall exposure.  The Russian method spent more time in the VAB but was far more fuel efficient.  They opted for the the Russian method.  There is no secret safe passage.  Many pretend it is but they cannot document it.  Why would we send the Orion into the heart of the VAB if such a path had been discovered?

Red herring.  Besides you have already been informed why the Orion trajectory was not the same as Apollo's general trajectory.  You really don't understand anything concerning orbital mechanics.  The Russians didn't "invent" sny trajectory it is all in the mathematics.
Apollo's trajectory was to skirt the more intense areas of the VARB, look at the image you plotted the 2 dimensional representation of the 3 dimensional torus.  You can see for your self that the trajectory was a the edges and did not go through the whole VARB.  Not 4.5 hrs. but around 2 hrs. as Bob B. indicated in his computations, you're what, I think Jay coined the phrase, willfully ignorant.  The data is there you either refuse to accept it or hand wave it away.

Now for your calculation please, show your work as Bob did.
Just glancing through the threads are you.  Try a more detailed approach Johnny come lately. I already posted the math for the inquisitive.
bknight has been here from the outset. Try to pay attention.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 15, 2018, 06:51:51 AM
Why concentrate on electrons when the share territory with protons?

... because the Apollo craft followed a trajectory that skirted the outer belts. The main flux in the outer belts are due to electrons. It's a bit like someone firing 1000 paintballs at you, 999 are green and 1 are red. The electrons are the green ones.

Now, how does the shielding perform against the electron flux at the electron energies that are relevant to the problem? You need to perform an integrated flux attenuated against shielding at 8 g cm-2.
I am not the brightest candle in the candelera ( yes I am but I am trying to be modest)
It's called a "candelabra". We know already that you are not the brightest bulb. Your error is in thinking that a badge of honour.
but the TLI is an elliptical orbit somewhere around 30% off the equatorial plane or 15% if you are using the lunar plane so realizing this elliptical orbit would be like slicing diagonally through the proverbial donut, just exactly how do you think they "Skirted" the VAB?
3D spatial reasoning fail.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 15, 2018, 06:56:43 AM
CT's like tim think very one-dimensionally... if Apollo didn't have something that was specifically called "radiation shielding" then they conclude this means it had no shielding at all and was unprotected from radiation. Such a claim is just as ridiculous as claiming that you are totally unprotected from the car roof collapsing in an accident simply because the windscreen isn't called a roof brace

^^ This.

What Tim is failing (and honestly I can only believe it is deliberate now) to grasp is that when it comes to particle radiation such as CGRs, SPEs, VABs and so on, all matter will shield all of it to some degree. That's simply the physics of putting something in the way. It was exactly this that actually allowed Rutherford to deduce the structure of the atom in the first place. The only question is how much shielding is afforded. The superstructure and internal layout of the spacecraft is inherently a radiation shield, just by virtue of its existence. Add up the layers and densities of materials to figure out how effective it might be.

And this is Tim's second major failing: he grasps the differences between the various types of radiation when it comes to different particles, but cannot conceive that these types themselves exist as a spectrum of energies, and so something that is effective against relatively low energy protons in the VAB will be entirely permeable to the much higher energy protons in the GCR. Same particle, different energy, different penetrating power and different results if it does get absorbed. Rather like throwing a bullet at a window and having it bounce off, then firing the same kind of bullet at the same window and blowing a hole through it. Same bullet, different energy, therefore different effects.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 15, 2018, 06:58:16 AM
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long

Along the geomagentic equator maybe, but as you have been told and shown repeatedly, the Apollo spacecraft did not take that route (indeed it was virtually impossible for it to do so due to the different inclinations ot the orbit and the geomagentic plane) so why do you think using the full thickness of the belt is valid?
Actually a good question.  I used it because we all know the VAB expansds thousands of miles during Solar max and not having any reference I thought it a fairly conservative estimate.

Jason with regard to this 37000 figure do you know of a 3d picture or chat which shows the 3d path the vehicles took to transverse the edges. I have seen many 2d's but not 3d

Ben here is the video



brill thanks for that

You like that? have another...

These animations make it clear how the worst of the VAB were avoided.

Unfortunately, they also demonstrate how TF is unable to fathom 3 dimensions.

ETA: I am wondering what TF will make of the contour lines?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 15, 2018, 08:43:17 AM
Why concentrate on electrons when the share territory with protons?

... because the Apollo craft followed a trajectory that skirted the outer belts. The main flux in the outer belts are due to electrons. It's a bit like someone firing 1000 paintballs at you, 999 are green and 1 are red. The electrons are the green ones.

Now, how does the shielding perform against the electron flux at the electron energies that are relevant to the problem? You need to perform an integrated flux attenuated against shielding at 8 g cm-2.
I am not the brightest candle in the candelera ( yes I am but I am trying to be modest)
It's called a "candelabra". We know already that you are not the brightest bulb. Your error is in thinking that a badge of honour.
but the TLI is an elliptical orbit somewhere around 30% off the equatorial plane or 15% if you are using the lunar plane so realizing this elliptical orbit would be like slicing diagonally through the proverbial donut, just exactly how do you think they "Skirted" the VAB?
3D spatial reasoning fail.

"his pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking"
- Cdr. Spock
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 15, 2018, 10:50:33 AM
What Tim is failing (and honestly I can only believe it is deliberate now) to grasp is that when it comes to particle radiation such as CGRs, SPEs, VABs and so on, all matter will shield all of it to some degree. That's simply the physics of putting something in the way.

Precisely. A thick piece of card will be a good shield for alpha particles. A beta source is usually stored in a box constructed of aluminium and wood. Of course, the HB connects a radiation shield to lead or concrete because of everyday experiences such as visits to radiologists or their understanding of nuclear reactors. They do no understand that those materials are used to attenuate x-rays and gamma rays, and in the case of a nuclear reactor there are other reasons for having a thick concrete surrounding the reactor walls.

The claim of an unshielded CM exposes their understanding immediately, yet we need to remind Tim that he was citing the use of polythene on the ISS as a radiation shield. Of course, he now fails in his consistency when applying his 'knowledge' to the CM, which was constructed of metals and polymers.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 15, 2018, 11:07:38 AM
And this is Tim's second major failing: he grasps the differences between the various types of radiation when it comes to different particles, but cannot conceive that these types themselves exist as a spectrum of energies, and so something that is effective against relatively low energy protons in the VAB will be entirely permeable to the much higher energy protons in the GCR. Same particle, different energy, different penetrating power and different results if it does get absorbed. Rather like throwing a bullet at a window and having it bounce off, then firing the same kind of bullet at the same window and blowing a hole through it. Same bullet, different energy, therefore different effects.

My bold. The objection of using ground based neutron monitors to correlate terrestrial detection events with the solar cycle was most revealing. Most high school students understand that GCR impact on our upper atmosphere to produce neutrons. An increase in neutrons at ground level correlates with increased GCR fluxes or an SPE. Ground based monitors are a valuable source in GCR studies. There are even details on YouTube to make a rudimentary cloud chamber to detect GCR.

The analysis of ice has revealed so much abut the Carrington SPE. Only through the analysis of the nuclear forensics have we determined the nature and size of the Carrington event. Further, pilots and frequent filers have increased doses due to increased exposure to GCR at high altitudes. This is well documented in health science. The lifetime of pions produced in GCR events in our atmosphere have been used to test special relativity.

The very notion that we are protected from GCR by the VABs shows Tim's ignorance, but then he is an ex-nuclear technician. He must be right.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 15, 2018, 01:56:20 PM
I'll also freely admit I've never taken the ASVAB.  Why would I?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 15, 2018, 02:22:57 PM
I'll also freely admit I've never taken the ASVAB.  Why would I?
I think most of the contributors here would never have taken it either.  As a non-US citizen, I'd never heard of it before now, but tried a sample test to get an idea of the level of knowledge and ability expected.

I admit I didn't finish it, as I got bored after about 70 questions...  :)  Overall, the questions were fairly straightforward, and of a first to second year high school level.  Maths covered basic algebra, percentages and the like, and didn't get into trigonometry or calculus (although I recall doing trig in my first couple of years at high school).  General science, reading comprehension, basic mechanics (mainly relating to vehicle mechanics) and electronics were all of a similar level.

I'm not intending to disparage anyone who volunteers for military service, and I would expect the test to be a good basis for specialisation selection amongst military recruits, but it is perhaps a bit short of what's required for calculations of radiation exposures in the space environment, or understanding the complexity of the science, engineering and sheers scale of the Apollo project.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 15, 2018, 03:01:30 PM
I took the ASVAB or its predecessor in 1970, twice.  Once before entering the Army and then during Basic Training.  I hadn't thought again of that until this thread, wow almost 50 years ago.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 15, 2018, 03:13:24 PM
I took it -- was I think compulsory at the time -- and scored high, but it otherwise doesn't stand out in my memory. It's not an intelligence test (well, nothing is, not really) but a weird mashup of a vocational placement test and a recruiting pitch. As in; "The test says you'd be really great at being in the infantry. Sure you don't want to join?"

As long as we're waving them in the air like this, I got into and passed jump school and was assigned to an airborne unit. That was at the time about a one in six pass rate. That doesn't say anything about my qualifications to understand space weather, either.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 15, 2018, 03:20:58 PM
I've studied physics a little bit? Does that count?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 15, 2018, 03:51:13 PM
I'll also freely admit I've never taken the ASVAB.  Why would I?

I've never heard of it until now. Being Irish, living in England I guess my ignorance of it is understandable. Out of curiosity I had a look at an online practice exam. It looks similar to the general aptitude test that the Irish education system used to give to 14/15 year olds to assess their abilities to go into apprenticeships as skilled labour.

It's also a measure of timfinch's level of education that he considers it worthwhile mentioning. Also it appears to me as measure of his arrogance that he thinks that it is noteworthy enough to use as a supercilious slur. What a plonker.  ::)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 15, 2018, 03:56:23 PM
The objection of using ground based neutron monitors to correlate terrestrial detection events with the solar cycle was most revealing. Most high school students understand that GCR impact on our upper atmosphere to produce neutrons. An increase in neutrons at ground level correlates with increased GCR fluxes or an SPE. Ground based monitors are a valuable source in GCR studies. There are even details on YouTube to make a rudimentary cloud chamber to detect GCR.

And the brilliant physicist, and Science populariser Prof Brian Cox, does exactly that, and then demonstrates its use...



Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 15, 2018, 03:58:07 PM
And the brilliant physicist, and Science populariser Prof Brian Cox, does exactly that, and then demonstrates its use...

I had forgotten all about that video. Thanks for posting it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 15, 2018, 04:51:46 PM
The objection of using ground based neutron monitors to correlate terrestrial detection events with the solar cycle was most revealing. Most high school students understand that GCR impact on our upper atmosphere to produce neutrons. An increase in neutrons at ground level correlates with increased GCR fluxes or an SPE. Ground based monitors are a valuable source in GCR studies. There are even details on YouTube to make a rudimentary cloud chamber to detect GCR.

And the brilliant physicist, and Science populariser Prof Brian Cox, does exactly that, and then demonstrates its use..

Another Scottish invention!!  ;D  (C.T.R.Wilson, inspired by the typically rubbish weather when working as a student at the Ben Nevis observatory.)

Very easy to make, and quite amazing to watch cosmic rays zapping through, realising they might have come from events millions of light years away...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 15, 2018, 05:35:47 PM
What Tim is failing (and honestly I can only believe it is deliberate now) to grasp is that when it comes to particle radiation such as CGRs, SPEs, VABs and so on, all matter will shield all of it to some degree. That's simply the physics of putting something in the way.

Precisely. A thick piece of card will be a good shield for alpha particles. A beta source is usually stored in a box constructed of aluminium and wood. Of course, the HB connects a radiation shield to lead or concrete because of everyday experiences such as visits to radiologists or their understanding of nuclear reactors. They do no understand that those materials are used to attenuate x-rays and gamma rays, and in the case of a nuclear reactor there are other reasons for having a thick concrete surrounding the reactor walls.

The claim of an unshielded CM exposes their understanding immediately, yet we need to remind Tim that he was citing the use of polythene on the ISS as a radiation shield. Of course, he now fails in his consistency when applying his 'knowledge' to the CM, which was constructed of metals and polymers.

Actually, when dealing with the Alpha particles emitted by most sources, they swill not penetrate beyond the dead layer of one's skin.  It is only the soft internal tissues, such as the lungs, where they interact with live tissue and create a concern.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 15, 2018, 05:43:12 PM
Actually, when dealing with the Alpha particles emitted by most sources, they swill not penetrate beyond the dead layer of one's skin.  It is only the soft internal tissues, such as the lungs, where they interact with live tissue and create a concern.

Yes, ingested alpha sources are problematic. A uranium miner is 10-20 times more likely to develop lung cancer than a heavy smoker. With a 2+ charge and their mass, it make them far more ionising than beta and gamma; so DNA comes off second best. Of course, it's no always about ionisation but a combination of ionisation and biochemical effects. Some elements tend to concentrate in the body. Iodine for example absorbs in the thyroid gland, so beta emitting iodine is problematic following nuclear waste release. I am sure you know all this though, but it's good to share ideas and knowledge.

Typically they have a range of 6 - 12 cm in air too. It would be most irresponsible to leave an alpha source on the side and clearly they need to be stored and locked away. However, a person can 'shield' themselves from an alpha source by simply keeping a good layer of air between themselves and the source. It's the same with beta particles, just a bit more air need in that case.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 15, 2018, 08:21:28 PM
Very easy to make, and quite amazing to watch cosmic rays zapping through, realising they might have come from events millions of light years away...

When I look at distant stars, I often explain to others that the photons striking one's retina have taken millenia to reach us; and by per chance they have entered into our pupil at that precise point in time, whereupon they have ended their existence. Had we not gone out into the garden at that point, and looked up at the sky, they would have been simply absorbed by the ground and no one would have even known they had existed.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 15, 2018, 11:05:54 PM
It's also a measure of timfinch's level of education that he considers it worthwhile mentioning. Also it appears to me as measure of his arrogance that he thinks that it is noteworthy enough to use as a supercilious slur. What a plonker.  ::)

I could post my SAT scores, and they'd be just as relevant, [mumble mumble] years from having taken them.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 16, 2018, 10:36:23 AM
Maybe he should post his GOATs score, too.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 17, 2018, 04:18:12 AM
Maybe he should post his GOATs score, too.
Well, he is already posting "scores".

He claims the badge of being banned from CQ, even though he has not been banned from CQ. He was simply suspended for violating the rules.

As presented here, this is a "score" to TF in his own mind even though it never happened at all.TF must know this, because he clearly visits while suspended and reads mod posts like this...
Quote
​Thread closed pending moderator discussion.

Edit to Add:

OP suspended for refusing to follow the rules in spite of warnings not to do so.

TimFinch,

If you wish to resume this discussion upon your return, report this post to ask that the thread be reopened.

That seems to me to be fairly clear. But somehow not to TF.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 17, 2018, 10:51:59 AM
That seems to me to be fairly clear. But somehow not to TF.

I'd judge his comprehension as either poor or deliberately selective given his recent evidence with NASA's 'kids counting squares' fun pack; where it was candidly pointed out that the exposure was shielded. He submitted this material at CQ. Speculating on motives is poor form on my part, but I now have my suspicions about his presence here and at CQ.

I was reading through the old Neil Baker thread last night. There are parallels with that thread and this, namely making a claim, rejection of claim and then the claimant throwing so much information in the air in the hope of something sticking. At least I felt there was an element of sympathy for Neil Baker from members, even amongst some of the bad spirited replies. This has the hallmarks of calculated mischief with the soul purpose of antagonism.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 17, 2018, 01:08:55 PM
I'd judge his comprehension as either poor or deliberately selective given his recent evidence with NASA's 'kids counting squares' fun pack; where it was candidly pointed out that the exposure wasn't shielded.

Corrected.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 17, 2018, 10:45:02 PM
... and if to prove the point that not all SPEs are created equally and astronauts can be given warning.

Science News Reporter - Solar Storm to Hit Earth (http://www.thescinewsreporter.com/2018/04/solar-storm-to-hit-earth-in-two-days-as.html)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 18, 2018, 02:41:35 AM
... and if to prove the point that not all SPEs are created equally and astronauts can be given warning.

Science News Reporter - Solar Storm to Hit Earth (http://www.thescinewsreporter.com/2018/04/solar-storm-to-hit-earth-in-two-days-as.html)
To be fair, that's from a coronal hole stream, and we can see them coming round into earth-facing positions over several days.  The sudden-onset CMEs are harder to predict, although, as already noted, the particle mass can take several hours to reach Earth, giving plenty of time for astronauts to get into the most sheltered part of their vehicle.

On the bright side, if you have clear skies over the next couple of nights, there's a good chance of aurorae!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 18, 2018, 05:42:32 PM
Colour me cynical, but benparry seems deeply uninterested with any conversation absent timfinch. One would think that he would forge ahead with productive conversation were he interested, no? Surely, he must be interested in learning in his own right? No?

Well, NO. ben does not post much at all without the presence of tim. Given the sheer volume of knowledge herein, and ben's claim to be strangely ignorant of the Apollo facts, ben's reluctance to post absent tim seems odd to me. So how about it, ben? Do you want to know more? Or are you content to slavishly follow tim around the internet while learning nothing? Or do you really want to know exactly how to refute tim's nonsense? Surely, by now you are able to read basic graphs, right? And surely that allows you to refute tim's wild claims, right?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 19, 2018, 03:56:56 AM
Colour me cynical, but benparry seems deeply uninterested with any conversation absent timfinch. One would think that he would forge ahead with productive conversation were he interested, no? Surely, he must be interested in learning in his own right? No?

Well, NO. ben does not post much at all without the presence of tim. Given the sheer volume of knowledge herein, and ben's claim to be strangely ignorant of the Apollo facts, ben's reluctance to post absent tim seems odd to me. So how about it, ben? Do you want to know more? Or are you content to slavishly follow tim around the internet while learning nothing? Or do you really want to know exactly how to refute tim's nonsense? Surely, by now you are able to read basic graphs, right? And surely that allows you to refute tim's wild claims, right?


Hi abiddan

many thanks for your comments.

since you seem fully conversant with all my study on the moon landings could you please post here a list of websites i have visited on them.

my point in asking the original question was i unable to completley refute tims claims and wondered if anybody here had any pertenant information which would. that has happened. i havent heard from Tim in a short while so presumably he has accepted the findings.

However, you claim i am uninterested in learning. apart from the facebook forums i have been a member of / still a member of which have been documented here i am a semi avid researcher of such materials. Bob Breaunig's site, clavius, this site with other threads and many other resources have been used by me to further my knowledge. i now believe i have a general understanding (not thorough) of quite a few issues.

can i also point out that this thread is 143 pages long. i have looked at every single post on there and the reason i dont post much is because the general cut and thrust was between Tim and people like Luke. i didnt feel i had the expertise or experience to jump in on people like Luke, BKnight, Jay, Jason etc who clearly are better equipped than me but if you feel i have committed an offense then no problem.

when i was accused earlier on of being Tim or working with him i quoted something which i will quote again. you are a person who refutes hoax believers and most people like that claim the HB jump to conslusions with no real knowledge or evidence. may i say you seem to have done the same here.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 19, 2018, 04:46:09 AM
i havent heard from Tim in a short while so presumably he has accepted the findings.

Given his responses here and on CQ so far, do you honestly think that is a likely outcome? Tim has demonstrably done everything in his power to avoid accepting anything that doesn't agree with his predetermined conclusions. He has gone on for page after page with mathematically nonsensical drivel to justify his refusal to accept what plain numbers are telling him. Witness his latest rant where he is refusing to accept the numbers on the crater data set are what they are actually described as. He has shifted goalposts, refused to acknowledge fundamental things about mathematics and radiation, still refuses to grasp that it is possible to skirt the edge of the VAB rather than go right through the middle because spaceflight is a 3D issue not a 2D one, and insulted members of this board. He has lied about being banned from CQ when he was in fact clearly suspended for reasons involving not actually following the rules of civility on a forum he joined voluntarily. His attitude is like walking into a church and demanding that they stop talking about God because he wants to talk about something else.

Quote
you are a person who refutes hoax believers and most people like that claim the HB jump to conslusions with no real knowledge or evidence. may i say you seem to have done the same here.

As has been pointed out already, our years of experience has helped reach these conclusions. It's not arrived at on a whim.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 19, 2018, 04:51:08 AM
i havent heard from Tim in a short while so presumably he has accepted the findings.

Given his responses here and on CQ so far, do you honestly think that is a likely outcome? Tim has demonstrably done everything in his power to avoid accepting anything that doesn't agree with his predetermined conclusions. He has gone on for page after page with mathematically nonsensical drivel to justify his refusal to accept what plain numbers are telling him. Witness his latest rant where he is refusing to accept the numbers on the crater data set are what they are actually described as. He has shifted goalposts, refused to acknowledge fundamental things about mathematics and radiation, still refuses to grasp that it is possible to skirt the edge of the VAB rather than go right through the middle because spaceflight is a 3D issue not a 2D one, and insulted members of this board. He has lied about being banned from CQ when he was in fact clearly suspended for reasons involving not actually following the rules of civility on a forum he joined voluntarily. His attitude is like walking into a church and demanding that they stop talking about God because he wants to talk about something else.

Quote
you are a person who refutes hoax believers and most people like that claim the HB jump to conslusions with no real knowledge or evidence. may i say you seem to have done the same here.

As has been pointed out already, our years of experience has helped reach these conclusions. It's not arrived at on a whim.

jason it was more of a hope really lol 143 is a very long thread :)

i am aware of that i just find it very annoying to keep being accused of something. i have a good interest in apollo and find comments like 'color me cynical' rediculous. as Luke put it last time lets concentrate on what we know not what we think.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 19, 2018, 06:56:39 AM
Colour me cynical, but benparry seems deeply uninterested with any conversation absent timfinch. One would think that he would forge ahead with productive conversation were he interested, no? Surely, he must be interested in learning in his own right? No?

Well, NO. ben does not post much at all without the presence of tim. Given the sheer volume of knowledge herein, and ben's claim to be strangely ignorant of the Apollo facts, ben's reluctance to post absent tim seems odd to me. So how about it, ben? Do you want to know more? Or are you content to slavishly follow tim around the internet while learning nothing? Or do you really want to know exactly how to refute tim's nonsense? Surely, by now you are able to read basic graphs, right? And surely that allows you to refute tim's wild claims, right?


Hi abiddan
Sudden spelling fail noted.

many thanks for your comments.
You're welcome.

since you seem fully conversant with all my study on the moon landings could you please post here a list of websites i have visited on them.
Why should I? How would I know? and why would I care anyway? What I do know is that you have been here, CQ and facebook and have apparently learned nothing from those ventures.

my point in asking the original question was i unable to completley refute tims claims and wondered if anybody here had any pertenant information which would. that has happened.
I don't believe you. You got nothing here that you haven't been spoonfed elsewhere. The answers remain the same wherever you choose to roam.

i havent heard from Tim in a short while so presumably he has accepted the findings.
Nope.

However, you claim i am uninterested in learning. apart from the facebook forums i have been a member of / still a member of which have been documented here i am a semi avid researcher of such materials. Bob Breaunig's site, clavius, this site with other threads and many other resources have been used by me to further my knowledge. i now believe i have a general understanding (not thorough) of quite a few issues.
Have you asked questions at those sites? Of course not because those sites do not have such a facility. You could ask here since the owners of both of those sites are members here.

can i also point out that this thread is 143 pages long. i have looked at every single post on there and the reason i dont post much is because the general cut and thrust was between Tim and people like Luke. i didnt feel i had the expertise or experience to jump in on people like Luke, BKnight, Jay, Jason etc who clearly are better equipped than me but if you feel i have committed an offense then no problem.
An "offence"? Hyperbole noted.

when i was accused earlier on of being Tim or working with him i quoted something which i will quote again. you are a person who refutes hoax believers and most people like that claim the HB jump to conslusions with no real knowledge or evidence. may i say you seem to have done the same here.
Long experience informs opinion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 19, 2018, 07:46:40 AM
Colour me cynical, but benparry seems deeply uninterested with any conversation absent timfinch. One would think that he would forge ahead with productive conversation were he interested, no? Surely, he must be interested in learning in his own right? No?

Well, NO. ben does not post much at all without the presence of tim. Given the sheer volume of knowledge herein, and ben's claim to be strangely ignorant of the Apollo facts, ben's reluctance to post absent tim seems odd to me. So how about it, ben? Do you want to know more? Or are you content to slavishly follow tim around the internet while learning nothing? Or do you really want to know exactly how to refute tim's nonsense? Surely, by now you are able to read basic graphs, right? And surely that allows you to refute tim's wild claims, right?


Hi abiddan
Sudden spelling fail noted.

many thanks for your comments.
You're welcome.

since you seem fully conversant with all my study on the moon landings could you please post here a list of websites i have visited on them.
Why should I? How would I know? and why would I care anyway? What I do know is that you have been here, CQ and facebook and have apparently learned nothing from those ventures.

my point in asking the original question was i unable to completley refute tims claims and wondered if anybody here had any pertenant information which would. that has happened.
I don't believe you. You got nothing here that you haven't been spoonfed elsewhere. The answers remain the same wherever you choose to roam.

i havent heard from Tim in a short while so presumably he has accepted the findings.
Nope.

However, you claim i am uninterested in learning. apart from the facebook forums i have been a member of / still a member of which have been documented here i am a semi avid researcher of such materials. Bob Breaunig's site, clavius, this site with other threads and many other resources have been used by me to further my knowledge. i now believe i have a general understanding (not thorough) of quite a few issues.
Have you asked questions at those sites? Of course not because those sites do not have such a facility. You could ask here since the owners of both of those sites are members here.

can i also point out that this thread is 143 pages long. i have looked at every single post on there and the reason i dont post much is because the general cut and thrust was between Tim and people like Luke. i didnt feel i had the expertise or experience to jump in on people like Luke, BKnight, Jay, Jason etc who clearly are better equipped than me but if you feel i have committed an offense then no problem.
An "offence"? Hyperbole noted.

when i was accused earlier on of being Tim or working with him i quoted something which i will quote again. you are a person who refutes hoax believers and most people like that claim the HB jump to conslusions with no real knowledge or evidence. may i say you seem to have done the same here.
Long experience informs opinion.

I'll Tell you what Abaddon you believe whatever you wish too. you are incorrect but never mind. You say about asking questions. if you cast your eye back over the threads you will find quite a few questions that i have asked. You may well even have provided an answer for them. so for the learning nothing that couldn't be further from the truth.

finally its nice to hear you say opinion because it certainly isn't fact. i do find it amusing though that after all your character assassinations the best answers you could try to get me with is to do with my spelling lol.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 19, 2018, 07:55:43 AM
Colour me cynical, but benparry seems deeply uninterested with any conversation absent timfinch. One would think that he would forge ahead with productive conversation were he interested, no? Surely, he must be interested in learning in his own right? No?

Well, NO. ben does not post much at all without the presence of tim. Given the sheer volume of knowledge herein, and ben's claim to be strangely ignorant of the Apollo facts, ben's reluctance to post absent tim seems odd to me. So how about it, ben? Do you want to know more? Or are you content to slavishly follow tim around the internet while learning nothing? Or do you really want to know exactly how to refute tim's nonsense? Surely, by now you are able to read basic graphs, right? And surely that allows you to refute tim's wild claims, right?


Hi abiddan
Sudden spelling fail noted.

many thanks for your comments.
You're welcome.

since you seem fully conversant with all my study on the moon landings could you please post here a list of websites i have visited on them.
Why should I? How would I know? and why would I care anyway? What I do know is that you have been here, CQ and facebook and have apparently learned nothing from those ventures.

my point in asking the original question was i unable to completley refute tims claims and wondered if anybody here had any pertenant information which would. that has happened.
I don't believe you. You got nothing here that you haven't been spoonfed elsewhere. The answers remain the same wherever you choose to roam.

i havent heard from Tim in a short while so presumably he has accepted the findings.
Nope.

However, you claim i am uninterested in learning. apart from the facebook forums i have been a member of / still a member of which have been documented here i am a semi avid researcher of such materials. Bob Breaunig's site, clavius, this site with other threads and many other resources have been used by me to further my knowledge. i now believe i have a general understanding (not thorough) of quite a few issues.
Have you asked questions at those sites? Of course not because those sites do not have such a facility. You could ask here since the owners of both of those sites are members here.

can i also point out that this thread is 143 pages long. i have looked at every single post on there and the reason i dont post much is because the general cut and thrust was between Tim and people like Luke. i didnt feel i had the expertise or experience to jump in on people like Luke, BKnight, Jay, Jason etc who clearly are better equipped than me but if you feel i have committed an offense then no problem.
An "offence"? Hyperbole noted.

when i was accused earlier on of being Tim or working with him i quoted something which i will quote again. you are a person who refutes hoax believers and most people like that claim the HB jump to conslusions with no real knowledge or evidence. may i say you seem to have done the same here.
Long experience informs opinion.

I'll Tell you what Abaddon you believe whatever you wish too. you are incorrect but never mind.
You think I need your permission for that?

You say about asking questions. if you cast your eye back over the threads you will find quite a few questions that i have asked. You may well even have provided an answer for them. so for the learning nothing that couldn't be further from the truth.
So after asking at CQ all about radiation and receiving explanations, you learned so much that you signed up here and asked THE EXACT SAME QUESTIONS all over again because....reasons.
finally its nice to hear you say opinion because it certainly isn't fact. i do find it amusing though that after all your character assassinations the best answers you could try to get me with is to do with my spelling lol.
It is a common tactic used by CTists to intentionally bork their interlocutors names.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 19, 2018, 07:58:43 AM
Colour me cynical, but benparry seems deeply uninterested with any conversation absent timfinch. One would think that he would forge ahead with productive conversation were he interested, no? Surely, he must be interested in learning in his own right? No?

Well, NO. ben does not post much at all without the presence of tim. Given the sheer volume of knowledge herein, and ben's claim to be strangely ignorant of the Apollo facts, ben's reluctance to post absent tim seems odd to me. So how about it, ben? Do you want to know more? Or are you content to slavishly follow tim around the internet while learning nothing? Or do you really want to know exactly how to refute tim's nonsense? Surely, by now you are able to read basic graphs, right? And surely that allows you to refute tim's wild claims, right?


Hi abiddan
Sudden spelling fail noted.

many thanks for your comments.
You're welcome.

since you seem fully conversant with all my study on the moon landings could you please post here a list of websites i have visited on them.
Why should I? How would I know? and why would I care anyway? What I do know is that you have been here, CQ and facebook and have apparently learned nothing from those ventures.

my point in asking the original question was i unable to completley refute tims claims and wondered if anybody here had any pertenant information which would. that has happened.
I don't believe you. You got nothing here that you haven't been spoonfed elsewhere. The answers remain the same wherever you choose to roam.

i havent heard from Tim in a short while so presumably he has accepted the findings.
Nope.

However, you claim i am uninterested in learning. apart from the facebook forums i have been a member of / still a member of which have been documented here i am a semi avid researcher of such materials. Bob Breaunig's site, clavius, this site with other threads and many other resources have been used by me to further my knowledge. i now believe i have a general understanding (not thorough) of quite a few issues.
Have you asked questions at those sites? Of course not because those sites do not have such a facility. You could ask here since the owners of both of those sites are members here.

can i also point out that this thread is 143 pages long. i have looked at every single post on there and the reason i dont post much is because the general cut and thrust was between Tim and people like Luke. i didnt feel i had the expertise or experience to jump in on people like Luke, BKnight, Jay, Jason etc who clearly are better equipped than me but if you feel i have committed an offense then no problem.
An "offence"? Hyperbole noted.

when i was accused earlier on of being Tim or working with him i quoted something which i will quote again. you are a person who refutes hoax believers and most people like that claim the HB jump to conslusions with no real knowledge or evidence. may i say you seem to have done the same here.
Long experience informs opinion.

I'll Tell you what Abaddon you believe whatever you wish too. you are incorrect but never mind.
You think I need your permission for that?

You say about asking questions. if you cast your eye back over the threads you will find quite a few questions that i have asked. You may well even have provided an answer for them. so for the learning nothing that couldn't be further from the truth.
So after asking at CQ all about radiation and receiving explanations, you learned so much that you signed up here and asked THE EXACT SAME QUESTIONS all over again because....reasons.
finally its nice to hear you say opinion because it certainly isn't fact. i do find it amusing though that after all your character assassinations the best answers you could try to get me with is to do with my spelling lol.
It is a common tactic used by CTists to intentionally bork their interlocutors names.


no you dont need my permission but you seem to think it is ok to just insult me whenever you wish. surely that is against the rules here. secondly i did ask that question at CQ but Tim didnt delve into nearly as much detail as he has here.

finally after casting you eye back on the questions i have asked (i assume you have done this so you have some facts not opinions to come back with) and knowing the facebook groups i have been in which you can look through to see comments i have made and seen the comments i have made here you think i am a HB. Really
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 19, 2018, 09:06:16 AM
no you dont need my permission but you seem to think it is ok to just insult me whenever you wish.
Point out any insult

surely that is against the rules here.
Would be up to the mod to determine that, but it is moot as it didn't happen.

secondly i did ask that question at CQ but Tim didnt delve into nearly as much detail as he has here.
Nothing stopping either of you so doing. Have at it.

finally after casting you eye back on the questions i have asked (i assume you have done this so you have some facts not opinions to come back with) and knowing the facebook groups i have been in which you can look through to see comments i have made and seen the comments i have made here you think i am a HB. Really
My honest answer? Naw, you don't want that. Really.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 19, 2018, 09:16:05 AM
no you dont need my permission but you seem to think it is ok to just insult me whenever you wish.
Point out any insult

surely that is against the rules here.
Would be up to the mod to determine that, but it is moot as it didn't happen.

secondly i did ask that question at CQ but Tim didnt delve into nearly as much detail as he has here.
Nothing stopping either of you so doing. Have at it.

finally after casting you eye back on the questions i have asked (i assume you have done this so you have some facts not opinions to come back with) and knowing the facebook groups i have been in which you can look through to see comments i have made and seen the comments i have made here you think i am a HB. Really
My honest answer? Naw, you don't want that. Really.


well i have been accused of being Tim, working with Tim, then you came back with accusing me of having no interest and being a silent member. as alluded to above that is incorrect.

yes it would be down to the administrators to say that. i am in no way attempting to manage this or any other part here.

if you cast your eye over this thread you will find he did have at it. for all of 143 pages. i do not believe the moon landings were fake so there is no need for me to have at it.

finally yes i would like your answer. do you believe i am a hoax believer and if so i would find it interesting to see your evidence and proof for this.

if you don't have any then you shouldn't make silly comments.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 19, 2018, 09:29:45 AM
no you dont need my permission but you seem to think it is ok to just insult me whenever you wish. surely that is against the rules here. secondly i did ask that question at CQ but Tim didnt delve into nearly as much detail as he has here.
How do you know that timfinch didn't go into further detail on CQ?

finally after casting you eye back on the questions i have asked (i assume you have done this so you have some facts not opinions to come back with) and knowing the facebook groups i have been in which you can look through to see comments i have made and seen the comments i have made here you think i am a HB. Really
You want facts? OK. After starting the ball rolling on CQ, you bailed on 21-Nov-2017 never to be seen again. No posts, not even a login. timfinch, OTOH kept plugging away until 12-Apr-2018 at which point he claimed here on this site to have been banned (that was a lie).

Then you arrive here with the exact same story "I have this friend..." and recycle the exact same story all over again.

Are you really suggesting that this should not be a matter of some suspicion? Then, piling Pelion upon Ossa, you reluctantly link us to facebook pages (and we had to batter that out of you) where the very same double act is performed.

And you are claiming to be perplexed that a certain rodent is being detected?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 19, 2018, 09:39:36 AM
well i have been accused of being Tim, working with Tim, then you came back with accusing me of having no interest and being a silent member. as alluded to above that is incorrect.
Then why did you vanish without trace from CQ? timfinch bashed on for a further 4 months there before attempting to weasel out with nary a comment from you, not even a login. Somehow you seem to be familiar with his posts there.

yes it would be down to the administrators to say that. i am in no way attempting to manage this or any other part here.
Because self-appointed mods never sit well on any site. This is true regardless of the topic at hand.

if you cast your eye over this thread you will find he did have at it. for all of 143 pages. i do not believe the moon landings were fake so there is no need for me to have at it.
So just to be clear. You introduced TF to CQ and then abandoned ship for 4 months, never logging in to contribute, ask, or even read, yet you somehow know what TF may or may not have said for those intervening 4 months.

finally yes i would like your answer. do you believe i am a hoax believer and if so i would find it interesting to see your evidence and proof for this.
Asked and answered.
if you don't have any then you shouldn't make silly comments.
What was that you said about insults?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 19, 2018, 09:45:36 AM
no you dont need my permission but you seem to think it is ok to just insult me whenever you wish. surely that is against the rules here. secondly i did ask that question at CQ but Tim didnt delve into nearly as much detail as he has here.
How do you know that timfinch didn't go into further detail on CQ?

finally after casting you eye back on the questions i have asked (i assume you have done this so you have some facts not opinions to come back with) and knowing the facebook groups i have been in which you can look through to see comments i have made and seen the comments i have made here you think i am a HB. Really
You want facts? OK. After starting the ball rolling on CQ, you bailed on 21-Nov-2017 never to be seen again. No posts, not even a login. timfinch, OTOH kept plugging away until 12-Apr-2018 at which point he claimed here on this site to have been banned (that was a lie).

Then you arrive here with the exact same story "I have this friend..." and recycle the exact same story all over again.

Are you really suggesting that this should not be a matter of some suspicion? Then, piling Pelion upon Ossa, you reluctantly link us to facebook pages (and we had to batter that out of you) where the very same double act is performed.

And you are claiming to be perplexed that a certain rodent is being detected?


i didn't know. after CQ we didnt speak for a long time and there was no need for me to log into there as i didnt have issues answering people or finding details.

I'm not quite sure why Tim claiming to have been banned is my fault.

After a while i contacted Tim to see how he was and have a general chat. he provided me with more questions regarding the same topic and as i had asked some other questions on this forum i decided to try here to finally finish it off. i started with 'i have a friend' because i didnt know if the same people who were on cosmoquest were on here and i thought it was a polite way to start off a thread.

yes i am suggesting that. no non cynical person would believe that. if somebody asks me a question my mind doesnt immediately go through a whole list of things as to why i shouldnt answer. i just answer it to the best of my knowledge.

you seem to be confused about the facebook pages. this information was happily given. i actually gave more links than was nessecary. there was no double act formed. i actually dont believe the radiation issue was discussed on the facebook groups. it was other topics such as the size of the earth.

so yes i am perplexed. if you feel you are some higher being that has to look after everybody here then thats fine but i again repeat what Luke said. lets focus on the facts and what is asked on the forum. lets not delve into any side stories. i understand many people have created sock accounts etc and tried to fool others here but at the end of the day i havent and i have shown i havent so i am not really clear as to why my name is still being soiled.

in my opinion the moon landings did happen and also in my opinion the radiation issue with Tim is now closed. as i say he hasnt contacted me for quite some time so i can only assume he has accepted the findings or simply realised he isnt going to get past the expertise here.

which ever is the case none of this means i am a hoax believer and if you think i am or you think i have some alterier motive then you are wrong. plain and simple.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 19, 2018, 09:46:21 AM
well i have been accused of being Tim, working with Tim, then you came back with accusing me of having no interest and being a silent member. as alluded to above that is incorrect.
Then why did you vanish without trace from CQ? timfinch bashed on for a further 4 months there before attempting to weasel out with nary a comment from you, not even a login. Somehow you seem to be familiar with his posts there.

yes it would be down to the administrators to say that. i am in no way attempting to manage this or any other part here.
Because self-appointed mods never sit well on any site. This is true regardless of the topic at hand.

if you cast your eye over this thread you will find he did have at it. for all of 143 pages. i do not believe the moon landings were fake so there is no need for me to have at it.
So just to be clear. You introduced TF to CQ and then abandoned ship for 4 months, never logging in to contribute, ask, or even read, yet you somehow know what TF may or may not have said for those intervening 4 months.

finally yes i would like your answer. do you believe i am a hoax believer and if so i would find it interesting to see your evidence and proof for this.
Asked and answered.
if you don't have any then you shouldn't make silly comments.
What was that you said about insults?


all replied to in my latest comment.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 19, 2018, 10:30:52 AM
i didn't know. after CQ we didnt speak for a long time and there was no need for me to log into there as i didnt have issues answering people or finding details.
There is no "after CQ". Both accounts are still live.

I'm not quite sure why Tim claiming to have been banned is my fault.
Nobody said it was. Strawman.

After a while i contacted Tim to see how he was and have a general chat. he provided me with more questions regarding the same topic and as i had asked some other questions on this forum i decided to try here to finally finish it off.
Not what actually happened here. Any conversations you may or may not have had with TF are none of our business and unverifiable in any case.

i started with 'i have a friend' because i didnt know if the same people who were on cosmoquest were on here and i thought it was a polite way to start off a thread.
We have the same internet handles. Surely that gave you a clue, no?

yes i am suggesting that. no non cynical person would believe that.
It has actually happened plenty of times. Patrick Tekeli springs to mind, a man with so many socks that there are not enough drawers in the universe. I know you are not him because he is dead.

if somebody asks me a question my mind doesnt immediately go through a whole list of things as to why i shouldnt answer. i just answer it to the best of my knowledge.
Irrelevant. Most here would do likewise. The problem is that the corpus CT uses these very tactics to insinuate themselves like a bacterial infection into truth, knowledge and honesty. Perhaps you have found yourself unintentionally jumping through those hoops without foreknowledge that these are games we have all seen CTists perform over and over and over. It is a form of the "good cop, bad cop" routine. Again.

 

you seem to be confused about the facebook pages. this information was happily given.
Read back up thread. It was not happily given. The amount of dodging and obfuscation was a sight to behold, all for a link that was at your fingertips.

i actually gave more links than was nessecary.
Who exactly determined what was "necessary"? Given the links, the members could determine if they were sufficient.
there was no double act formed. i actually dont believe the radiation issue was discussed on the facebook groups. it was other topics such as the size of the earth.
And now you are claiming that the links you provided were off-topic. And you knew it.

so yes i am perplexed.
Well, if providing the links requested perplexes you, then I must perforce agree. You are indeed perplexed.

if you feel you are some higher being that has to look after everybody here then thats fine but i again repeat what Luke said. lets focus on the facts and what is asked on the forum.
Strawman and I did that already.

lets not delve into any side stories.
No, you are attempting to cast the "side story" as unimportant. From my perspective, it may be the most important aspect.

Are you and TF one and the same?
Are you and TF two individuals playing a game?
Are you and TF two individuals who are new to all of this?

And so on. The only method I have to make this determination is the evidence I have before me, and what am I to make of that?
i understand many people have created sock accounts etc and tried to fool others here but at the end of the day i havent and i have shown i havent so i am not really clear as to why my name is still being soiled.
Because you have not done that. All I or anyone knows is whatever you self present. As we stand, the evidence is that you and TF are one and the same individual. Have you other evidence to present?

in my opinion the moon landings did happen and also in my opinion the radiation issue with Tim is now closed.
Neither of those are matters of opinion. It is a fact that the moon landings happened as advertised and it is a fact that TF does not accept the preceding fact.

as i say he hasnt contacted me for quite some time so i can only assume he has accepted the findings or simply realised he isnt going to get past the expertise here.
That is naive. TF wants the moon hoax as a matter of religious belief and those are not subject to reason.

which ever is the case none of this means i am a hoax believer and if you think i am or you think i have some alterier motive then you are wrong. plain and simple.
WTF? "alterier"? Really? Is that some breed of dog?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 19, 2018, 11:10:41 AM
i didn't know. after CQ we didnt speak for a long time and there was no need for me to log into there as i didnt have issues answering people or finding details.
There is no "after CQ". Both accounts are still live.

I'm not quite sure why Tim claiming to have been banned is my fault.
Nobody said it was. Strawman.

After a while i contacted Tim to see how he was and have a general chat. he provided me with more questions regarding the same topic and as i had asked some other questions on this forum i decided to try here to finally finish it off.
Not what actually happened here. Any conversations you may or may not have had with TF are none of our business and unverifiable in any case.

i started with 'i have a friend' because i didnt know if the same people who were on cosmoquest were on here and i thought it was a polite way to start off a thread.
We have the same internet handles. Surely that gave you a clue, no?

yes i am suggesting that. no non cynical person would believe that.
It has actually happened plenty of times. Patrick Tekeli springs to mind, a man with so many socks that there are not enough drawers in the universe. I know you are not him because he is dead.

if somebody asks me a question my mind doesnt immediately go through a whole list of things as to why i shouldnt answer. i just answer it to the best of my knowledge.
Irrelevant. Most here would do likewise. The problem is that the corpus CT uses these very tactics to insinuate themselves like a bacterial infection into truth, knowledge and honesty. Perhaps you have found yourself unintentionally jumping through those hoops without foreknowledge that these are games we have all seen CTists perform over and over and over. It is a form of the "good cop, bad cop" routine. Again.

 

you seem to be confused about the facebook pages. this information was happily given.
Read back up thread. It was not happily given. The amount of dodging and obfuscation was a sight to behold, all for a link that was at your fingertips.

i actually gave more links than was nessecary.
Who exactly determined what was "necessary"? Given the links, the members could determine if they were sufficient.
there was no double act formed. i actually dont believe the radiation issue was discussed on the facebook groups. it was other topics such as the size of the earth.
And now you are claiming that the links you provided were off-topic. And you knew it.

so yes i am perplexed.
Well, if providing the links requested perplexes you, then I must perforce agree. You are indeed perplexed.

if you feel you are some higher being that has to look after everybody here then thats fine but i again repeat what Luke said. lets focus on the facts and what is asked on the forum.
Strawman and I did that already.

lets not delve into any side stories.
No, you are attempting to cast the "side story" as unimportant. From my perspective, it may be the most important aspect.

Are you and TF one and the same?
Are you and TF two individuals playing a game?
Are you and TF two individuals who are new to all of this?

And so on. The only method I have to make this determination is the evidence I have before me, and what am I to make of that?
i understand many people have created sock accounts etc and tried to fool others here but at the end of the day i havent and i have shown i havent so i am not really clear as to why my name is still being soiled.
Because you have not done that. All I or anyone knows is whatever you self present. As we stand, the evidence is that you and TF are one and the same individual. Have you other evidence to present?

in my opinion the moon landings did happen and also in my opinion the radiation issue with Tim is now closed.
Neither of those are matters of opinion. It is a fact that the moon landings happened as advertised and it is a fact that TF does not accept the preceding fact.

as i say he hasnt contacted me for quite some time so i can only assume he has accepted the findings or simply realised he isnt going to get past the expertise here.
That is naive. TF wants the moon hoax as a matter of religious belief and those are not subject to reason.

which ever is the case none of this means i am a hoax believer and if you think i am or you think i have some alterier motive then you are wrong. plain and simple.
WTF? "alterier"? Really? Is that some breed of dog?


abaddon

i have absolutely no interest in carrying on this ridiculous conversation.

you are the only person still questioning this so i'll let you carry on doing that if you wish.

if i have any questions in the future i will be happy to ask here. if you wish to answer do so. if you don't then don't. any questions i do ask will be to further my knowledge.

as i hadn't been on cq for a while quite a few names were new to me. apologies for trying to appear pleasant.

If Tim is up for a skype call with you to show you he is really him and i am me i will be more than happy to proceed.

if you can tell me a way to share a facebook messenger message (all of it) i will be happy to share that with you.

i have no interest in pretending to be somebody i'm not.

your wrong about the FB. as soon as Tim pointed out to me which one it was i happily shared it. (as i said quite a few times i have been in and out of a few over time)

i gave more links to FB groups than asked. actually ones Tim was never a member of. this was to show i actually believed they were real. so no not off Topic it was to show we were different people and had the views we claimed we did.

so i think i have covered everything there. the main thing is we are who we say. if a skype call is needed i can do that. again i havent spoken to Tim for a while but you can ask him here or on facebook.

Abaddon can i just say now i won't stand for my name being soiled anywhere but also i won't simply go back and forth with nit pick arguments.
so if you wish to believe that i am a HB fine. I'm telling you i'm not. if you choose not to believe then fine. if i ask any more questions here to further my knowledge it obviously is up to you if you wish to answer.

HOWEVER

i won't reply to anymore of you comments on this or any other thread which relates to me being who i say i am. to me that is insulting and i have no interest in continuing to prove to you who i say i am.

many thanks for any contribution you made to showing where Tim was wrong. all entries on this thread have been interesting to me and have furthered my knowledge very much.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 19, 2018, 11:42:34 AM

abaddon

i have absolutely no interest in carrying on this ridiculous conversation.

you are the only person still questioning this so i'll let you carry on doing that if you wish.
And you are wrong. I may indeed be the only one to post publically, but you don't have any awareness of private messages in the background.

if i have any questions in the future i will be happy to ask here. if you wish to answer do so. if you don't then don't. any questions i do ask will be to further my knowledge.
That is how fora work.

as i hadn't been on cq for a while quite a few names were new to me. apologies for trying to appear pleasant.
Apologies for observing that you failed to do so.

If Tim is up for a skype call with you to show you he is really him and i am me i will be more than happy to proceed.
No. You are erecting a challenge which cannot be met with rules biased to the claimant. I will not fall for that one.

if you can tell me a way to share a facebook messenger message (all of it) i will be happy to share that with you.
Facebook is a useless hole of oblivion to me. I don't do facebook beyond browsing it occasionally. Last facebook page I browsed was belonging to a wingnut who claimed to be the wife of GOD. No thanks.

i have no interest in pretending to be somebody i'm not.
Then you are in good company here, because none of the regulars here do either.

your wrong about the FB. as soon as Tim pointed out to me which one it was i happily shared it. (as i said quite a few times i have been in and out of a few over time)
You miss the point. And emphasize it. You now claim that you had to defer to TF to even find it.

i gave more links to FB groups than asked. actually ones Tim was never a member of. this was to show i actually believed they were real. so no not off Topic it was to show we were different people and had the views we claimed we did.
Setting up facebook socks is a trivial exercise. Do not pretend that you are unaware of that.

so i think i have covered everything there. the main thing is we are who we say. if a skype call is needed i can do that. again i havent spoken to Tim for a while but you can ask him here or on facebook.
If you are incapable of making your case here, what makes you think skype would help?

Abaddon can i just say now i won't stand for my name being soiled anywhere
Then stop doing it.

but also i won't simply go back and forth with nit pick arguments.
It is not a "nit-pick".

so if you wish to believe that i am a HB fine. I'm telling you i'm not. if you choose not to believe then fine. if i ask any more questions here to further my knowledge it obviously is up to you if you wish to answer.
And I will happily hand you whatever references I have to hand without prejudice of any sort. Not a problem.

HOWEVER

i won't reply to anymore of you comments on this or any other thread which relates to me being who i say i am. to me that is insulting and i have no interest in continuing to prove to you who i say i am.
Sure. Nobody has control over you here. But everyone here has control over themselves. I would have thought that was self evident.

many thanks for any contribution you made to showing where Tim was wrong. all entries on this thread have been interesting to me and have furthered my knowledge very much.
I genuinely hope you did. The membership of this site is a motley of engineers, chemists, physicists and so forth, even gillian the grammar nazi (LOL). There is a vast repository of knowledge of even the most obscure details here.

Use it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 19, 2018, 11:48:07 AM

abaddon

i have absolutely no interest in carrying on this ridiculous conversation.

you are the only person still questioning this so i'll let you carry on doing that if you wish.
And you are wrong. I may indeed be the only one to post publically, but you don't have any awareness of private messages in the background.

if i have any questions in the future i will be happy to ask here. if you wish to answer do so. if you don't then don't. any questions i do ask will be to further my knowledge.
That is how fora work.

as i hadn't been on cq for a while quite a few names were new to me. apologies for trying to appear pleasant.
Apologies for observing that you failed to do so.

If Tim is up for a skype call with you to show you he is really him and i am me i will be more than happy to proceed.
No. You are erecting a challenge which cannot be met with rules biased to the claimant. I will not fall for that one.

if you can tell me a way to share a facebook messenger message (all of it) i will be happy to share that with you.
Facebook is a useless hole of oblivion to me. I don't do facebook beyond browsing it occasionally. Last facebook page I browsed was belonging to a wingnut who claimed to be the wife of GOD. No thanks.

i have no interest in pretending to be somebody i'm not.
Then you are in good company here, because none of the regulars here do either.

your wrong about the FB. as soon as Tim pointed out to me which one it was i happily shared it. (as i said quite a few times i have been in and out of a few over time)
You miss the point. And emphasize it. You now claim that you had to defer to TF to even find it.

i gave more links to FB groups than asked. actually ones Tim was never a member of. this was to show i actually believed they were real. so no not off Topic it was to show we were different people and had the views we claimed we did.
Setting up facebook socks is a trivial exercise. Do not pretend that you are unaware of that.

so i think i have covered everything there. the main thing is we are who we say. if a skype call is needed i can do that. again i havent spoken to Tim for a while but you can ask him here or on facebook.
If you are incapable of making your case here, what makes you think skype would help?

Abaddon can i just say now i won't stand for my name being soiled anywhere
Then stop doing it.

but also i won't simply go back and forth with nit pick arguments.
It is not a "nit-pick".

so if you wish to believe that i am a HB fine. I'm telling you i'm not. if you choose not to believe then fine. if i ask any more questions here to further my knowledge it obviously is up to you if you wish to answer.
And I will happily hand you whatever references I have to hand without prejudice of any sort. Not a problem.

HOWEVER

i won't reply to anymore of you comments on this or any other thread which relates to me being who i say i am. to me that is insulting and i have no interest in continuing to prove to you who i say i am.
Sure. Nobody has control over you here. But everyone here has control over themselves. I would have thought that was self evident.

many thanks for any contribution you made to showing where Tim was wrong. all entries on this thread have been interesting to me and have furthered my knowledge very much.
I genuinely hope you did. The membership of this site is a motley of engineers, chemists, physicists and so forth, even gillian the grammar nazi (LOL). There is a vast repository of knowledge of even the most obscure details here.

Use it.


after your final comment it appears we have reached a modicum of agreement. i wish you well.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 19, 2018, 11:53:26 AM
<snip for brevity>
after your final comment it appears we have reached a modicum of agreement. i wish you well.
Respect is earned, not a default.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 19, 2018, 12:30:26 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again--I don't care if Ben is Tim or Ben is working with Tim or if Ben really is who he says he is, and I think not taking him at his word is honestly rude.  I do think Ben might take a more active part when Tim is around and make it clear that, yes, the explanations being given make sense to him, but I'm also not going to judge people for their argument style or their willingness to let knowledgeable give answers.

I do think the idea that Tim has vanished because he's acknowledged that he's wrong is at best an optimistic one.  He can't admit he's wrong about the tiniest details.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 19, 2018, 12:56:51 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again--I don't care if Ben is Tim or Ben is working with Tim or if Ben really is who he says he is, and I think not taking him at his word is honestly rude.  I do think Ben might take a more active part when Tim is around and make it clear that, yes, the explanations being given make sense to him, but I'm also not going to judge people for their argument style or their willingness to let knowledgeable give answers.

I do think the idea that Tim has vanished because he's acknowledged that he's wrong is at best an optimistic one.  He can't admit he's wrong about the tiniest details.
Meh, I have stated that I am willing to give a bye provisionally And sorry for the barb, that was in good nature, I appreciate your contributions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 19, 2018, 02:41:14 PM
Please knock off the witch hunt. Ben has said that he and Tim are nothing more than FB acquaintances, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

I'm not sure why people are so sure that they are the same person or "working together". The fact that Ben invited Tim here (and to CQ) does not mean they are allies. It could just mean they have had an ongoing discussion on FB and wanted to move it somewhere where others could participate. That just happens to be the purpose of this forum.

The fact that they had a history of some kind prior to showing up here is not suspicious.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 19, 2018, 04:52:30 PM
I only hope timfinch is spending his time productively, and, although what has been said here regarding his history is not promising, maybe, just maybe, he will experience some semblance of an epiphany.  I say this because I was recently shocked (pleasantly, mind you) when I happened upon this YouTube video -


I don't expect anyone to watch it, but here is my synopsis.  This is a turn around by a long time flat-earther, who performed his own experiments, realized his previous beliefs were not supported by the science, and posted these events in his video.  I must also say, at the start of the video, he encourages his audience to remain to the end of it, and I was thinking it may have all been some sort of ruse.  However, it wasn't, and I am really not sure if he said this as an attempt to educate the ignorant, or I just missed something.

Regardless, it gives me hope.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 19, 2018, 04:54:32 PM
Oops.  Sorry for the embedded video.  I just meant to send the link.  I obviously still have much to learn about a lot of things.   :-[
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 19, 2018, 05:41:31 PM
A good flat-earther discussion ends when you ask "Why does the government want to hide the flat Earth from the people?" and the answer is "To control all the money." If you then ask "How much money do you have?", the conversation tends to end right there,

Edit: added "discussion".
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 06:25:20 PM
I'm back!  I didn't flee in shame.  I became ill during the dialogue and had to be rushed to the emergency room.  I had complications from surgery and had to be admitted to the hospital where I have been for the last five days.  I returned home eager to rejoin the fray.  I hope each and every one of you have your shirt tails raised because I intend to spank some butts.  I am recovering but  I have all it takes to teach you a lesson in humility.  Let's dispense with the distraction of identities and anything else that is unrelated to the subject at hand.  Bring your "A" game and let's do this.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 06:40:23 PM
I want to pick up where I left off.  You guys were explaining how the Apollo shielding was effective in reducing the protron flux of the VAB to an inconsequential amount.  It may have been that attempt that caused a biological disruption that put me in the hospital but I am on antibiotics now and can proceed without caution.  Feel free to illuminate me and all others. How effective is apollo 8 gm/cm^2 shielding against >5 mev protons?  P.S.  I have a fresh bag of popcorn.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 19, 2018, 07:35:23 PM
I want to pick up where I left off.  You guys were explaining how the Apollo shielding was effective in reducing the protron flux of the VAB to an inconsequential amount.  It may have been that attempt that caused a biological disruption that put me in the hospital but I am on antibiotics now and can proceed without caution.  Feel free to illuminate me and all others. How effective is apollo 8 gm/cm^2 shielding against >5 mev protons.  P.S.  I have a fresh bag of popcorn.

Before you get too worked up, you may want to add this to your library -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4317692/Earth-s-inner-belt-radiation-thought.html

A quote from the sub-title:
"Earth's inner Van Allen belt is far weaker than thought"
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 07:54:35 PM

Before you get too worked up, you may want to add this to your library -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4317692/Earth-s-inner-belt-radiation-thought.html

A quote from the sub-title:
"Earth's inner Van Allen belt is far weaker than thought"
[/quote]

iT is is true but >7 mev electrons are shielded by the hull anyway.  >15 mev electrons populate the outer reaches of the VAB, especially during peak solar activity.  >15 mev electrons are not detectable by a normal radiation detector as they pass right through without depositing enough energy to be detected.  8 gm/c^2 shielding is useless and allows >15 mev electrons to pass right through.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 08:06:15 PM
2. Given the indicated radiation dosages in Rads/sec for each zone, what will be the dosages that the
astronauts receive in each zone?
 Blue: = 27.6 minutes x ( 60 sec/ 1 minute) x (0.0001 Rads/sec) = 0.17 Rads
 Yellow = 6.1 minutes x 60 sec/minute x 0.005 rads/sec = 1.83 Rads
 Orange = 15.3 minutes x (60 sec/minute) x 0.01 rads/sec = 9.18 Rads
 Green = 3.8 minutes x (60 sec/minute) x 0.001 rads/sec = 0.23 Rads
3. What will be the total radiation dosage in Rads for the transit through the belts?
 0.17 + 1.83 + 9.18 + 0.23 = 11.4 Rads

Recognizing all of this radiation is from high energy protons adds clarity to the deception.  Can you see it now?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 08:11:23 PM
11.4 rads = 114 mgy.  114 mgy divided by 8.33 days = 13.8 mgy/day.  Not a single apollo lunar mission got anywhere near this dose.  Inquiring minds want to know...How do you like me now?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 19, 2018, 08:26:48 PM
So if electrons with energy higher than 15 MeV pass right through the hull, what do they do to humans?

Pass right through?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 19, 2018, 08:35:29 PM
iT is is true but >7 mev electrons are shielded by the hull anyway.  >15 mev electrons populate the outer reaches of the VAB, especially during peak solar activity.  >15 mev electrons are not detectable by a normal radiation detector as they pass right through without depositing enough energy to be detected.  8 gm/c^2 shielding is useless and allows >15 mev electrons to pass right through.

Get your facts straight.  >15 mev electrons are also >7 mev.  Earlier you were concerned with protons, now it's electrons?  Although >15 mev electrons may be in the outer reaches of the VABs, they are NOT the most populous.  What IS their actual ratio/intensity?  If > 15mev electrons pass right through a detector, how would we know they exist? 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 19, 2018, 08:42:51 PM
2. Given the indicated radiation dosages in Rads/sec for each zone, what will be the dosages that the
astronauts receive in each zone?
 Blue: = 27.6 minutes x ( 60 sec/ 1 minute) x (0.0001 Rads/sec) = 0.17 Rads
 Yellow = 6.1 minutes x 60 sec/minute x 0.005 rads/sec = 1.83 Rads
 Orange = 15.3 minutes x (60 sec/minute) x 0.01 rads/sec = 9.18 Rads
 Green = 3.8 minutes x (60 sec/minute) x 0.001 rads/sec = 0.23 Rads
3. What will be the total radiation dosage in Rads for the transit through the belts?
 0.17 + 1.83 + 9.18 + 0.23 = 11.4 Rads

Recognizing all of this radiation is from high energy protons adds clarity to the deception.  Can you see it now?

I saw the deception a LONG time ago.  You are pretending to know something you obviously do not. 
From: http://article.sapub.org/pdf/10.5923.j.eee.20110102.16.pdf

"Protons with energies of 10 Mev per mm in aluminum shield lose about 9 Mev energy. More than 85 percent of the protons in the space we consider here, are in the energy range 1 - 10 Mev are, so a little more than 1 mm thickness aluminum shield can, stop these protons within itself."
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 08:50:14 PM
I'm sorry but I thought you had seen this...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 19, 2018, 09:09:55 PM
I'm sorry but I thought you had seen this...

Of course I have.  How EXACTLY do you presume that relates?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 09:12:00 PM
I'm sure you are aware this article is about shield design in LEO and the fluxes in high inclination orbit.  I am also sure you are aware that aluminum shielding produces secondary particle radiation and suprathermal proton bremsstrahlung.  If you have any questions so ever about the shielding ability of high energy protons then take a look at the ORION data.  It is eye opening.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 09:19:55 PM
iT is is true but >7 mev electrons are shielded by the hull anyway.  >15 mev electrons populate the outer reaches of the VAB, especially during peak solar activity.  >15 mev electrons are not detectable by a normal radiation detector as they pass right through without depositing enough energy to be detected.  8 gm/c^2 shielding is useless and allows >15 mev electrons to pass right through.

Get your facts straight.  >15 mev electrons are also >7 mev.  Earlier you were concerned with protons, now it's electrons?  Although >15 mev electrons may be in the outer reaches of the VABs, they are NOT the most populous.  What IS their actual ratio/intensity?  If > 15mev electrons pass right through a detector, how would we know they exist?
Did I not mention that current detectors are incapable of measuring >15 mev electron flux?  We have no Idea beyond speculation what the flux density is at any point in the VAB but we do know for certain that it increases with solar activity.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 19, 2018, 09:20:40 PM
I'm sure you are aware this article is about shield design in LEO and the fluxes in high inclination orbit.  I am also sure you are aware that aluminum shielding produces secondary particle radiation and suprathermal proton bremsstrahlung.  If you have any questions so ever about the shielding ability of high energy protons then take a look at the ORION data.  It is eye opening.

You haven't answered my question regarding your graph (which is, of course, meaningless in the context presented).  I know what the article was about.  Since you cannot comprehend that shielding works the same no matter where or how it is used, and hence do not acknowledge the direct correlation, you REALLY have no business discussing the matter until you increase your education by one or more magnitudes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 09:23:02 PM
So if electrons with energy higher than 15 MeV pass right through the hull, what do they do to humans?

Pass right through?
I imagine the same thing a high speed projectile that passes through the body does.  It blows anything in it's path out of it's way.  We can certainly be sure it is nothing good as if it was we would be showering ing GCR.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 09:27:22 PM
When positive ions collide with high density materials, they split and produce
many secondary particles, consequently to stop the
secondary particles more thickness material is required[9].
As the light materials weaken the protons better, using these
materials reduce the danger of secondary particles production.
According to their low density, more volume of this
material is required and against heavy materials, these materials
don’t weaken the electrons and photons well. Using
thick shields have some problems like, producing secondary
dangerous materials as neutrons and gamma ray when radiation
encounters to flake materials. Choosing useful material
as a flake can reduce it too much. Less atomic constructions
produce less secondary radiation (especially less
neutrons)[9]. Therefore, to achieve the ideal shield, multilayered
shield consist of layers with high and low density is
suitable. The optimal thickness of each light and heavy layers,
and the material, their arrangement can be optimized
depending on the radiation environment and their arrangement
also influence on dose near electronic device, sensitive
to radiation. High density shield materials (such as tungsten
and tantalum) and low density materials (such as polyethylene)
can be considered as an ideal shield[4,10]. Also, materials
such as boron 10 (B¹º), liquid hydrogen, lead enriched
plastics with oxygen are named as a shield. A parameter to
calculate the shield layer is stopping power and then reducing
its devastating effects on semiconductors, devices and
electronic equipments. The concept of stopping power is so
useful, reducing the linear energy and is defined as fol
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 19, 2018, 09:31:30 PM
So if electrons with energy higher than 15 MeV pass right through the hull, what do they do to humans?

Pass right through?
I imagine the same thing a high speed projectile that passes through the body does.  It blows anything in it's path out of it's way.  We can certainly be sure it is nothing good as if it was we would be showering ing GCR.

Two options: 1): It passes right through the human body without depositing any energy there. That means it does not interact with the human body. Therefore it does zero damage. A bullet passing through the human body DOES deposit energy while passing through. Therefore it does damage.

2): It deposits some or all of its energy in the human body, and therefore does SOME damage. But the damage is proportional to the FLUX of the particle. Not just the existence of the particle.

Edited to add: Bob Braeunig had a large section on his radiation page, where he calculated the secondary radiation. In short, the wavelengths produced did not penetrate to the cabin.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 19, 2018, 09:31:53 PM
t mention that current detectors are incapable of measuring >15 mev electron flux?  We have no Idea beyond speculation what the flux density is at any point in the VAB but we do know for certain that it increases with solar activity.

Well, YOU have no idea, anyway.?  Do you know what a TeV is?  Hint:  It's a LOT more than 15 mev.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171103105810.htm

Now either admit the graph you posted was inconsequential regarding how many protons >10meV, or posit an alternative reason you decided to flop it up there.  I will not respond to you again until you address this point, as you are shotgunning the subject...again (and will consider notifying the moderator if you do not reply directly to this "error(?)". 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 19, 2018, 09:32:01 PM
So if electrons with energy higher than 15 MeV pass right through the hull, what do they do to humans?

Pass right through?
I imagine the same thing a high speed projectile that passes through the body does.  It blows anything in it's path out of it's way.  We can certainly be sure it is nothing good as if it was we would be showering ing GCR.

Neutrinos pass through most detectors as well...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 09:32:05 PM
What the previous paragraph from the article you referenced is telling you that using a aluminum shield is highly ineffective because it not only is transparent to higher energy protons it slows down protons that would have passed right through the vessel and making then in a lower more deadly proton.  The secondary emission from aluminum are a greater risk than the protons that caused them.  Aluminum alone is not the shield of choice for high energy protons and if it were d0 you think GCR would be a concern?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 09:32:39 PM
So if electrons with energy higher than 15 MeV pass right through the hull, what do they do to humans?

Pass right through?
I imagine the same thing a high speed projectile that passes through the body does.  It blows anything in it's path out of it's way.  We can certainly be sure it is nothing good as if it was we would be showering ing GCR.

Neutrinos pass through most detectors as well...
That seems so relevant....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 10:17:55 PM
So if electrons with energy higher than 15 MeV pass right through the hull, what do they do to humans?

Pass right through?
I imagine the same thing a high speed projectile that passes through the body does.  It blows anything in it's path out of it's way.  We can certainly be sure it is nothing good as if it was we would be showering ing GCR.

Two options: 1): It passes right through the human body without depositing any energy there. That means it does not interact with the human body. Therefore it does zero damage. A bullet passing through the human body DOES deposit energy while passing through. Therefore it does damage.

2): It deposits some or all of its energy in the human body, and therefore does SOME damage. But the damage is proportional to the FLUX of the particle. Not just the existence of the particle.

Edited to add: Bob Braeunig had a large section on his radiation page, where he calculated the secondary radiation. In short, the wavelengths produced did not penetrate to the cabin.
Bob Braeunig is a government shill.  I never got past his blatant deception in the illustration of the path of the Apollo 11 through the VAB.  That destroyed any credibility the man might have had in my eyes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 10:50:43 PM
You have been lied to.  Here is the actual path through the VAB.  One must be aware the the center of the VAB is not aligned with the earths equatorial plane rather it is aligned with the magnetic equator which is offset 11.5 degrees.  This results in the lunar orbit being 17.15 degrees into the magnetic equatorial plane.  The only region of the VAB not encountered in a VAB transit is the 2*10^8 flux at the very heart.  It's path is through the 1*10^8 region (half as much).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 10:57:24 PM
I know not a single one of you knew this or you would have recognized that Braeuning was attempting to deceive you.  Show me your respect for pulling the wool off your eyes by creating a Go Fund me account to continue my research.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 19, 2018, 10:59:13 PM
You have been lied to.  Here is the actual path through the VAB.  One must be aware the the center of the VAB is not aligned with the earths equatorial plane rather it is aligned with the magnetic equator which is offset 11.5 degrees.  This results in the lunar orbit being 17.15 degrees into the magnetic equatorial plane.  The only region of the VAB not encountered in a VAB transit is the 2*10^8 flux at the very heart.  It's path is through the 1*10^8 region (half as much).

You have been told that is a TWO-dimensional representation of a THREE-dimensional trajectory. You still don't understand 3d?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 19, 2018, 11:04:16 PM
And because you pull the "shill"-card, you think you just can wave your hand and BB's calculations magically disappear?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 11:07:31 PM
If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 19, 2018, 11:08:56 PM
It's physics. It works even if you don't understand it or believe it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 19, 2018, 11:13:07 PM
Also, the CM didn't just use aluminium in its construction. There was a stainless steel plate in it too. Also, the other components of the spacecraft provided shielding. The SM - 38 tonnes - shielded the CM from one end, the LM - 15 tonnes - from the other on the outbound trip. Only the sides were "open" to space.

How does that factor into your calculations?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 11:29:02 PM
Give me some numbers to work with.  If you don't want Braeunig's numbers or NASA's numbers then what numbers will satisfy as the exposure received by the transit?  Keep in mind that the Orion craft traveled 3600 miles into the Van Allen Belt and although it traveled completely through the center electron belt it did not travel through the center of the inner proton belt.  The question that plagues me is why did the Orion have such a large magnitude of radiation through twice as much shielding if there are no electron fluxes greater than 7 mev in all the VAB and aluminum shields are permeable to 8 mev electron flux and above and block everything less than 7 mev.  Why did they get a single ping?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 11:31:19 PM
Also, the CM didn't just use aluminium in its construction. There was a stainless steel plate in it too. Also, the other components of the spacecraft provided shielding. The SM - 38 tonnes - shielded the CM from one end, the LM - 15 tonnes - from the other on the outbound trip. Only the sides were "open" to space.

How does that factor into your calculations?
Heavy metals are a anathema to high energy protons due to secondary emissions are more dangerous than the primary proton radiation that created them.  No one would add steel to the mix.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 11:32:43 PM
It's physics. It works even if you don't understand it or believe it.
There is no magic in physics, only in Moon Hoax deniers excuses.  Show me the math!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 11:40:20 PM
Always remember and never forget that the lowest GCR background radiation (exclusive of any Solar radiation you could anally extract) was 1.4 mgy/day.  You have to somehow reduce VAB transit radiation to something less than .08 mgy/day  and lunar operation to zero to arrive at the .22 mgy/day of apollo 11.  I am going to have to get more popcorn.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 11:41:43 PM
Do you ever wonder what it is like to be caught in the death grip of a boa constrictor?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 11:55:33 PM

The researchers now know that the inner belt is typically a region of lower radiation.

This means that spacecraft can be designed with lighter and cheaper builds, as they will be bombarded with less radiation than previously estimated.

And, it allows for new exploration possibilities.

‘This opens up the possibility of doing science that previously was not possible,’ said Shri Kanekal, Van Allen Probes deputy mission scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

‘For example, we can now investigate under what circumstances these electrons penetrate the inner region and see if more intense geomagnetic storms give electrons that are more intense or more energetic.’



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4317692/Earth-s-inner-belt-radiation-thought.html#ixzz5DBJGRkmK
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 19, 2018, 11:57:53 PM
Did I mention the Orion travelled 3600 miles into the VAB (an earth radii is 3959 miles).  I wasn't sure if I mentioned that...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 12:00:31 AM
The December 2014 Orion test flight was flown in preparation for manned explorations to the Moon and to Mars.
With a trajectory designed principally to examine the heat shield performance at re-entry, Orion had to make a highly elliptical orbit taking it some 3,600miles/5,800km off the surface of the planet into the region of the lower (or inner) Van Allen belt. As a result, even though Orion’s apogee was well shy of the worst part of this inner belt, (another 2,344 miles further out) Orion carried instrumentation for registering the radiation environment in the craft’s interior.[1]
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 12:16:50 AM
Do you ever wonder what it is like to be caught in the death grip of a boa constrictor?

The closest snake metaphor appropriate here is a snake oil salesman, let's just clear up that confusion firstly.

You have been lied to.

That assumes that no one here had the forethought to check the path, and took the material at face value. There was a entire discussion asking for Bob to clarify his work, as others did not initially grasp the 2D over 3D issue. It is a slight mind bend to beign with, but if one puts in the leg work they get there eventually.

Here is the actual path through the VAB.

No, you're another person that doesn't comprehend 3D from 2D, but aren't prepared to go away and ponder the issue. Given you can't comprehend graphs and averages, I don't expect you to understand the complexities of the orbital mechanics.

The Apollo craft traversed through a region of the belt where the electrons were more populous. The flux of those electrons at higher energies falls off rapidly.

Have you also considered the actual data and how it is transformed using the correct coordinate system? Bob did that work, and there is a little bit of math that needs to be done, don't ask us for the math when you have been posted to a link that shows you the math.

This is like being caught in the grip of a common garden worm. Wet and slimy, but completely innocuous.  ;)



Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 20, 2018, 12:26:38 AM
No matter what YOU think, tim, there was a sheet of stainless steel in the CM's wall. Beneath the phenolic resin and the aluminium face plate. So the secondary radiation created by the very light nuclei would hit this steel and STOP. It could not reach the crew.

Your inability to research the construction of the CM is not an argument against the Apollo moon landings.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 12:35:03 AM
Luke, you insist a 2d representation is misleading but you are sadly mistaken but if there exist such a misrepresentation then it exist soley in the mind of you and your compatriots.  the 3d representation perpetuates the same deception as the 2d ones did.  They all neglect to shift the magnetic equator 11.5 degrees off.  If they included the correction for the actual representation of the VAB then, well, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Instead you would be right in the middle of a polish head slap..  I am starting to believe that either you are actively in opposition of the truth because you really couldn't be this dumb.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 12:37:36 AM
No matter what YOU think, tim, there was a sheet of stainless steel in the CM's wall. Beneath the phenolic resin and the aluminium face plate. So the secondary radiation created by the very light nuclei would hit this steel and STOP. It could not reach the crew.

Your inability to research the construction of the CM is not an argument against the Apollo moon landings.
I have never questioned the construction of the Apollo..  I simply contend not a gram of material was added for the purpose of shielding and the structural material offered some protection from electrons, it offered none and even worse it increased overall exposure or would have if they had ventured beyond LEO.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 20, 2018, 12:40:08 AM
If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

First of all, if you think the amended graph you posted with your version of the Apollo flight path added added any relevance regarding the amount of protons aluminum can shield you are VERY wrong there, also.  The statement you made above is equally as wrong, which shows how little you really understand about shielding and its relation to flux.  Example, how much of a 2x10EE8 proton per square centimeter per second flux, with energies between .1 MeV and 1 MeV, would 1 mm of aluminum stop?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 20, 2018, 12:40:30 AM
Of course a 2d representation of a 3d structure is misleading. Especially when the 2d model you use is a plot of altitude vs. velocity, and NOT position.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 20, 2018, 12:41:48 AM
The December 2014 Orion test flight was flown in preparation for manned explorations to the Moon and to Mars.
With a trajectory designed principally to examine the heat shield performance at re-entry, Orion had to make a highly elliptical orbit taking it some 3,600miles/5,800km off the surface of the planet into the region of the lower (or inner) Van Allen belt. As a result, even though Orion’s apogee was well shy of the worst part of this inner belt, (another 2,344 miles further out) Orion carried instrumentation for registering the radiation environment in the craft’s interior.[1]

Please, you're quoting these charlatans now?

http://www.aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm

How about you explain why Orion's mission profile was designed that way, maybe bring us some results.

How about you explain how China's lunar surface show evidence of human activity at the Apollo sites?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 12:48:58 AM
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long

Along the geomagentic equator maybe, but as you have been told and shown repeatedly, the Apollo spacecraft did not take that route (indeed it was virtually impossible for it to do so due to the different inclinations ot the orbit and the geomagentic plane) so why do you think using the full thickness of the belt is valid?
Actually a good question.  I used it because we all know the VAB expansds thousands of miles during Solar max and not having any reference I thought it a fairly conservative estimate.

Jason with regard to this 37000 figure do you know of a 3d picture or chat which shows the 3d path the vehicles took to transverse the edges. I have seen many 2d's but not 3d

Ben here is the video



brill thanks for that

You like that? have another...

These animations make it clear how the worst of the VAB were avoided.

Unfortunately, they also demonstrate how TF is unable to fathom 3 dimensions.

ETA: I am wondering what TF will make of the contour lines?

Now if you rotate the geomagnetic equator 11.5 degrees to the north and slow the revolution down to something realistic then this would be an outstanding representation
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 12:54:54 AM
The December 2014 Orion test flight was flown in preparation for manned explorations to the Moon and to Mars.
With a trajectory designed principally to examine the heat shield performance at re-entry, Orion had to make a highly elliptical orbit taking it some 3,600miles/5,800km off the surface of the planet into the region of the lower (or inner) Van Allen belt. As a result, even though Orion’s apogee was well shy of the worst part of this inner belt, (another 2,344 miles further out) Orion carried instrumentation for registering the radiation environment in the craft’s interior.[1]

Please, you're quoting these charlatans now?

http://www.aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm

How about you explain why Orion's mission profile was designed that way, maybe bring us some results.

How about you explain how China's lunar surface show evidence of human activity at the Apollo sites?
It would be more rewarding for you to explain why all extraterrestrial flights do not take this mystical low exposure path through the VAB or as you would like us to believe use apollo shielding which eliminates practically all radiation exposure.  I am more that willing to extrapolate Orion exposure out to the extents of the VAB to prove my point but you don't want to do that do you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 01:00:17 AM
ONEBIGMONKEY,  I am unaware of any proof of a manned landing.  If there was such evidence then why is there a debate.  Nothing seen validates the presence of a person and nothing returned proves it was returned by a man.  Lunar rovers have been around for a half century or more.  You can all the crap you like on the moon without ever sending men to unload it.  Prove that they can conduct the transit with less than a .25 mgy/day exposure and I will surrender and join the opposition.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 20, 2018, 01:02:18 AM
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long

Along the geomagentic equator maybe, but as you have been told and shown repeatedly, the Apollo spacecraft did not take that route (indeed it was virtually impossible for it to do so due to the different inclinations ot the orbit and the geomagentic plane) so why do you think using the full thickness of the belt is valid?
Actually a good question.  I used it because we all know the VAB expansds thousands of miles during Solar max and not having any reference I thought it a fairly conservative estimate.

Jason with regard to this 37000 figure do you know of a 3d picture or chat which shows the 3d path the vehicles took to transverse the edges. I have seen many 2d's but not 3d

Ben here is the video



brill thanks for that

You like that? have another...

These animations make it clear how the worst of the VAB were avoided.

Unfortunately, they also demonstrate how TF is unable to fathom 3 dimensions.

ETA: I am wondering what TF will make of the contour lines?

Now if you rotate the geomagnetic equator 11.5 degrees to the north and slow the revolution down to something realistic then this would be an outstanding representation

Uhmmm...they ARE both aligned with the magnetic poles already.  Can't you even read a map?  Also, please answer my previous question regarding the proton shielding.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 20, 2018, 01:06:58 AM
ONEBIGMONKEY,  I am unaware of any proof of a manned landing.  If there was such evidence then why is there a debate.  Nothing seen validates the presence of a person and nothing returned proves it was returned by a man.  Lunar rovers have been around for a half century or more.  You can all the crap you like on the moon without ever sending men to unload it.  Prove that they can conduct the transit with less than a .25 mgy/day exposure and I will surrender and join the opposition.

There is no debate. There is only cranks denying the evidence. Because it conflicts with their sense of self-importance. The hoax believers have a need to possess "special" knowledge without the ability or the perserverence to actually obtain such special knowledge.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 01:14:13 AM
Uhmmm...they ARE both aligned with the magnetic poles already.

Am I reading this correctly? Tim has suggested we have to realign the magnetic axis with respect to the van Allen belts to obtain the correct orbital path of the craft through the van Allen belts? Is this what Tim is claiming?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 20, 2018, 01:19:12 AM
Uhmmm...they ARE both aligned with the magnetic poles already.

Am I reading this correctly. Tim has suggested we have to realign the magnetic axis with respect to the van Allen belts to obtain that correct orbital path of the craft through the van Allen belts? Is this what Tim is claiming?

Tim is so confused, I don't believe he has any idea about what he is suggesting.  He is also obviously flummoxed by the SIMPLE flux/shielding problem I gave him.  I would suggest he might understand it better if I provided him with a relevant graph, but you know tim and graphs appear to be arch enemies.  Regardless, I have an early morning appointment, and I must bid adieu until later.  Cheers.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 01:20:05 AM
If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

First of all, if you think the amended graph you posted with your version of the Apollo flight path added added any relevance regarding the amount of protons aluminum can shield you are VERY wrong there, also.  The statement you made above is equally as wrong, which shows how little you really understand about shielding and its relation to flux.  Example, how much of a 2x10EE8 proton per square centimeter per second flux, with energies between .1 MeV and 1 MeV, would 1 mm of aluminum stop?
What was the thumb rule Brauenig used?  40% of the proton energy for a captured/Shielded proton is released in the form of secondary radiation.  Did I get that right.  Do you want to use that thumb rule?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 20, 2018, 01:23:22 AM
If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

First of all, if you think the amended graph you posted with your version of the Apollo flight path added added any relevance regarding the amount of protons aluminum can shield you are VERY wrong there, also.  The statement you made above is equally as wrong, which shows how little you really understand about shielding and its relation to flux.  Example, how much of a 2x10EE8 proton per square centimeter per second flux, with energies between .1 MeV and 1 MeV, would 1 mm of aluminum stop?
What was the thumb rule Brauenig used?  40% of the proton energy for a captured/Shielded proton is released in the form of secondary radiation.  Did I get that right.  Do you want to use that thumb rule?

Use whatever you feel you need to, but I want you to answer my question, as posted.  I am off to bed now, so you have time to work on it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 01:28:04 AM
Man up.  Produce data to support the VAB transit can be conducted at less than .666 mgy.  If you can't then the Hoax is proven.  If the glove doesn't fit then you must quit and desist with the charade.  Explain why the newer better shielded version of the apollo could not perform the prestidigitation.  Explain why sixties technologies cannot be repeated.  Stop the distraction and produce something tangible.  This is getting embarrassing.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 01:29:15 AM
If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

First of all, if you think the amended graph you posted with your version of the Apollo flight path added added any relevance regarding the amount of protons aluminum can shield you are VERY wrong there, also.  The statement you made above is equally as wrong, which shows how little you really understand about shielding and its relation to flux.  Example, how much of a 2x10EE8 proton per square centimeter per second flux, with energies between .1 MeV and 1 MeV, would 1 mm of aluminum stop?
What was the thumb rule Brauenig used?  40% of the proton energy for a captured/Shielded proton is released in the form of secondary radiation.  Did I get that right.  Do you want to use that thumb rule?

Use whatever you feel you need to, but I want you to answer my question, as posted.  I am off to bed now, so you have time to work on it.
My answer is 3
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 01:30:38 AM
This is getting embarrassing.

Says the man that misread a log graph.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 01:50:01 AM
Time for a recap:

1.  Tim claimed that CRaTER data did no fall below 0.22 as he failed to read a log graph.
2.  Tim claimed the moon was prohibitively radioactive as he confused radiation with radioactivity.
3.  Tim did not understand the correlation between solar cycle and GCR.
4.  Tim tried to use data for cycle 24 when Apollo occurred in cycle 20.
5.  Tim presented average data and claimed this was a minimum and maximum, but did not understand the data was in fact
     modulated about average values.
6.  Tim does not understand that an average has values less than the average and greater than the average.
7.  Tim included SPEs in a plot and claimed the tail of the data increased, despite there being no record of SPEs in the Apollo flights.
8.  Tim presented a child's game as proof of the missions, cited the data, despite his own source telling him that the CM was
     shielded.
9.  Tim is incorrectly interpreting the CM path by presenting graph of speed versus position.
10. Tim has shown he does not understand the flux energy profiles of particles in the VABs.
11. Tim does not differentiate between radiation background and radiation hazard.
12. Tim does not understand how to apply stopping power using when given surface density.

I could add, but these are the main points.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 02:07:05 AM
My answer is 3

Your flippancy does not hide your inability. The question was quantified using widely accepted parameters and the answer to the question is readily computed using information available on the internet. You clearly do not understand how to apply stopping power using when given surface density..

The question was not a simple litmus test, but rather to determine your willingness to engage in a meaningful debate, and your ability to provide the correct computations using the relevant information. These two criteria are not mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 02:52:06 AM
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 02:58:54 AM
Once we have all come to the understanding that this is indeed the path the apollo took through the VAB and the path is almost identical to the path of the Orion  EFT then we can extrapolate out from the empirical data of the 2014 data set.  It will be obvious to even the disinterested that the VAB transit comes at a higher price than the apollo missions could afford to pay.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 20, 2018, 04:52:41 AM
Time for a recap:

1.  Tim claimed that CRaTER data did no fall below 0.22 as he failed to read a log graph.
2.  Tim claimed the moon was prohibitively radioactive as he confused radiation with radioactivity.
3.  Tim did not understand the correlation between solar cycle and GCR.
4.  Tim tried to use data for cycle 24 when Apollo occurred in cycle 20.
5.  Tim presented average data and claimed this was a minimum and maximum, but did not understand the data was in fact
     modulated about average values.
6.  Tim does not understand that an average has values less than the average and greater than the average.
7.  Tim included SPEs in a plot and claimed the tail of the data increased, despite there being no record of SPEs in the Apollo flights.
8.  Tim presented a child's game as proof of the missions, cited the data, despite his own source telling him that the CM was
     shielded.
9.  Tim is incorrectly interpreting the CM path by presenting graph of speed versus position.
10. Tim has shown he does not understand the flux energy profiles of particles in the VABs.
11. Tim does not differentiate between radiation background and radiation hazard.
12. Tim does not understand how to apply stopping power using when given surface density.

I could add, but these are the main points.
13. Tim is unable to interpret 2D representations of 3D movements.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 06:09:39 AM
14. Tim is unable to read maps.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 06:10:15 AM
15. Tim is unable to grok youtube videos.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 07:56:54 AM
You have been lied to.  Here is the actual path through the VAB.  One must be aware the the center of the VAB is not aligned with the earths equatorial plane rather it is aligned with the magnetic equator which is offset 11.5 degrees.  This results in the lunar orbit being 17.15 degrees into the magnetic equatorial plane.  The only region of the VAB not encountered in a VAB transit is the 2*10^8 flux at the very heart.  It's path is through the 1*10^8 region (half as much).

You've been deceived by some HB, that is not the path as it is not a straight line but it is curved in 2-D as well as curved in 3-D pulling away from the VARB.  Bob's 2-D rendering is far more accurate than this.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 07:59:07 AM
Always remember and never forget that the lowest GCR background radiation (exclusive of any Solar radiation you could anally extract) was 1.4 mgy/day.  You have to somehow reduce VAB transit radiation to something less than .08 mgy/day  and lunar operation to zero to arrive at the .22 mgy/day of apollo 11.  I am going to have to get more popcorn.

You still don't have a cluw with math or reading comprehension.  AVERAGE
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 08:10:29 AM
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.

No,, that's not the general path Apollo traveled, where did you get this piece of misinformation?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 08:44:33 AM
Trololololol
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 08:54:45 AM
See, tim, you have a big problem now. Your ventures into cyberspace have revealed that you lack any grasp of science or even reality. Eventually, you will move along to inflict unhappy ignorance someplace else, but the record of abject ignorance will remain for all to see. Right here.

We have already definitively established that you don't understand graphs, log scales, linear scales 3 frakkin' dimensions, radiation, and so forth.

Let's take those as a given. How about you come up with a new topic about which you know **** all and embarrass yourself all over again. Photogrammetry, for example, or link budgets, or fuel load, or...well, the list of stuff you don't understand is pretty long.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 09:01:19 AM
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.
The Apollo TLI was not a straight line. Only an idiot would think that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 20, 2018, 09:59:28 AM
No matter what YOU think, tim, there was a sheet of stainless steel in the CM's wall. Beneath the phenolic resin and the aluminium face plate. So the secondary radiation created by the very light nuclei would hit this steel and STOP. It could not reach the crew.

Your inability to research the construction of the CM is not an argument against the Apollo moon landings.
I have never questioned the construction of the Apollo..  I simply contend not a gram of material was added for the purpose of shielding and the structural material offered some protection from electrons, it offered none and even worse it increased overall exposure or would have if they had ventured beyond LEO.

Only correct part of that was, that there wasn't a specific material added to only shield the astronauts from radiation. All the material used was structural, and the radiation shielding properties of those were and are well understood. Do you know what this secondary radiation is?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 20, 2018, 11:20:22 AM
You have been lied to.  Here is the actual path through the VAB.  One must be aware the the center of the VAB is not aligned with the earths equatorial plane rather it is aligned with the magnetic equator which is offset 11.5 degrees.  This results in the lunar orbit being 17.15 degrees into the magnetic equatorial plane.  The only region of the VAB not encountered in a VAB transit is the 2*10^8 flux at the very heart.  It's path is through the 1*10^8 region (half as much).

You've been deceived by some HB, that is not the path as it is not a straight line but it is curved in 2-D as well as curved in 3-D pulling away from the VARB.  Bob's 2-D rendering is far more accurate than this.

Seriously. A straight line which plots through the center of the Earth? How would you get a course like that if you started in LEO? Get this man a copy of KSP, stat.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 20, 2018, 11:30:58 AM
No matter what YOU think, tim, there was a sheet of stainless steel in the CM's wall. Beneath the phenolic resin and the aluminium face plate. So the secondary radiation created by the very light nuclei would hit this steel and STOP. It could not reach the crew.

Your inability to research the construction of the CM is not an argument against the Apollo moon landings.
I have never questioned the construction of the Apollo..  I simply contend not a gram of material was added for the purpose of shielding and the structural material offered some protection from electrons, it offered none and even worse it increased overall exposure or would have if they had ventured beyond LEO.

Only correct part of that was, that there wasn't a specific material added to only shield the astronauts from radiation. All the material used was structural, and the radiation shielding properties of those were and are well understood. Do you know what this secondary radiation is?

Ive been casting my mind back, and I can't think of ANYTHING I've built that don't have some material, some part doing more than one thing. I just shipped out another kit in which material picked primarily for optical properties is being used for structural properties as well. On my desk is a wee 915mHz unit I'm using tonight which has no part labeled "antenna ground plane." How does it work? Hint...it's on a PCB.

Tim's created a sort of circular reasoning here. He assumes space is so terribly radioactive you need to add shielding to your spacecraft, which would presumably make it too heavy to fly, so of course they didn't add any, so of course it didn't fly. Sure, it is a problem of thinking of problem-solution (instead of an integrated engineering approach) but it comes out of a mental model of space being so hostile you have to do something "special" in order to survive.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 11:36:50 AM
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.
Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 20, 2018, 11:42:25 AM
So...Tim has rejected the actual course flown. He has rejected the actual material properties of the spacecraft. He's continued to insist linear arithmetic is sufficient for working with flux/energy curves (hint; there are not equal numbers of particles in the higher end of the energy range!)

So, what? He's afraid if he only cheated in one place he might not win?

Oh, yes, and he's also demanded someone show him the calculations. But when shown those calculations in full show-your-work style, he rejected the work and the author without giving any justification.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 20, 2018, 11:43:16 AM
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.
Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.

If your car gets stuck in the ice make sure to get pictures!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 11:46:30 AM
He's continued to insist linear arithmetic is sufficient for working with flux/energy curves (hint; there are not equal numbers of particles in the higher end of the energy range!)

My bold, but you beat me to it. The diagram Tim shows is for integrated electron flux > 1MeV. So what is the electron flux for electrons with energies >2 MeV, >3MeV, >4MeV, >5Mev...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 12:06:29 PM
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.
Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.

If your car gets stuck in the ice make sure to get pictures!
Car? Why would I teleport a car?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 12:23:17 PM
You have been lied to.  Here is the actual path through the VAB.  One must be aware the the center of the VAB is not aligned with the earths equatorial plane rather it is aligned with the magnetic equator which is offset 11.5 degrees.  This results in the lunar orbit being 17.15 degrees into the magnetic equatorial plane.  The only region of the VAB not encountered in a VAB transit is the 2*10^8 flux at the very heart.  It's path is through the 1*10^8 region (half as much).

You've been deceived by some HB, that is not the path as it is not a straight line but it is curved in 2-D as well as curved in 3-D pulling away from the VARB.  Bob's 2-D rendering is far more accurate than this.
What actually is the mechanism of this curve?  Is the lunar plane curved also?  Is it a parabolic curve.  Or are you simply stating that because the universe is curved then the TLI must also be curved?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 12:27:12 PM
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.

No,, that's not the general path Apollo traveled, where did you get this piece of misinformation?

The TLI  or Holtzmann maneuver places the craft in orbit around the earth on a plane with the moon.  After this orbit is established a rocket is fired to expand the orbit into an elliptical one that intersects the moon.  All lunar landings have used this approach.  The lunar plane is the TLI plane.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 20, 2018, 12:30:30 PM
Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing.  You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it.  You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic.  Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter.  It makes you look obnoxious.  Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 12:31:08 PM
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.
Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.

Back up your opinion with facts.  FActs like the actual inclination of apollo 11 upon entering the VAB as compared to the Orion EFT.  We are beyond the opinion stage and have moved into the "put up or shut phase".
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 12:37:25 PM
You have been lied to.  Here is the actual path through the VAB.  One must be aware the the center of the VAB is not aligned with the earths equatorial plane rather it is aligned with the magnetic equator which is offset 11.5 degrees.  This results in the lunar orbit being 17.15 degrees into the magnetic equatorial plane.  The only region of the VAB not encountered in a VAB transit is the 2*10^8 flux at the very heart.  It's path is through the 1*10^8 region (half as much).
Orbits are not straight.

You've been deceived by some HB, that is not the path as it is not a straight line but it is curved in 2-D as well as curved in 3-D pulling away from the VARB.  Bob's 2-D rendering is far more accurate than this.
What actually is the mechanism of this curve?  Is the lunar plane curved also?  Is it a parabolic curve.  Or are you simply stating that because the universe is curved then the TLI must also be curved?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 12:39:32 PM
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.

No,, that's not the general path Apollo traveled, where did you get this piece of misinformation?

The TLI  or Holtzmann maneuver places the craft in orbit around the earth on a plane with the moon.  After this orbit is established a rocket is fired to expand the orbit into an elliptical one that intersects the moon.  All lunar landings have used this approach.  The lunar plane is the TLI plane.
There are no straight paths, orbital mechanics is not your strong suite either.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 20, 2018, 12:39:38 PM
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.
Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.

Back up your opinion with facts.  FActs like the actual inclination of apollo 11 upon entering the VAB as compared to the Orion EFT.  We are beyond the opinion stage and have moved into the "put up or shut phase".

You can find all the relevant orbital information on the website "Apollo By The Numbers".
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 12:41:22 PM
Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing.  You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it.  You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic.  Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter.  It makes you look obnoxious.  Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."
Gillianren,  It is not that I cannot do the calculations.  Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties.  I see these attempts as mere distraction to prevent from engaging the elephant in the room.  They would lead down a meandering path to know where for no other reason than to prevent addressing the real topic.  They lack the intellectual integrity to address these issues because their entire beliefs system is built on a foundation of obvious lies aqnd will crumble with the slightest nudge.  I am nudging....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 12:43:20 PM
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.
Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.

Back up your opinion with facts.  FActs like the actual inclination of apollo 11 upon entering the VAB as compared to the Orion EFT.  We are beyond the opinion stage and have moved into the "put up or shut phase".

I asked you this toward the beginning of the thread, cite a source the trajectory of Orion and Apollo are the same.  But I understand why you never answered it, you don't know and they are very different.  Again you know nothing about orbital mechanics, along with radiation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 12:43:29 PM
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.
Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.

Back up your opinion with facts.  FActs like the actual inclination of apollo 11 upon entering the VAB as compared to the Orion EFT.  We are beyond the opinion stage and have moved into the "put up or shut phase".

You can find all the relevant orbital information on the website "Apollo By The Numbers".
Is that were they keep the Orion facts also?  Provide the correct numbers or spectate.  We are here to demonstrate knowledge of the truth.  Show me your truth.  I showed you mine ;-)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 12:45:31 PM
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.
Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.

Back up your opinion with facts.  FActs like the actual inclination of apollo 11 upon entering the VAB as compared to the Orion EFT.  We are beyond the opinion stage and have moved into the "put up or shut phase".

I asked you this toward the beginning of the thread, cite a source the trajectory of Orion and Apollo are the same.  But I understand why you never answered it, you don't know and they are very different.  Again you know nothing about orbital mechanics, along with radiation.
I provided you with real numbers and not opinions.  Silence me by countering them with something other than your opinion.  Show me the money or accept them as true.  if the glove fits...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 20, 2018, 12:49:43 PM
Or are you simply stating that because the universe is curved then the TLI must also be curved?

What ARE you gibbering on about??? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about here.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 12:54:41 PM
I would like to proceed with the dissection of your of the foundation of your belief system.  This will be a complete dismembering of traditionally held distortions and outright lies.  The first of these is that a low radiation path through the VAB was selected and flown.  To complete this surgical removal of the tumor of misconception we need to agree upon somethings.  Either accept or reject the path of the Orion and the Apollo are almost identical or provide information to the contrary.  Humiliate me with fact and not opinions.  You know what they say about opinions?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 12:56:00 PM
You have been lied to.  Here is the actual path through the VAB.  One must be aware the the center of the VAB is not aligned with the earths equatorial plane rather it is aligned with the magnetic equator which is offset 11.5 degrees.  This results in the lunar orbit being 17.15 degrees into the magnetic equatorial plane.  The only region of the VAB not encountered in a VAB transit is the 2*10^8 flux at the very heart.  It's path is through the 1*10^8 region (half as much).

You've been deceived by some HB, that is not the path as it is not a straight line but it is curved in 2-D as well as curved in 3-D pulling away from the VARB.  Bob's 2-D rendering is far more accurate than this.
What actually is the mechanism of this curve?  Is the lunar plane curved also?  Is it a parabolic curve.  Or are you simply stating that because the universe is curved then the TLI must also be curved?
And the dumb questions just keep on giving.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 12:57:09 PM
Or are you simply stating that because the universe is curved then the TLI must also be curved?

What ARE you gibbering on about??? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about here.
Provide that the craft left the lunar orbital plane.  If it did not then it's path can be represented by a straight line on a 2d drawing.  That's what I am talking about!  What have you brought to the feast of inequities?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 20, 2018, 12:58:26 PM
Why don't you provide EVIDENCE for your claim that the trajectories - ALL NINE OF THEM - was the same as used for Orion?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 01:01:43 PM
Why don't you provide EVIDENCE for your claim that the trajectories - ALL NINE OF THEM - was the same as used for Orion?

You would not ask this question if you understood how and why the path of lunar injection is determined.  Let me see if I can get my research assistant freed up long enough to do your research for you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 20, 2018, 01:01:58 PM
Provide that the craft left the lunar orbital plane.  If it did not then it's path can be represented by a straight line on a 2d drawing.  That's what I am talking about!  What have you brought to the feast of inequities?

You know that moment when you realise that you've in the bottom of a deep hole that you've dug for yourself? At that point it might be a good idea to put down at least one of the shovels Tim....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 20, 2018, 01:04:07 PM
Why don't you provide EVIDENCE for your claim that the trajectories - ALL NINE OF THEM - was the same as used for Orion?

You would not ask this question if you understood how and why the path of lunar injection is determined.  Let me see if I can get my research assistant freed up long enough to do your research for you.

Your claim - your burden of proof. If you have no proof, your claim must be dismissed as without merit or reason.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 01:04:45 PM
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.
Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.

Back up your opinion with facts.  FActs like the actual inclination of apollo 11 upon entering the VAB as compared to the Orion EFT.  We are beyond the opinion stage and have moved into the "put up or shut phase".
You are? OK Put up or shut up. What are those figures?

YOU made the claim that Orion and Apollo followed similar orbits. Nobody else, just you. Since you made that claim then you must perforce already have those numbers. Do you have them or do you not?

Do you know or are you really just full of it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 01:09:23 PM
Why don't you provide EVIDENCE for your claim that the trajectories - ALL NINE OF THEM - was the same as used for Orion?
You would not ask this question if you understood how and why the path of lunar injection is determined.  Let me see if I can get my research assistant freed up long enough to do your research for you.
Oh, you don't understand basic ballistics let alone orbital mechanics. Two more for the list.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 01:09:31 PM
If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved.  So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations.  Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 01:22:58 PM
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/JSC_OrionEFT-1_PressKit_accessible.pdf
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 01:23:28 PM
Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing.  You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it.  You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic.  Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter.  It makes you look obnoxious.  Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."
Gillianren,  It is not that I cannot do the calculations.  Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties.  I see these attempts as mere distraction to prevent from engaging the elephant in the room.  They would lead down a meandering path to know where for no other reason than to prevent addressing the real topic.  They lack the intellectual integrity to address these issues because their entire beliefs system is built on a foundation of obvious lies aqnd will crumble with the slightest nudge.  I am nudging....
You are clearly not smarter than a broom. If your claims were true then ISS is fake, as was MIR, as is every satellite ever claimed. Satellite TV is a myth and NASA is in collusion with ESA, Roscosmos, ISRO, CSNA, JAXA, and so forth to achieve...what?

Do you not comprehend that NASA was reduced to renting seats on Soyuz to even get to the ISS because of cranks like you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 01:25:05 PM
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/JSC_OrionEFT-1_PressKit_accessible.pdf
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection

It's a presskit. Had you a point? Of course you hadn't.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 01:26:54 PM
Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing.  You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it.  You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic.  Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter.  It makes you look obnoxious.  Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."
Gillianren,  It is not that I cannot do the calculations.  Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties.  I see these attempts as mere distraction to prevent from engaging the elephant in the room.  They would lead down a meandering path to know where for no other reason than to prevent addressing the real topic.  They lack the intellectual integrity to address these issues because their entire beliefs system is built on a foundation of obvious lies aqnd will crumble with the slightest nudge.  I am nudging....
You are clearly not smarter than a broom. If your claims were true then ISS is fake, as was MIR, as is every satellite ever claimed. Satellite TV is a myth and NASA is in collusion with ESA, Roscosmos, ISRO, CSNA, JAXA, and so forth to achieve...what?

Do you not comprehend that NASA was reduced to renting seats on Soyuz to even get to the ISS because of cranks like you?
When I made the statement that you were mentally challenged, I was suspended.  Let's see if the moderators are fair and balanced.  "Dumb as a broom" is a much more egregious offense don't you think?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 01:28:29 PM
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/JSC_OrionEFT-1_PressKit_accessible.pdf
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection

It's a presskit. Had you a point? Of course you hadn't.
The inclination is listed in the flight path data.  Do I need to extract it and reprint it in crayon for you?  Do you need help with the big words?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 01:32:13 PM
If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved.  So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations.  Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?
So what is it you expect of me?  Should I repeat the magic tick and call it quits?  Honestly, are you claiming the apollo craft was capable of shielding greater than 90% of the harmful primary and secondary radiation of the VAB.  Is that your claim?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 01:37:37 PM
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/JSC_OrionEFT-1_PressKit_accessible.pdf
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection

It's a presskit. Had you a point? Of course you hadn't.
The inclination is listed in the flight path data.  Do I need to extract it and reprint it in crayon for you?  Do you need help with the big words?
No, you need to demonstrate your claim that the Apollo trajectory was the same. And you cannot. Everyone else knows you cannot. Apollo TLI=ORION EFT, that is your claim. Prove it. While you are about it, demonstrate that a curve has an angle. Only you believe that. Furthermore, demonstrate that Orion followed a straight line, or Apollo for that matter. You cannot, because you are clueless.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 01:46:51 PM
If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved.  So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations.  Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?
So what is it you expect of me? 
Honesty.

Should I repeat the magic tick and call it quits? 
No. Just honesty would do.
Honestly,
It is to laugh.
are you claiming the apollo craft was capable of shielding greater than 90% of the harmful primary and secondary radiation of the VAB.  Is that your claim?
No, I claim it was invisible pixies. Prove they don't exist. That is how comedically borked your position is.

Now you will likely get all "offended" because I am mocking your position. Well of course I am. What's not to mock? You have voluntarily dropped your trolleys, applied lubricant and sat on the obsidian cone. The internet does not forget. This exercise will follow you forever.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 01:54:43 PM
I am placing the admins on notice.  Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him.  He no longer exist in my mind or sight.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 01:59:47 PM
Allan F.,  The ball is in your court.  Are you going to put it into play or is it time to throw in the towel and start wound licking?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 20, 2018, 02:01:23 PM
I am placing the admins on notice.  Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him.  He no longer exist in my mind or sight.

to be fair Tim you have also not answered in an adult way. thinks like shall I color in the reply and do you need help with the big words doesn't do anything for you. it shows you up quite a bit.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 20, 2018, 02:02:01 PM
My court? Is that because I have all the balls? And you have none?

What is the secondary radiation? EM or particles?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 02:05:24 PM
I am placing the admins on notice.  Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him.  He no longer exist in my mind or sight.

to be fair Tim you have also not answered in an adult way. thinks like shall I color in the reply and do you need help with the big words doesn't do anything for you. it shows you up quite a bit.
I am not here to massage ego's and placate sensibilities.  I am here to shine the light of truth on the deception.  I have not been offensive and I would not be unkind except for the constant barrage of insults.  I am a counter puncher.  I am never the first striker.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 02:06:12 PM
I am placing the admins on notice.  Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him.  He no longer exist in my mind or sight.
Reality doesn't care. I simply ask the questions to which you have no answer and you don't much like it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 02:07:22 PM
My court? Is that because I have all the balls? And you have none?

What is the secondary radiation? EM or particles?
Stay focused.  You wanted verification that the Orion EFT's flight path mirrored the Apollos's flight path.  I have provided proof.  Do you now accept this as fact?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 20, 2018, 02:08:18 PM
No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.

Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 20, 2018, 02:12:46 PM
I am placing the admins on notice.  Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him.  He no longer exist in my mind or sight.

to be fair Tim you have also not answered in an adult way. thinks like shall I color in the reply and do you need help with the big words doesn't do anything for you. it shows you up quite a bit.
I am not here to massage ego's and placate sensibilities.  I am here to shine the light of truth on the deception.  I have not been offensive and I would not be unkind except for the constant barrage of insults.  I am a counter puncher.  I am never the first striker.

firstly you were the first striker because it is your theory. secondly you have tried very hard to shine a light on the deception but unfortunately you have failed because nothing you have suggested has any merit and has been defended quite easily. sometimes even by me. thirdly you say you are not offensive. that is incorrect. you have been a little sexist to Gillian in my opinion and attempted to belittle and embarrass others here by comparing things they should do to childrens things like crayons. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 02:14:58 PM
No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.

Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
You lie like a cheap  rug.  I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions.  Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 02:17:57 PM
I am placing the admins on notice.  Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him.  He no longer exist in my mind or sight.

to be fair Tim you have also not answered in an adult way. thinks like shall I color in the reply and do you need help with the big words doesn't do anything for you. it shows you up quite a bit.

I am not here to massage ego's and placate sensibilities.  I am here to shine the light of truth on the deception.  I have not been offensive and I would not be unkind except for the constant barrage of insults.  I am a counter puncher.  I am never the first striker.

firstly you were the first striker because it is your theory. secondly you have tried very hard to shine a light on the deception but unfortunately you have failed because nothing you have suggested has any merit and has been defended quite easily. sometimes even by me. thirdly you say you are not offensive. that is incorrect. you have been a little sexist to Gillian in my opinion and attempted to belittle and embarrass others here by comparing things they should do to childrens things like crayons.
That is not true.  I did not know Gillianren was a woman until she accused me of misogyny.  I have never intentionally done any such thing and I challenge you to prove it.  Where did I say anything remotely misogynistic?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 20, 2018, 02:18:56 PM
No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.

Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
You lie like a cheap  rug.  I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions.  Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.

again you have offended. lie like a cheap rug. Tim you have been shown the flight path of the Apollo vehicles. they did not interact with the VAB inner belt. they skirted the outer belt.

I will repeat what Gillian has said quite a few times.

the entire scientific community, thousands of people over 5 decades all agree that this is the case and the manned lunar landings were real. you keep saying that there has been a desire to push dis information and lies but cant it be true that you are simply wrong.

I believe I said this next quote earlier in this thread and was shot down (by Gillian I think). the disbelief of the lunar landings is psychological.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 20, 2018, 02:21:46 PM
I am placing the admins on notice.  Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him.  He no longer exist in my mind or sight.

to be fair Tim you have also not answered in an adult way. thinks like shall I color in the reply and do you need help with the big words doesn't do anything for you. it shows you up quite a bit.

I am not here to massage ego's and placate sensibilities.  I am here to shine the light of truth on the deception.  I have not been offensive and I would not be unkind except for the constant barrage of insults.  I am a counter puncher.  I am never the first striker.

firstly you were the first striker because it is your theory. secondly you have tried very hard to shine a light on the deception but unfortunately you have failed because nothing you have suggested has any merit and has been defended quite easily. sometimes even by me. thirdly you say you are not offensive. that is incorrect. you have been a little sexist to Gillian in my opinion and attempted to belittle and embarrass others here by comparing things they should do to childrens things like crayons.
That is not true.  I did not know Gillianren was a woman until she accused me of misogyny.  I have never intentionally done any such thing and I challenge you to prove it.  Where did I say anything remotely misogynistic?

you didn't know Gillian was a woman ??

phrases you have used toward her that you wouldn't say to a man for example I consider a little sexist. you have also said that not many women foray into theories like this. sounds a little sexist to me !!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 02:23:43 PM
No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.

Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
You lie like a cheap  rug.  I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions.  Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.

again you have offended. lie like a cheap rug. Tim you have been shown the flight path of the Apollo vehicles. they did not interact with the VAB inner belt. they skirted the outer belt.

I will repeat what Gillian has said quite a few times.

the entire scientific community, thousands of people over 5 decades all agree that this is the case and the manned lunar landings were real. you keep saying that there has been a desire to push dis information and lies but cant it be true that you are simply wrong.

I believe I said this next quote earlier in this thread and was shot down (by Gillian I think). the disbelief of the lunar landings is psychological.

Ben you are confusing me.  Are you implying that disagreeing with a woman is the misogynistic.  Gillian is a sniper on the hill taking pot shots and refusing to engage.  Most assuredly I have little respect for her position but that does not imply a lack of respect for her gender.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 02:25:04 PM
I am placing the admins on notice.  Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him.  He no longer exist in my mind or sight.

to be fair Tim you have also not answered in an adult way. thinks like shall I color in the reply and do you need help with the big words doesn't do anything for you. it shows you up quite a bit.

I am not here to massage ego's and placate sensibilities.  I am here to shine the light of truth on the deception.  I have not been offensive and I would not be unkind except for the constant barrage of insults.  I am a counter puncher.  I am never the first striker.

firstly you were the first striker because it is your theory. secondly you have tried very hard to shine a light on the deception but unfortunately you have failed because nothing you have suggested has any merit and has been defended quite easily. sometimes even by me. thirdly you say you are not offensive. that is incorrect. you have been a little sexist to Gillian in my opinion and attempted to belittle and embarrass others here by comparing things they should do to childrens things like crayons.
That is not true.  I did not know Gillianren was a woman until she accused me of misogyny.  I have never intentionally done any such thing and I challenge you to prove it.  Where did I say anything remotely misogynistic?

you didn't know Gillian was a woman ??

phrases you have used toward her that you wouldn't say to a man for example I consider a little sexist. you have also said that not many women foray into theories like this. sounds a little sexist to me !!
It is what you make of it.  If you are searching for worms you will find them as you ignore gold nuggets.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 02:26:21 PM
We are burning up daylight here.  Can anyone refute the flight paths or is it time to acknowledge the truth of the matter?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 20, 2018, 02:29:08 PM
We are burning up daylight here.  Can anyone refute the flight paths or is it time to acknowledge the truth of the matter?

You haven't provided an Apollo flight path to refute. You provided Apollo Earth orbit data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 02:30:42 PM
I don't understand the reluctance to embrace the truth.  The Orion's mission dosage wasn't that great.  It is definitive proof that the VAB canbe transited without serious health implications to the astronauts.  Get on board the bandwagon. the seats are large and comfortable and most are empty.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 02:31:47 PM
We are burning up daylight here.  Can anyone refute the flight paths or is it time to acknowledge the truth of the matter?

You haven't provided an Apollo flight path to refute. You provided Apollo Earth orbit data.
Refer to the links in the post.  The entire flight path history of all apollo flights are there waiting for your discovery.  Review the TLI and it explains why the inclination of the orbit is selected.  It explains why they orbit through the SAA and not an equatorial orbit with much less radiation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 02:43:24 PM
I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?  Bueller?  Anyone?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Al Johnston on April 20, 2018, 02:45:07 PM
Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing.  You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it.  You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic.  Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter.  It makes you look obnoxious.  Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."
Gillianren,  It is not that I cannot do the calculations.  Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties.  I see these attempts as mere distraction to prevent from engaging the elephant in the room.  They would lead down a meandering path to know where for no other reason than to prevent addressing the real topic.  They lack the intellectual integrity to address these issues because their entire beliefs system is built on a foundation of obvious lies aqnd will crumble with the slightest nudge.  I am nudging....
You are clearly not smarter than a broom. If your claims were true then ISS is fake, as was MIR, as is every satellite ever claimed. Satellite TV is a myth and NASA is in collusion with ESA, Roscosmos, ISRO, CSNA, JAXA, and so forth to achieve...what?

Do you not comprehend that NASA was reduced to renting seats on Soyuz to even get to the ISS because of cranks like you?
When I made the statement that you were mentally challenged, I was suspended.  Let's see if the moderators are fair and balanced.  "Dumb as a broom" is a much more egregious offense don't you think?

Only to brooms
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 20, 2018, 02:48:01 PM
No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.

Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
You lie like a cheap  rug.  I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions.  Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.

again you have offended. lie like a cheap rug. Tim you have been shown the flight path of the Apollo vehicles. they did not interact with the VAB inner belt. they skirted the outer belt.

I will repeat what Gillian has said quite a few times.

the entire scientific community, thousands of people over 5 decades all agree that this is the case and the manned lunar landings were real. you keep saying that there has been a desire to push dis information and lies but cant it be true that you are simply wrong.

I believe I said this next quote earlier in this thread and was shot down (by Gillian I think). the disbelief of the lunar landings is psychological.

Ben you are confusing me.  Are you implying that disagreeing with a woman is the misogynistic.  Gillian is a sniper on the hill taking pot shots and refusing to engage.  Most assuredly I have little respect for her position but that does not imply a lack of respect for her gender.

Certainly not but you have made comments that perhaps you wouldn't say to a man. You also say she is taking pot shots. One particular potshot which you haven't answered yet is could it simply be that you are wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 02:48:40 PM
Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing.  You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it.  You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic.  Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter.  It makes you look obnoxious.  Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."
Gillianren,  It is not that I cannot do the calculations.  Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties.  I see these attempts as mere distraction to prevent from engaging the elephant in the room.  They would lead down a meandering path to know where for no other reason than to prevent addressing the real topic.  They lack the intellectual integrity to address these issues because their entire beliefs system is built on a foundation of obvious lies aqnd will crumble with the slightest nudge.  I am nudging....
You are clearly not smarter than a broom. If your claims were true then ISS is fake, as was MIR, as is every satellite ever claimed. Satellite TV is a myth and NASA is in collusion with ESA, Roscosmos, ISRO, CSNA, JAXA, and so forth to achieve...what?

Do you not comprehend that NASA was reduced to renting seats on Soyuz to even get to the ISS because of cranks like you?
When I made the statement that you were mentally challenged, I was suspended.  Let's see if the moderators are fair and balanced.  "Dumb as a broom" is a much more egregious offense don't you think?

Only to brooms
Your remark is without merit or substance.  It addresses the issue not at all.  Be contributor and not a detractor, if for no other reason than to provide ammo for the gun that shoots me off my pedestal.  Teach me humility that I might loose my arrogance.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 02:52:57 PM
No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.

Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
You lie like a cheap  rug.  I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions.  Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.

again you have offended. lie like a cheap rug. Tim you have been shown the flight path of the Apollo vehicles. they did not interact with the VAB inner belt. they skirted the outer belt.

I will repeat what Gillian has said quite a few times.

the entire scientific community, thousands of people over 5 decades all agree that this is the case and the manned lunar landings were real. you keep saying that there has been a desire to push dis information and lies but cant it be true that you are simply wrong.

I believe I said this next quote earlier in this thread and was shot down (by Gillian I think). the disbelief of the lunar landings is psychological.

Ben you are confusing me.  Are you implying that disagreeing with a woman is the misogynistic.  Gillian is a sniper on the hill taking pot shots and refusing to engage.  Most assuredly I have little respect for her position but that does not imply a lack of respect for her gender.

Certainly not but you have made comments that perhaps you wouldn't say to a man. You also say she is taking pot shots. One particular potshot which you haven't answered yet is could it simply be that you are wrong.
The only remark that I made to her was to apologize  for the perceived insult to her gender.  It is true that I would not make such an apology to a man but other than that there has been no indiscretion on my part.  Ben, you like the others obfuscate to distract from the subject matter.  You want to make gender bias the subject when it is really nothing to do with gender.  This is about lunar trajectory and anything else is a diversion.  Stay on point.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 02:54:47 PM
I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?  Bueller?  Anyone?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 02:55:22 PM
I am placing the admins on notice.  Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him.  He no longer exist in my mind or sight.

to be fair Tim you have also not answered in an adult way. thinks like shall I color in the reply and do you need help with the big words doesn't do anything for you. it shows you up quite a bit.
I am not here to massage ego's and placate sensibilities.
Wrong. You are massaging your own ego.

I am here to shine the light of truth on the deception.
Wrong. You have failed to demonstrate any deception beyond your own.

I have not been offensive
Wrong. You have hurled abuse left right and center.

and I would not be unkind except for the constant barrage of insults.
Wrong. you get push back BECAUSE you hurl insult at every step.
I am a counter puncher.
Wrong. You have no punch to start with.
I am never the first striker.
Wrong. You are clearly the first striker.

Is there anything else you would like to get comprehensively wrong? Spatial reasoning, perhaps? Log and Linear scales, perhaps? Google, maybe? Orbital inclinations, maybe? Orbital mechanics, it might be?

Naaa. Your real problem is that I will not allow you away with the industrial grade baloney you spew and you don't much like that I hold your feet to the flames. And when you cannot answer, you seek suppression of dissent. Who went that route you or I?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 20, 2018, 02:59:51 PM
No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.

Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
You lie like a cheap  rug.  I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions.  Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.

Will you answer this very simple question: Is the secondary radiation particle or EM?

Or will you by evading again or use personal insults again admit you don't know the difference?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 20, 2018, 03:00:01 PM
We are burning up daylight here.  Can anyone refute the flight paths or is it time to acknowledge the truth of the matter?

You haven't provided an Apollo flight path to refute. You provided Apollo Earth orbit data.
Refer to the links in the post.  The entire flight path history of all apollo flights are there waiting for your discovery.  Review the TLI and it explains why the inclination of the orbit is selected.  It explains why they orbit through the SAA and not an equatorial orbit with much less radiation.

I did. I also have the book. If you look hard enough you'll find the actual TLI data. You're just demonstrating that you are another hoax believer who is convinced he is the only one who knows anything. You're nowhere near the level of understanding required to claim expertise in any of this.

When you're finished you can explain how it is that a hand held camera filmed an exactly correct view of Earth from cislunar space, or how Chinese images show evidence of human activity at the Apollo landing sites.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 03:03:35 PM
No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.

Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
You lie like a cheap  rug. 
What was it you said about hurling insults? Remind me.

I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions. 
No, you have not. At best, you have provided 2D representations of 3D topography and proudly proceeded to demonstrate that 3D spatial reasoning is somehow beyond your comprehension.

Show some intellectual integrity
More insults? How refreshing.

and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.
Ever stick your finger through a hole in a donut? You are telling us that you cannot figure out how to do that. This is the level of your discourse.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 03:06:30 PM
No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.

Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
You lie like a cheap  rug.  I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions.  Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.

Will you answer this very simple question: Is the secondary radiation particle or EM?

Or will you by evading again or use personal insults again admit you don't know the difference?
It is both but what has that to do with accepting the illustration or rejecting it.  You have eluded addressing this simple point all day.  Take a position.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 03:07:17 PM
I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?  Bueller?  Anyone?
Sure. We have all of the evidence and you have nothing.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 03:08:38 PM
No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.

Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
You lie like a cheap  rug.  I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions.  Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.

Will you answer this very simple question: Is the secondary radiation particle or EM?

Or will you by evading again or use personal insults again admit you don't know the difference?
It is both but what has that to do with accepting the illustration or rejecting it.  You have eluded addressing this simple point all day.  Take a position.
Snigger. Missionary or what?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 03:09:13 PM
We are burning up daylight here.  Can anyone refute the flight paths or is it time to acknowledge the truth of the matter?

You haven't provided an Apollo flight path to refute. You provided Apollo Earth orbit data.
Refer to the links in the post.  The entire flight path history of all apollo flights are there waiting for your discovery.  Review the TLI and it explains why the inclination of the orbit is selected.  It explains why they orbit through the SAA and not an equatorial orbit with much less radiation.

I did. I also have the book. If you look hard enough you'll find the actual TLI data. You're just demonstrating that you are another hoax believer who is convinced he is the only one who knows anything. You're nowhere near the level of understanding required to claim expertise in any of this.

When you're finished you can explain how it is that a hand held camera filmed an exactly correct view of Earth from cislunar space, or how Chinese images show evidence of human activity at the Apollo landing sites.
Try to remain on point.  Do you reject the flight similarities of the Orion EFT and the Apollo's and if so what is the basis and where are the facts?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 03:11:43 PM
I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?

1.  Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.

2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.

4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.

5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 03:12:52 PM
I grow disillusioned by the lack of moderation and the obfuscation.  Are there no serious seeker's of truth to be found?  I am asking for my friend Diogenes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 03:16:29 PM
I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?

1.  Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.

2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.

4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.

5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?

These are indeed all good questions but most distract from the focus of the original inquiry.

From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line.  As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 03:19:38 PM
These are indeed all good questions but most distract from the focus of the original inquiry.

Please answer the questions as they relate directly to the passage of the CM through the VABs.

Quote
From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line.  As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.

What lunar plane and what do you mean by the flight path remaining on the lunar plane?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 03:20:29 PM
If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved.  So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations.  Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?
So what is it you expect of me?  Should I repeat the magic tick and call it quits?  Honestly, are you claiming the apollo craft was capable of shielding greater than 90% of the harmful primary and secondary radiation of the VAB.  Is that your claim?
Yes, clearly the calculations prove that, backed up by the total dosimeters that each of the crew wore.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 03:21:39 PM
Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on.  Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission?  This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no.  Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy. ;)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 03:23:23 PM
If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved.  So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations.  Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?
So what is it you expect of me?  Should I repeat the magic tick and call it quits?  Honestly, are you claiming the apollo craft was capable of shielding greater than 90% of the harmful primary and secondary radiation of the VAB.  Is that your claim?
Yes, clearly the calculations prove that, backed up by the total dosimeters that each of the crew wore.
Only if the assumption the dosimeters actually represent something more than an ELO mission.  Which is the heart of the debate.  We have yet to demonstrate that assumption is a valid one.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 03:25:21 PM
No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.

Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
You lie like a cheap  rug.  I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions.  Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.

again you have offended. lie like a cheap rug. Tim you have been shown the flight path of the Apollo vehicles. they did not interact with the VAB inner belt. they skirted the outer belt.

I will repeat what Gillian has said quite a few times.

the entire scientific community, thousands of people over 5 decades all agree that this is the case and the manned lunar landings were real. you keep saying that there has been a desire to push dis information and lies but cant it be true that you are simply wrong.

I believe I said this next quote earlier in this thread and was shot down (by Gillian I think). the disbelief of the lunar landings is psychological.

Ben you are confusing me.  Are you implying that disagreeing with a woman is the misogynistic.  Gillian is a sniper on the hill taking pot shots and refusing to engage.  Most assuredly I have little respect for her position but that does not imply a lack of respect for her gender.

Certainly not but you have made comments that perhaps you wouldn't say to a man. You also say she is taking pot shots. One particular potshot which you haven't answered yet is could it simply be that you are wrong.
The only remark that I made to her was to apologize  for the perceived insult to her gender.  It is true that I would not make such an apology to a man but other than that there has been no indiscretion on my part.  Ben, you like the others obfuscate to distract from the subject matter.  You want to make gender bias the subject when it is really nothing to do with gender.  This is about lunar trajectory and anything else is a diversion.  Stay on point.
But you clearly do not understand TLI. What hope is there that you might understand misogyny?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 03:25:30 PM
We are burning up daylight here.  Can anyone refute the flight paths or is it time to acknowledge the truth of the matter?

You haven't provided an Apollo flight path to refute. You provided Apollo Earth orbit data.

I second that statement!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 03:25:41 PM
Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on.  Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission?  This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no.  Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy. ;)

No, there are no single points to my questions, they examine the complexity of the problem; the passage of the CM through the VABs which you claim is not possible. Please answer them, as I take refusal as buying time as you spend 5 days Google searching for information. They are on the table now to be answered tonight. That is how this works. Demonstrate your expertise in real time, not flounce-Google time.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 03:26:56 PM
I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?  Bueller?  Anyone?

Snide condescending remarks are not really necessary
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 03:27:09 PM
If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved.  So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations.  Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?
So what is it you expect of me?  Should I repeat the magic tick and call it quits?  Honestly, are you claiming the apollo craft was capable of shielding greater than 90% of the harmful primary and secondary radiation of the VAB.  Is that your claim?
Yes, clearly the calculations prove that, backed up by the total dosimeters that each of the crew wore.
Only if the assumption the dosimeters actually represent something more than an ELO mission.  Which is the heart of the debate.  We have yet to demonstrate that assumption is a valid one.
The dosimeters "represent" nothing. They simply are a measure of what happened.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 20, 2018, 03:28:04 PM
From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line.  As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.

That is a truly epic fail of an observation. The TLI flight path was 30 degrees to the ecliptic plane. The lunar orbit is inclined by 5.1 degrees and the only relevance this has is where it intersects the transfer orbit. Apollo flight paths are Earth orbits, as are the Orion.
Sadly for you that is all they have in common. The eccentricity of Apollo took it around the weaker areas of the belt and took it out to a path that intersected the Moon. Orion was only eccentric enough to allow it to travel through the inner belt.

How in heavens name can you say they are the same? They are completely different.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 03:30:05 PM
Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on.  Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission?  This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no.  Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy. ;)

No.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 03:32:33 PM
From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line.  As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.

That is a truly epic fail of an observation. The TLI flight path was 30 degrees to the ecliptic plane. The lunar orbit is inclined by 5.1 degrees and the only relevance this has is where it intersects the transfer orbit. Apollo flight paths are Earth orbits, as are the Orion.
Sadly for you that is all they have in common. The eccentricity of Apollo took it around the weaker areas of the belt and took it out to a path that intersected the Moon. Orion was only eccentric enough to allow it to travel through the inner belt.

How in heavens name can you say they are the same? They are completely different.
The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 03:33:38 PM
Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on.  Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission?  This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no.  Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy. ;)

No.
I am eager to see your refutation and a correction to the illustration.  Show me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 03:34:15 PM
I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?

1.  Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.

2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.

4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.

5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?

These are indeed all good questions but most distract from the focus of the original inquiry.

From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line.  As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.
Snigger. Tim thinks that TLI requires orbit in the "lunar plane". 3D spatial reasoning fail. Orbital mechanics fail.

Now that tim has me on ignore, it is quite liberating. I can point out the bovine errors and he can't answer. Bit of an own goal there , tim.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 03:34:55 PM
If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved.  So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations.  Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?
So what is it you expect of me?  Should I repeat the magic tick and call it quits?  Honestly, are you claiming the apollo craft was capable of shielding greater than 90% of the harmful primary and secondary radiation of the VAB.  Is that your claim?
Yes, clearly the calculations prove that, backed up by the total dosimeters that each of the crew wore.
Only if the assumption the dosimeters actually represent something more than an ELO mission.  Which is the heart of the debate.  We have yet to demonstrate that assumption is a valid one.

You have yet to show that the dosimeters are incorrect during the outward/inward journey to the Mon.  You specify fluxes recorded in less active solar cycle and then placed those values in a more active solar cycle(Apollo's) when clearly those taken in the less active cycle will generally be greater than those of the solar cycle during which Apollo traveled. In short you compare apples to oranges and declared they are the same.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 03:37:19 PM
Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on.  Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission?  This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no.  Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy. ;)

No.
I am eager to see your refutation and a correction to the illustration.  Show me.

You have been shown, many times.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 03:40:40 PM
From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line.  As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.

That is a truly epic fail of an observation. The TLI flight path was 30 degrees to the ecliptic plane. The lunar orbit is inclined by 5.1 degrees and the only relevance this has is where it intersects the transfer orbit. Apollo flight paths are Earth orbits, as are the Orion.
Sadly for you that is all they have in common. The eccentricity of Apollo took it around the weaker areas of the belt and took it out to a path that intersected the Moon. Orion was only eccentric enough to allow it to travel through the inner belt.

How in heavens name can you say they are the same? They are completely different.
The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.
Saturn V had multiple stages. What's the problem? Oh, I know, you think direct ascent was the method.

And fuel efficiency was not the only mission goal, other things like survival of the astronauts was also a mission goal. Do you really think that NASA would say "**** the astronauts, this will save fuel"?

Well, maybe on planet sausage they might. Not in the real world.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 03:41:26 PM
If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved.  So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations.  Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?
So what is it you expect of me?  Should I repeat the magic tick and call it quits?  Honestly, are you claiming the apollo craft was capable of shielding greater than 90% of the harmful primary and secondary radiation of the VAB.  Is that your claim?
Yes, clearly the calculations prove that, backed up by the total dosimeters that each of the crew wore.
Only if the assumption the dosimeters actually represent something more than an ELO mission.  Which is the heart of the debate.  We have yet to demonstrate that assumption is a valid one.

You have yet to show that the dosimeters are incorrect during the outward/inward journey to the Mon.  You specify fluxes recorded in less active solar cycle and then placed those values in a more active solar cycle(Apollo's) when clearly those taken in the less active cycle will generally be greater than those of the solar cycle during which Apollo traveled. In short you compare apples to oranges and declared they are the same.
How does your remark address the question:  Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the Apollo flight?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 03:44:15 PM
Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on.  Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission?  This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no.  Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy. ;)

No.
I am eager to see your refutation and a correction to the illustration.  Show me.

You have been shown, many times.
You have shown that they have dissimilar flight paths?  I missed that.  Please guide me to that nugget of wisdom that I might partake.  I am ready to concede this stage of the debate as soon as you do.  Show me the money!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 20, 2018, 03:44:48 PM
From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line.  As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.

That is a truly epic fail of an observation. The TLI flight path was 30 degrees to the ecliptic plane. The lunar orbit is inclined by 5.1 degrees and the only relevance this has is where it intersects the transfer orbit. Apollo flight paths are Earth orbits, as are the Orion.
Sadly for you that is all they have in common. The eccentricity of Apollo took it around the weaker areas of the belt and took it out to a path that intersected the Moon. Orion was only eccentric enough to allow it to travel through the inner belt.

How in heavens name can you say they are the same? They are completely different.
The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.

I fail to see what that has to do with it! You claimed Orion and Apollo had the same paths. They are not even close.

Are you man enough to admit even one of your numerous blunders?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 03:46:55 PM
From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line.  As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.

That is a truly epic fail of an observation. The TLI flight path was 30 degrees to the ecliptic plane. The lunar orbit is inclined by 5.1 degrees and the only relevance this has is where it intersects the transfer orbit. Apollo flight paths are Earth orbits, as are the Orion.
Sadly for you that is all they have in common. The eccentricity of Apollo took it around the weaker areas of the belt and took it out to a path that intersected the Moon. Orion was only eccentric enough to allow it to travel through the inner belt.

How in heavens name can you say they are the same? They are completely different.
The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.

I fail to see what that has to do with it! You claimed Orion and Apollo had the same paths. They are not even close.

Are you man enough to admit even one of your numerous blunders?
I listed the fight paths of all the lunar flights and the Orion EFT.  Where is the disconnect?  Show me your rebuttal.  Show me where it says something different that the NASA figures I quoted.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 03:53:33 PM
Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on.  Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission?  This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no.  Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy. ;)

No.
I am eager to see your refutation and a correction to the illustration.  Show me.

You have been shown, many times.
You have shown that they have dissimilar flight paths?  I missed that. 
You ignored it

Please guide me to that nugget of wisdom that I might partake.
We did, you didn't.

I am ready to concede this stage of the debate as soon as you do.
This is not a debate. You came to a gunfight armed with a twig. You demonstrated that you fail at so much that it was an impossible mountain of ignorance to climb.

Show me the money!
We did. You refused to look.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 03:53:40 PM
The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.

This is a) crap, and b) already covered in this thread. The only requirement of a flight to the Moon is that it intersects the point in space where the Moon will be in order to go into orbit. It matters not one whit what plane that is on. What does influence the choice of plane is the latitude of the landing site and what plane you want to go into lunar orbit on. If getting to the Moon is the only requirement you can go there on any damn orbital plane you want.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 03:57:35 PM
If no one can provide a rebuttal then let all concede the fact that The Orion's flight pat mirrored the Apollo's flight path.  There is much work to be done and yet we spend an enormous amount of time in denial.  Where is the intellectual integrity in this group and why is there no moderation?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 20, 2018, 03:57:42 PM

It is both but what has that to do with accepting the illustration or rejecting it.  You have eluded addressing this simple point all day.  Take a position.

Very good. The very first hit on google. Now, what is the EM part?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 03:59:32 PM
The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.

This is a) crap, and b) already covered in this thread. The only requirement of a flight to the Moon is that it intersects the point in space where the Moon will be in order to go into orbit. It matters not one whit what plane that is on. What does influence the choice of plane is the latitude of the landing site and what plane you want to go into lunar orbit on. If getting to the Moon is the only requirement you can go there on any damn orbital plane you want.
That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion.  If you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 20, 2018, 03:59:49 PM
If no one can provide a rebuttal then let all concede the fact that The Orion's flight pat mirrored the Apollo's flight path.  There is much work to be done and yet we spend an enormous amount of time in denial.  Where is the intellectual integrity in this group and why is there no moderation?

There IS a moderator. YOU are being watched by the moderator. Because YOU don't answer questions, accept evidence and use personal insults when you are backed into a corner.

You have been shown the evidence. You don't understand it or you disregard it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 04:01:38 PM

It is both but what has that to do with accepting the illustration or rejecting it.  You have eluded addressing this simple point all day.  Take a position.

Very good. The very first hit on google. Now, what is the EM part?
Will this obfuscation never end?  Deal with the elephant in the room and then we can proceed with the other jungle animals.  Is the flight paths similar?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 04:02:23 PM
The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.

This is a) crap, and b) already covered in this thread. The only requirement of a flight to the Moon is that it intersects the point in space where the Moon will be in order to go into orbit. It matters not one whit what plane that is on. What does influence the choice of plane is the latitude of the landing site and what plane you want to go into lunar orbit on. If getting to the Moon is the only requirement you can go there on any damn orbital plane you want.
Well, obviously, TF does not, and indeed seems incapable of understanding that, but it fits well with the inability to comprehend three dimensions. Hence my question to tim. If he is indeed correct then it is impossible to insert your finger in a ring donut. This is quite obviously absurd, but it is the logical consequence of tim's assertions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 04:02:47 PM
The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.

This is a) crap, and b) already covered in this thread. The only requirement of a flight to the Moon is that it intersects the point in space where the Moon will be in order to go into orbit. It matters not one whit what plane that is on. What does influence the choice of plane is the latitude of the landing site and what plane you want to go into lunar orbit on. If getting to the Moon is the only requirement you can go there on any damn orbital plane you want.
That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion.  If you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.

It's not an unsubstantiated position. Here is the discussion.

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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 04:07:33 PM
The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.

This is a) crap, and b) already covered in this thread. The only requirement of a flight to the Moon is that it intersects the point in space where the Moon will be in order to go into orbit. It matters not one whit what plane that is on. What does influence the choice of plane is the latitude of the landing site and what plane you want to go into lunar orbit on. If getting to the Moon is the only requirement you can go there on any damn orbital plane you want.
That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion.  If you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.

It's not an unsubstantiated position. Here is the discussion.

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.

Quote
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.

I recommend a inquiry into the selection of the lunar flight plan that encompasses the theory  and benefits and limitations of all choices.  When it is known why they chose the method used it becomes obvious why all the missions have essentially the same flight plan.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 04:08:23 PM
That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion.

No, that is physics. What exactly would stop a craft from entering a lunar orbit on any plane with an apogee of 240,000 miles, if the Moon is there and the spacecraft performs a lunar orbit inserion burn to slow itself down to be captured by the Moon's gravity?

Quote
If you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.

Utter crap. You have demonstrated a total unwillingness to change your own opinion watever is provided.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 20, 2018, 04:10:41 PM
Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing.  You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it.  You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic.  Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter.  It makes you look obnoxious.  Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."
Gillianren,  It is not that I cannot do the calculations.  Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties.

No.  You have not.  You have constantly evaded the simplest question, and until you answer it, I see no point in engaging further except to ask it again. 

How do you know that the answer is not simply that you have misunderstood what you're citing as evidence?

For what it's worth, I do not accuse you of misogyny.  I did, on the other hand, point out that your words about how I am "special in your mind" were creepy.  Which they are.  You never engaged on that point.  I mentioned that I have dealt with other men who treat me a certain way because I am female, but that was not relevant to you.  Others have decided that you're a misogynist, but your sexism is so mild that it's barely noticeable compared to what most women deal with on a daily basis.  So now that we've disposed of that, can you answer my question?  It's a really, really easy one.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 04:11:10 PM
That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion.

No, that is physics. What exactly would stop a craft from entering a lunar orbit on any plane with an apogee of 240,000 miles, if the Moon is there and the spacecraft performs a lunar orbit inserion burn to slow itself down to be captured by the Moon's gravity?

Quote
If you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.

Utter crap. You have demonstrated a total unwillingness to change your own opinion watever is provided.
Fuel?  I noticed a lack of an alternate flight plan in yur rebuttal.  Was that an oversight or is it you have nothing tangible, only a gut feel?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 04:11:18 PM
The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.

This is a) crap, and b) already covered in this thread. The only requirement of a flight to the Moon is that it intersects the point in space where the Moon will be in order to go into orbit. It matters not one whit what plane that is on. What does influence the choice of plane is the latitude of the landing site and what plane you want to go into lunar orbit on. If getting to the Moon is the only requirement you can go there on any damn orbital plane you want.
That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion.  If you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.

It's not an unsubstantiated position. Here is the discussion.

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.

Quote
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.

I recommend a inquiry into the selection of the lunar flight plan that encompasses the theory  and benefits and limitations of all choices.  When it is known why they chose the method used it becomes obvious why all the missions have essentially the same flight plan.
We already know all of that, the simple fact is that you do not.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 04:16:00 PM
Others have decided that you're a misogynist, but your sexism is so mild that it's barely noticeable compared to what most women deal with on a daily basis.  So now that we've disposed of that, can you answer my question?  It's a really, really easy one.

I made a jokey remark to Gillian that Tim engages in a bit of a causal misogyny, after he had ignored Gillian. I meant nothing by it other than a joke, hence the 'casual' prefix. It was intended more to joke with Gillian as she tends to be ignored in threads when the 'techno-geeks' are in overdrive, and she offers her alternative narratives that are non-science based.

If it has caused offence to any party, then I am sorry. Shall we drop it, and accept it was a joke?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 20, 2018, 04:16:22 PM
I will say--in addition to film and psychology, the field I understand that he's abused most is the English language.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 04:16:27 PM
Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing.  You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it.  You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic.  Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter.  It makes you look obnoxious.  Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."
Gillianren,  It is not that I cannot do the calculations.  Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties.

No.  You have not.  You have constantly evaded the simplest question, and until you answer it, I see no point in engaging further except to ask it again. 

How do you know that the answer is not simply that you have misunderstood what you're citing as evidence?

For what it's worth, I do not accuse you of misogyny.  I did, on the other hand, point out that your words about how I am "special in your mind" were creepy.  Which they are.  You never engaged on that point.  I mentioned that I have dealt with other men who treat me a certain way because I am female, but that was not relevant to you.  Others have decided that you're a misogynist, but your sexism is so mild that it's barely noticeable compared to what most women deal with on a daily basis.  So now that we've disposed of that, can you answer my question?  It's a really, really easy one.
Gillianren, the only reason I entertain this forum and the abuse it provides because I had hoped I was incorrect.  I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception.  I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be.  I  have been distracted, deceived and lied to.  I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with.  Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors.  Will you please stop asking the same question over and over?  It has become tiresome and it is distracting.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 04:18:52 PM
That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion.

No, that is physics. What exactly would stop a craft from entering a lunar orbit on any plane with an apogee of 240,000 miles, if the Moon is there and the spacecraft performs a lunar orbit inserion burn to slow itself down to be captured by the Moon's gravity?

Quote
If you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.

Utter crap. You have demonstrated a total unwillingness to change your own opinion watever is provided.
Fuel?
Yeah, fuel. Kind of important for a moon trip don't you think? Oh and the word is "whatever"

I noticed a lack of an alternate flight plan in yur rebuttal.
Really? You are unaware of any other flight plan ever? Do you expect that level of ignorance to be taken seriously? Oh and the word is "your".
Was that an oversight or is it you have nothing tangible, only a gut feel?
Nope, it is that we have facts and evidence and you have nothing. Oh and "gut feel"? That's called superstition. You have lots of that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 04:18:58 PM
Fuel?  I noticed a lack of an alternate flight plan in yur rebuttal.  Was that an oversight or is it you have nothing tangible, only a gut feel?

I noticed that not one of the Apollo or Orion flights is actually 'on the lunar plane' either....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 04:19:18 PM
I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with.  Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors.  Will you please stop asking the same question over and over?  It has become tiresome and it is distracting.

I asked you 5 questions that are relevant, they pertained to the primary and secondary radiation. Please answer those questions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 04:19:42 PM
Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing.  You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it.  You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic.  Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter.  It makes you look obnoxious.  Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."
Gillianren,  It is not that I cannot do the calculations.  Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties.

No.  You have not.  You have constantly evaded the simplest question, and until you answer it, I see no point in engaging further except to ask it again. 

How do you know that the answer is not simply that you have misunderstood what you're citing as evidence?

For what it's worth, I do not accuse you of misogyny.  I did, on the other hand, point out that your words about how I am "special in your mind" were creepy.  Which they are.  You never engaged on that point.  I mentioned that I have dealt with other men who treat me a certain way because I am female, but that was not relevant to you.  Others have decided that you're a misogynist, but your sexism is so mild that it's barely noticeable compared to what most women deal with on a daily basis.  So now that we've disposed of that, can you answer my question?  It's a really, really easy one.
Gillianren, the only reason I entertain this forum and the abuse it provides because I had hoped I was incorrect.  I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception.  I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be.  I  have been distracted, deceived and lied to.  I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with.  Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors.  Will you please stop asking the same question over and over?  It has become tiresome and it is distracting.

That is not answering the question.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 04:22:06 PM
Fuel?  I noticed a lack of an alternate flight plan in yur rebuttal.  Was that an oversight or is it you have nothing tangible, only a gut feel?

I noticed that not one of the Apollo or Orion flights is actually 'on the lunar plane' either....
As demonstrated by?  Can you provide the lunar plane for each of the flights?  Do you assume it is a constant and does not reflect the irregularities of the earth"s orbit on the solar orbital plane?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 04:26:05 PM
There is a large amount of barking but little biting in this dog.  Will someone post their version of the two flight plans so we can contrast them.  Why so much extraneous conversation and so few facts?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 04:29:02 PM
As demonstrated by?  Can you provide the lunar plane for each of the flights?  Do you assume it is a constant and does not reflect the irregularities of the earth"s orbit on the solar orbital plane?

When you can provide more than a few wikipedia articles and google hits I'll play your game. When you can admit you are wrong about anything instead of, say, insisting that the units given for the CraTER data must actually mean something other than what they say because you don't understand why they were presneted that way, I'll play your game. When you can stop being childish I'll play your game. For now I'm happy with my own understanding of orbital mechanics, which actually chimes with the reality of spaceflight in general, thank you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 20, 2018, 04:31:28 PM
From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line.  As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.

That is a truly epic fail of an observation. The TLI flight path was 30 degrees to the ecliptic plane. The lunar orbit is inclined by 5.1 degrees and the only relevance this has is where it intersects the transfer orbit. Apollo flight paths are Earth orbits, as are the Orion.
Sadly for you that is all they have in common. The eccentricity of Apollo took it around the weaker areas of the belt and took it out to a path that intersected the Moon. Orion was only eccentric enough to allow it to travel through the inner belt.

How in heavens name can you say they are the same? They are completely different.
The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.

I fail to see what that has to do with it! You claimed Orion and Apollo had the same paths. They are not even close.

Are you man enough to admit even one of your numerous blunders?
I listed the fight paths of all the lunar flights and the Orion EFT.  Where is the disconnect?  Show me your rebuttal.  Show me where it says something different that the NASA figures I quoted.

I just explained to you how they differed. You diverted by going about an irrelevant flight path.

Orion carves an ellipse that comes back on itself at 3600 miles out. It takes it straight through the heart of the inner belt.

Apollo ellipses extend out to 240,000 miles. They do not come through that region at any point. 

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 04:32:05 PM
As demonstrated by?  Can you provide the lunar plane for each of the flights?  Do you assume it is a constant and does not reflect the irregularities of the earth"s orbit on the solar orbital plane?

When you can provide more than a few wikipedia articles and google hits I'll play your game. When you can admit you are wrong about anything instead of, say, insisting that the units given for the CraTER data must actually mean something other than what they say because you don't understand why they were presneted that way, I'll play your game. When you can stop being childish I'll play your game. For now I'm happy with my own understanding of orbital mechanics, which actually chimes with the reality of spaceflight in general, thank you.
I thought we had moved on from the CraTer data.  I am more than willing to engage the subject but not before we resolve this sticking point.  You made a claim that I am asking you to justify.  If you can not then I am forced to regard it as an unsubstantiated opinion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 04:33:42 PM
There is a large amount of barking but little biting in this dog.

I take it that one is referring to oneself.

I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?

1.  Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.

2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.

4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.

5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?

Now answer the questions 2-6, tonight please. Not in flounce-google time.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 04:34:58 PM
From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line.  As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.

That is a truly epic fail of an observation. The TLI flight path was 30 degrees to the ecliptic plane. The lunar orbit is inclined by 5.1 degrees and the only relevance this has is where it intersects the transfer orbit. Apollo flight paths are Earth orbits, as are the Orion.
Sadly for you that is all they have in common. The eccentricity of Apollo took it around the weaker areas of the belt and took it out to a path that intersected the Moon. Orion was only eccentric enough to allow it to travel through the inner belt.

How in heavens name can you say they are the same? They are completely different.
The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.

I fail to see what that has to do with it! You claimed Orion and Apollo had the same paths. They are not even close.

Are you man enough to admit even one of your numerous blunders?
I listed the fight paths of all the lunar flights and the Orion EFT.  Where is the disconnect?  Show me your rebuttal.  Show me where it says something different that the NASA figures I quoted.

I just explained to you how they differed. You diverted by going about an irrelevant flight path.

Orion carves an ellipse that comes back on itself at 3600 miles out. It takes it straight through the heart of the inner belt.

Apollo ellipses extend out to 240,000 miles. They do not come through that region at any point.
Show me on the graph where the bad man hurt you?  If both crafts entered into the VAB at the same inclination traveling in the same direction then they share a similar flight path.  The onus is on you to prove the numbers are incorrect.  Remember, they are not my numbers, they are NASA's numbers.  Show me something.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 04:35:54 PM
Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing.  You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it.  You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic.  Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter.  It makes you look obnoxious.  Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."
Gillianren,  It is not that I cannot do the calculations.  Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties.

No.  You have not.  You have constantly evaded the simplest question, and until you answer it, I see no point in engaging further except to ask it again. 

How do you know that the answer is not simply that you have misunderstood what you're citing as evidence?

For what it's worth, I do not accuse you of misogyny.  I did, on the other hand, point out that your words about how I am "special in your mind" were creepy.  Which they are.  You never engaged on that point.  I mentioned that I have dealt with other men who treat me a certain way because I am female, but that was not relevant to you.  Others have decided that you're a misogynist, but your sexism is so mild that it's barely noticeable compared to what most women deal with on a daily basis.  So now that we've disposed of that, can you answer my question?  It's a really, really easy one.
Gillianren, the only reason I entertain this forum and the abuse it provides because I had hoped I was incorrect.
Nope. You, I, gillian and everyone else are simply guests here. You only entertain this forum because a)it is the only one which has not chucked you out yet and b)so far you remain an amusing chew toy.

That is all. When you inevitably become dull and repetitive you will be gone. Are you unaware that more than a few of us have specifically asked the site owner to NOT ban you because you are so hilariously amusing? It seems not?
I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception.
I don't care about your government. It means nothing to me, nor does it mean much to the other 96% of humans who are not americans.
I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be. 
Nope. When presented with evidence you hurled insults and sprinted.
I  have been distracted, deceived and lied to. [/quote]By yourself.
I have not had a single question resolved
You had all of them resolved.
in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with.
Truth has no neccesity to be either nice or to your liking. And neither of those words can be applied to you. 
Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors. 
For a given level of weed.
Will you please stop asking the same question over and over? 
Will you?

It has become tiresome and it is distracting.
Not at all. it is amusing to watch you make a pretzel out of your brain.

Sorry to step in gillian but this is outrageous bovine fecal matter.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 04:37:12 PM
There is a large amount of barking but little biting in this dog.

I take it that one is referring to oneself.

I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?

1.  Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.

2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.

4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.

5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?

Now answer the questions 2-6, tonight please. Not in flounce-google time.
I say again. I will not acquiesce.  We must come to terms on the two flight paths before I surrender to a different discussion.  Either accept the illustration as fact or provide an alternative one.  We are at an impasse.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 04:39:11 PM
Show me on the graph where the bad man hurt you?

Now now, you know that graphs aren't your friend.

Quote
If both crafts entered into the VAB at the same inclination traveling in the same direction then they share a similar flight path.

Why? Not when their eccentricity is different. That's simply not possible from orbital mechanics. The two ellipses are different both spatially and in velocity. That has an effect on the position in the VAB and time in the VAB.

Quote
The onus is on you to prove the numbers are incorrect.  Remember, they are not my numbers, they are NASA's numbers.  Show me something.

They aren't NASA's numbers, they are Newton's numbers. Now show us you understand Newton.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 20, 2018, 04:40:59 PM
Fuel?  I noticed a lack of an alternate flight plan in yur rebuttal.  Was that an oversight or is it you have nothing tangible, only a gut feel?

I noticed that not one of the Apollo or Orion flights is actually 'on the lunar plane' either....
As demonstrated by?  Can you provide the lunar plane for each of the flights?  Do you assume it is a constant and does not reflect the irregularities of the earth"s orbit on the solar orbital plane?

That epitomises the poor understanding you have.

The lunar plane is the cross section 5 degrees above the ecliptic.  What you should have asked is their orbital plane. But even that is not even close to the full flight path.

Afaik, they both followed the same orbital inclination. One ellipse  out to 3600, one out to 240,000. The closer one Orion must pass through areas that Apollo does not or could not. I'll knock up a diagram if you are still confused
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 04:41:36 PM
I say again. I will not acquiesce.  We must come to terms on the two flight paths before I surrender to a different discussion.  Either accept the illustration as fact or provide an alternative one.  We are at an impasse.

So I take that as your refusal to engage in questions that I and others have asked regarding your claim about radiation in the VAB. I take this as you won't answer the questions as you cannot answer them with any credibility. I take that as a submission.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 04:42:13 PM
Show me on the graph where the bad man hurt you?  If both crafts entered into the VAB at the same inclination traveling in the same direction then they share a similar flight path.

Which part of 'one had an apogee in the belt and one shot right through' isn't clear in terms of describing their flight paths as different?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 04:43:35 PM
There is a large amount of barking but little biting in this dog.  Will someone post their version of the two flight plans so we can contrast them.  Why so much extraneous conversation and so few facts?
There were three fundamental plans. Name them. You can't.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 04:45:45 PM
Show me on the graph where the bad man hurt you?

Now now, you know that graphs aren't your friend.

Quote
If both crafts entered into the VAB at the same inclination traveling in the same direction then they share a similar flight path.

Why? Not when their eccentricity is different. That's simply not possible from orbital mechanics. The two ellipses are different both spatially and in velocity. That has an effect on the position in the VAB and time in the VAB.

Quote
The onus is on you to prove the numbers are incorrect.  Remember, they are not my numbers, they are NASA's numbers.  Show me something.

They aren't NASA's numbers, they are Newton's numbers. Now show us you understand Newton.
Where are your facts and figures.  Not once have you posted a corrected illustration or even provided conflicting inclinations.  Show me something tangible.  I want to believe you but I need you to help me believe you.  I thirst for the truth.  Don't leave me parched and neglected.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 04:48:20 PM
Show me on the graph where the bad man hurt you?  If both crafts entered into the VAB at the same inclination traveling in the same direction then they share a similar flight path.

Which part of 'one had an apogee in the belt and one shot right through' isn't clear in terms of describing their flight paths as different?
Apogee would reflect the length of the elliptical and has nothing to do with the plane of the elliptical.  From a side view each would appear as straight lines of different lengths on the same angle.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 04:52:57 PM
On the surface, this seems so simple.  I posted a graph delineating two paths that I defend by citing NASA data.  I would think it to be a simple matter to refute it with a similar graph and different NASA data.  Why are we hung up here?  Is there no one with the technical skills to refute my claims or is there no evidence to support such a refutation?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 04:54:22 PM
Who silenced the moderators and what did you use for a gag?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 04:56:04 PM
The inmates have taking control of the prison?  We are warden-less?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 04:57:13 PM
Apogee would reflect the length of the elliptical and has nothing to do with the plane of the elliptical.  From a side view each would appear as straight lines of different lengths on the same angle.

Which is irrelevant as a 3D spaceflight problem. Different eliptical eccentricity = different path even if it is on the same plane. It also, incidentally, has a huge effect on time by virtue of speed. But no doubt you won't grasp that either.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 05:02:21 PM
Apogee would reflect the length of the elliptical and has nothing to do with the plane of the elliptical.  From a side view each would appear as straight lines of different lengths on the same angle.

Which is irrelevant as a 3D spaceflight problem. Different eliptical eccentricity = different path even if it is on the same plane. It also, incidentally, has a huge effect on time by virtue of speed. But no doubt you won't grasp that either.
Dancing like a butterfly.  Is it in your mind the path cannot be accurately described on a 2d illustration and if so then why the proliferation of such depictions?  NASA used a 2d representation and so did Braeuninig.  Why can't you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 05:03:23 PM
The inmates have taking control of the prison?  We are warden-less?

... and there's one of the inmates barking at the moon from the confines of the asylum. LO doesn't patrol 24-7. I cannot speak for him, but I wouldn't irk him about the running of the forum. He's the only mod, he has a job, family and other interests. He runs the forum voluntarily. Do you run internet forums? No. So don't throw stones as the glass might fall around you.


1.  Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.

2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.

4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.

5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?

Talking about throwing stones. If you want to talk  about moderation, then I'll invoke it and ask LO for you to answer these questions tonight while Mag 40 is putting together a figure for you.

I won't accept flounce-Google time. They are one the table now, show you understand and support your claims about the radiation being prohibitive.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 05:04:28 PM
Apogee would reflect the length of the elliptical and has nothing to do with the plane of the elliptical.  From a side view each would appear as straight lines of different lengths on the same angle.

Which is irrelevant as a 3D spaceflight problem. Different eliptical eccentricity = different path even if it is on the same plane. It also, incidentally, has a huge effect on time by virtue of speed. But no doubt you won't grasp that either.
Rotate your drawing to a side view and how would each of those orbits be seen?  two straight lines of different lengths?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 05:08:23 PM
The inmates have taking control of the prison?  We are warden-less?

... and there's one of the inmates barking at the moon from the confines of the asylum. LO doesn't patrol 24-7. I cannot speak for him, but I wouldn't irk him about the running of the forum. He's the only mod, he has a job, family and other interests. He runs the forum voluntarily. Do you run internet forums? No. So don't throw stones as the glass might fall around you.


1.  Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.

2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.

4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.

5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?

Talking about throwing stones. If you want to talk  about moderation, then I'll invoke it and ask LO for you to answer these questions tonight while Mag 40 is putting together a figure for you.

I won't accept flounce-Google time. They are one the table now, show you understand and support your claims about the radiation being prohibitive.
I led off with a question that you refused to address.  It was a simple question.  Did the Orion EFT mirror the apollo's path into the VAB.  If it did not show the facts to explain the differences.  You have provide no answers yet you demand your unrelated questions be answered in short order.  Tit for tat.  Show me yours and then I will show you mine.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 05:08:29 PM
Rotate your drawing to a side view and how would each of those orbits be seen?  two straight lines of different lengths?

Yes, but since neither craft was travelling in a straight line it doesn't matter. Because you can see simlarities from one position doesn't mean they exist in the full reality of space and time. My diagram is a valid indication of the fact that Orion and Apollo had different flight paths.

2D representations are used because they are simple to construct. They are not intended to be totally accurate representations to be used in the manner you try to here. As an example, in a 2D representation, whether from the side or from above, Pluto and Neptune have intersecting orbits. In the actual 3D reality their orbital paths never actually intersect.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 05:10:01 PM
Rotate your drawing to a side view and how would each of those orbits be seen?  two straight lines of different lengths?

Yes, but since neither craft was travelling in a straight line it doesn't matter.

2D representations are used because they are simple to construct. They are not intended to be totally accurate representations to be used in the manner you try to here. As an example, in a 2D representation, whether from the side or from above, Pluto and Neptune have intersecting orbits. In the actual 3D reality their orbital paths never actually intersect.
are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane?  If so, why and by how much?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 20, 2018, 05:12:14 PM
Gillianren, the only reason I entertain this forum and the abuse it provides because I had hoped I was incorrect.  I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception.  I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be.  I  have been distracted, deceived and lied to.  I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with.  Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors.  Will you please stop asking the same question over and over?  It has become tiresome and it is distracting.

When you provide a satisfactory answer, I'll stop asking it.

You are not an expert in the field.  We all know that.  So is it not more reasonable to assume that you don't understand the numbers than that the numbers disprove Apollo?  Or is it simply impossible for you to ever be wrong about what the numbers show?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 05:12:43 PM
I remind you that a circle, an ellipse and a straight line look the same when viewed along the plane of reference.  They all appear as lines of varying lengths.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 05:13:22 PM
are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane?  If so, why and by how much?
[/quote]

No, and I never have. Are you being deliberately obtuse at this point?

I'll write it again to make it easy: orbits on the same plane do not have 'similar' flight paths. Is that not clear from the diagram? Even if those orbits are on the same plane they are clearly not similar in any sense when it comes to passing through the van Allen belts.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 05:14:16 PM
Gillianren, the only reason I entertain this forum and the abuse it provides because I had hoped I was incorrect.  I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception.  I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be.  I  have been distracted, deceived and lied to.  I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with.  Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors.  Will you please stop asking the same question over and over?  It has become tiresome and it is distracting.

When you provide a satisfactory answer, I'll stop asking it.

You are not an expert in the field.  We all know that.  So is it not more reasonable to assume that you don't understand the numbers than that the numbers disprove Apollo?  Or is it simply impossible for you to ever be wrong about what the numbers show?
I gave you my answer.  Now if you want me to answer it in your voice then tell me what to say.  I will say it to remove the incessant ringing in my ears.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 20, 2018, 05:14:49 PM
are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane?  If so, why and by how much?

That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.

Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.

(https://i.imgur.com/05C5Utc.png)

Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 05:14:56 PM
I remind you that a circle, an ellipse and a straight line look the same when viewed along the plane of reference.  They all appear as lines of varying lengths.

And I remind you that this condition only holds true from that one single viewpoint. It doesn't stop a circle, an ellipse and a straight line from beng entirely different things in reality and from every single other possible angle.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 05:16:43 PM
are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane?  If so, why and by how much?

No, and I never have. Are you being deliberately obtuse at this point?

I'll write it again to make it easy: orbits on the same plane do not have 'similar' flight paths. Is that not clear from the diagram? Even if those orbits are on the same plane they are clearly not similar in any sense when it comes to passing through the van Allen belts.
[/quote]
Then it is to say any geometric two dimensional depiction would appear as a straight line when viewed from the side view of the plane.  Is this not correct?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 05:17:53 PM
Then it is to say any geometric two dimensional depiction would appear as a straight line when viewed from the side view of the plane.  Is this not correct?

Correct but irrelevant, as explained. Move on.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 20, 2018, 05:18:20 PM
Apogee would reflect the length of the elliptical and has nothing to do with the plane of the elliptical.  From a side view each would appear as straight lines of different lengths on the same angle.

They both orbit on the same plane(the ground tracks show it to be near enough to make no difference). The apogee of Orion passes through the inner belt denser area. Apollo does not. This is really basic orbital mechanics, not even scratching the surface.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 05:18:39 PM
Show me on the graph where the bad man hurt you?

Now now, you know that graphs aren't your friend.

Quote
If both crafts entered into the VAB at the same inclination traveling in the same direction then they share a similar flight path.

Why? Not when their eccentricity is different. That's simply not possible from orbital mechanics. The two ellipses are different both spatially and in velocity. That has an effect on the position in the VAB and time in the VAB.

Quote
The onus is on you to prove the numbers are incorrect.  Remember, they are not my numbers, they are NASA's numbers.  Show me something.

They aren't NASA's numbers, they are Newton's numbers. Now show us you understand Newton.
Where are your facts and figures.  Not once have you posted a corrected illustration or even provided conflicting inclinations.  Show me something tangible.  I want to believe you but I need you to help me believe you.  I thirst for the truth.  Don't leave me parched and neglected.
Hahahaha. Tim still cannot fathom 3 dimensions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 05:21:43 PM
are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane?  If so, why and by how much?

That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.

Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.

(https://i.imgur.com/05C5Utc.png)

Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.
Now if both orbits are on an identical plane and they enter the VAB at the same inclination will not their path mirror each other?  When viewed along that plane is not the entry point identical?  remember the VAB encircles the earth and as long as the inclinations are identical then the regions of the VAB are identical.  The center of the VAB is 360 degrees uniform.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 05:21:48 PM
Hahahaha. Tim still cannot fathom 3 dimensions.

Oh yes he can. Given the tone of his posts he can only be trolling at this point.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 05:22:00 PM
The inmates have taking control of the prison?  We are warden-less?

... and there's one of the inmates barking at the moon from the confines of the asylum. LO doesn't patrol 24-7. I cannot speak for him, but I wouldn't irk him about the running of the forum. He's the only mod, he has a job, family and other interests. He runs the forum voluntarily. Do you run internet forums? No. So don't throw stones as the glass might fall around you.


1.  Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.

2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.

4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.

5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?

Talking about throwing stones. If you want to talk  about moderation, then I'll invoke it and ask LO for you to answer these questions tonight while Mag 40 is putting together a figure for you.

I won't accept flounce-Google time. They are one the table now, show you understand and support your claims about the radiation being prohibitive.
I led off with a question that you refused to address.  It was a simple question.  Did the Orion EFT mirror the apollo's path into the VAB.  If it did not show the facts to explain the differences.  You have provide no answers yet you demand your unrelated questions be answered in short order.  Tit for tat.  Show me yours and then I will show you mine.

Question 1 has been answered now, by multiple members. The orbits have different ellipses, different eccentricity, different positions, and the craft have different speeds. The issue is that you cannot transfer 2D to 3D.

The very fact that the Apollo craft has a higher speed changes the radiation dose. So the orbits aren't identical in any sense, either spatially or temporally. Now please answer questions 2-6.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 05:26:58 PM
So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.  Exactly what are those two inclinations that would result in different paths through the VAB.  Remember from the side view  changes in elevation would result in line moving up or down.  How much up or down are the two paths and why?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 05:27:01 PM
Now if both orbits are on an identical plane and they enter the VAB at the same inclination will not their path mirror each other?

No, because the eccentricity of the ellipse means their obital paths diverge. They are only the same on one plane.

Quote
When viewed along that plane is not the entry point identical?  remember the VAB encircles the earth and as long as the inclinations are identical then the regions of the VAB are identical.

Wrong, because this is a 3D problem and cannot be reduced to a simple straight line issue as much as you desperately want to.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 05:28:43 PM
So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.

No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 20, 2018, 05:32:46 PM
Gillianren, the only reason I entertain this forum and the abuse it provides because I had hoped I was incorrect.  I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception.  I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be.  I  have been distracted, deceived and lied to.  I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with.  Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors.  Will you please stop asking the same question over and over?  It has become tiresome and it is distracting.

When you provide a satisfactory answer, I'll stop asking it.

You are not an expert in the field.  We all know that.  So is it not more reasonable to assume that you don't understand the numbers than that the numbers disprove Apollo?  Or is it simply impossible for you to ever be wrong about what the numbers show?
I gave you my answer.  Now if you want me to answer it in your voice then tell me what to say.  I will say it to remove the incessant ringing in my ears.

So your answer is "because the government is lying?"  Because that's not an answer.  That's a dodge.  That is not a simpler and more reasonable answer than your being wrong; it is extremely complicated, given everything they'd have to lie about.  "You are wrong" is a simpler answer, and you can't acknowledge that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 05:33:07 PM
So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.

No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.
We are making progress.  You admit the inclinations are the same.  What stands between us is the spatial recognition of the problem.  When discussing two dimension geometry then it is incorrect to think in 3 dimensional terms.  It is the two dimensions realities that we should be embracing.  Apples and apples.  Is it to safe to say that when viewed from a two dimensional perspective the paths are different only in length?  Can we say this is technically correct?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 20, 2018, 05:36:32 PM
So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.

No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.
We are making progress.  You admit the inclinations are the same.  What stands between us is the spatial recognition of the problem.  When discussing two dimension geometry then it is incorrect to think in 3 dimensional terms.  It is the two dimensions realities that we should be embracing.  Apples and apples.  Is it to safe to say that when viewed from a two dimensional perspective the paths are different only in length?  Can we say this is technically correct?

It depends on what angle you're looking at them from.  Once again, I'm quite sure my four-year-old would understand that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 05:37:57 PM
Gillianren, the only reason I entertain this forum and the abuse it provides because I had hoped I was incorrect.  I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception.  I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be.  I  have been distracted, deceived and lied to.  I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with.  Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors.  Will you please stop asking the same question over and over?  It has become tiresome and it is distracting.

When you provide a satisfactory answer, I'll stop asking it.

You are not an expert in the field.  We all know that.  So is it not more reasonable to assume that you don't understand the numbers than that the numbers disprove Apollo?  Or is it simply impossible for you to ever be wrong about what the numbers show?
I gave you my answer.  Now if you want me to answer it in your voice then tell me what to say.  I will say it to remove the incessant ringing in my ears.

So your answer is "because the government is lying?"  Because that's not an answer.  That's a dodge.  That is not a simpler and more reasonable answer than your being wrong; it is extremely complicated, given everything they'd have to lie about.  "You are wrong" is a simpler answer, and you can't acknowledge that.
Yours is a much more global view than mine.  I am unconcerned with the whole.  I am only concerned with a single aspect.  I am not trying to win the war rather a single battle.  It is like cutting down a giant redwood.  It is not done in a single blow, rather is is one nick at a time.  This is my nick.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 20, 2018, 05:42:50 PM
Quote from: timfinch
Now if both orbits are on an identical plane and they enter the VAB at the same inclination will not their path mirror each other?

Absolutely not at all. One craft is travelling 7000mph faster. The ellipse it makes will be totally different to the slower craft.

Orion will start to curve in on its apogee whilst Apollo carries on curving outwards. That apogee passes through areas that the Apollo ellipse doesn't ever come near to.

Quote
When viewed along that plane is not the entry point identical?
 

No. One is travelling faster.

Quote
remember the VAB encircles the earth and as long as the inclinations are identical then the regions of the VAB are identical.

For the sake of argument, if you assume they both hit the VAB at the same point(they don't btw), that is the only point they will both pass through. From then on, their speeds determine the shape of the ellipse.

Quote
The center of the VAB is 360 degrees uniform.

And only Orion passes through it.

Come on, stop this act of yours. It is obvious even to layman that they aren't the same. You are just trying to faff about to cover up all the other errors you have made.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 05:43:14 PM
So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.

No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.
We are making progress.  You admit the inclinations are the same.  What stands between us is the spatial recognition of the problem.  When discussing two dimension geometry then it is incorrect to think in 3 dimensional terms.  It is the two dimensions realities that we should be embracing.  Apples and apples.  Is it to safe to say that when viewed from a two dimensional perspective the paths are different only in length?  Can we say this is technically correct?

It depends on what angle you're looking at them from.  Once again, I'm quite sure my four-year-old would understand that.
If it is dependent on the angle of perception then why have you such a difficult time with the 2d angle of perception?  It would be a simple matter to acknowledge that when viewed in 2d from the side perspective then the illustration is correct and add the caveat then it it not representative of a 3d perspective.    Instead you claim the two dimensional perspective is erroneous and that is disingenuous or an outright fabrication.  So the question remains unanswered.  Is the 2d illustration I posted correct?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 05:46:09 PM
Quote from: timfinch
Now if both orbits are on an identical plane and they enter the VAB at the same inclination will not their path mirror each other?

Absolutely not at all. One craft is travelling 7000mph faster. The ellipse it makes will be totally different to the slower craft.

Orion will start to curve in on its apogee whilst Apollo carries on curving outwards. That apogee passes through areas that the Apollo ellipse doesn't ever come near to.

Quote
When viewed along that plane is not the entry point identical?
 

No. One is travelling faster.

Quote
remember the VAB encircles the earth and as long as the inclinations are identical then the regions of the VAB are identical.

For the sake of argument, if you assume they both hit the VAB at the same point(they don't btw), that is the only point they will both pass through. From then on, their speeds determine the shape of the ellipse.

Quote
The center of the VAB is 360 degrees uniform.

And only Orion passes through it.

Come on, stop this act of yours. It is obvious even to layman that they aren't the same. You are just trying to faff about to cover up all the other errors you have made.
Ask yourself this simple question:  Why would the Orion not simply enter the VAB on a zero inclination?  Why did they choose an inclination of a lunar plane TLI?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 05:48:34 PM
So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.  Exactly what are those two inclinations that would result in different paths through the VAB.  Remember from the side view  changes in elevation would result in line moving up or down.  How much up or down are the two paths and why?

tim you should have found out that the trajectory of a rocket propelled vehicle can and frequently do, change their orbital plane.  It depends on the direction of the pitch, roll and yaw of the vehicle.  For A11, the only one I have hard data the pitch of the vehicle was 7 degrees.  Not much but when you are speaking of 240000 miles it is a big deal, that is why the trajectories of Orion and Apollo are different.  Apollo traversed a less dense portion of the VARB, whereas Orion was directed toward the more intense portion to check out the radiation protection for the electronics.  The electronics are a couple of generations ahead of those in Apollo, but far more susceptible to radiation damage.

I would have hoped that your research would have enlightened you to this fact, but since it hasn't let this post enlighten you.  The two trajectories were far different for different reasons, Apollo was meant to minimize radiation from the VARB while Orion was meant to maximize the radiation from the VARB.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 05:49:40 PM
Apollo traversed a less dense portion of the VARB, whereas Orion was directed toward the more intense portion to check out the radiation protection for the electronics.  The electronics are a couple of generations ahead of those in Apollo, but far more susceptible to radiation damage.

^This... precisely this.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 20, 2018, 05:53:16 PM
Yours is a much more global view than mine.  I am unconcerned with the whole.  I am only concerned with a single aspect.  I am not trying to win the war rather a single battle.  It is like cutting down a giant redwood.  It is not done in a single blow, rather is is one nick at a time.  This is my nick.


You missed the tree.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 20, 2018, 05:53:47 PM
Ask yourself this simple question:  Why would the Orion not simply enter the VAB on a zero inclination?  Why did they choose an inclination of a lunar plane TLI?

Lets out large sigh ::)

Cape Kennedy sits at 28.4 degrees. It is the optimal flight path.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 05:53:59 PM
If it is dependent on the angle of perception then why have you such a difficult time with the 2d angle of perception?

Because it doesn't tell the whole story.

Have some fun pictures to think about, then tell me it doesn't matter if you only consider the 2D perspective from one angle. See how these two ellipses are on the same plane but pass through or around the ring entirely differently?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 05:55:02 PM
And the third image
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 05:57:11 PM
You missed the tree.

That's my beer over the screen then...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 06:00:05 PM
You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception.  It goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on.  They all appear to be a straight line.  The only question that remained to be answered is are they on the same plane.  You all agree that they are.  This being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths.  This is a truism.  If you cannot see that then you are spatially challenged and any further discussion is pointless as you lack the ability to evaluate the information from the proper perspective.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 06:00:27 PM
You admit the inclinations are the same.

Stop acting like you've extracted some kind of great concession. Firstly, I have no admitted that Orion and Apollo were the same. Second, it would make no difference, for reasons already explained at length.

Quote
When discussing two dimension geometry then it is incorrect to think in 3 dimensional terms.

When discussing the very really 3-dimensional issue of spaceflight it is incorrect to consider it as 2-dimensional geometry. Space flight is not, and has never been, a 2-dimensional problem.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 06:03:01 PM
You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception.

And you go through some impressive gymnastics to avoid acknowledging that which is in front of you.

Quote
It goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on.

Not contested, here or anywhere else. However, that doesn't stop them being different things with different properties.

Quote
This being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths.

So is the one drawn from above. Reconcile that if you insist on staying in 2-dimensions.

Quote
If you cannot see that

No-one has failed to see that. The only thing being constested is the relevance when it comes to discussing the problems of space flight in the 3-dimensional space it took place in.

Care to address the pictures I put up?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 06:03:27 PM
Ask yourself this simple question:  Why would the Orion not simply enter the VAB on a zero inclination?  Why did they choose an inclination of a lunar plane TLI?

Lets out large sigh ::)

Cape Kennedy sits at 28.4 degrees. It is the optimal flight path.
What has the location of the launch site have to do with the inclination of the orbit>  They could select any orbit they would like.  Cape canaveral is 28.4 degrees from what?  The equator?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 06:04:57 PM
are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane?  If so, why and by how much?

That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.

Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.

(https://i.imgur.com/05C5Utc.png)

Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.
Now if both orbits are on an identical plane and they enter the VAB at the same inclination will not their path mirror each other?
Three dimensions still escape you.
When viewed along that plane is not the entry point identical?
Nope. Because even in an imaginary 2 d verse they are rotating. Unless in your imaginary 2 d verse they are not. In which case, imagine a unicorn. Now the unicorn is real, yes?

remember the VAB encircles the earth
Lie.
and as long as the inclinations are identical then the regions of the VAB are identical.
Lie.
The center of the VAB is 360 degrees uniform.
Lie.

Put your finger in the center of a ring donut. According to you this is impossible.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 06:05:45 PM
You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception.

And you go through some impressive gymnastics to avoid acknowledging that which is in front of you.

Quote
It goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on.

Not contested, here or anywhere else. However, that doesn't stop them being different things with different properties.

Quote
This being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths.

So is the one drawn from above. Reconcile that if you insist on staying in 2-dimensions.

Quote
If you cannot see that

No-one has failed to see that. The only thing being constested is the relevance when it comes to discussing the problems of space flight in the 3-dimensional space it took place in.

Care to address the pictures I put up?

So Jason, say the devil's name.  Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective.  Yes or no?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 06:07:36 PM
What has the location of the launch site have to do with the inclination of the orbit>  They could select any orbit they would like.  Cape canaveral is 28.4 degrees from what?  The equator?

And that, right there, is why no-one here is taking you seriously when you discuss orbital mechanics. If you don't understand the significance of latitude of launch site (or indeed apparently latitude full stop) when it comes to orbital inclination, why should we believe you know anything about transfers and TLI and apogee?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 06:08:48 PM
So Jason, say the devil's name.  Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective.  Yes or no?

I have already answered that question. I have also explained why the answer 'yes' doesn't actually make you right about any other aspect of it and its signficance, with pictures. Care to address them?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 20, 2018, 06:10:31 PM
Step away from this thread for a week and abandon all hope of catching up.

I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page (http://crater.sr.unh.edu/instrument.shtml) and read up on the instrument's description:

Quote
CRaTER consists of six silicon detectors in thin/thick pairs separated by sections of Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP). The Tissue Equivalent Plastic (such as A-150 manufactured by Standard Imaging) simulates soft body tissue (muscle) and has been used for both ground-based as well as space-based (i.e. Space Station) experiments.

The thin detectors (140 μm) are optimized for high energy deposits and the thick detectors (1000 μm) are optimized for low energy deposits, in particular, for protons. In nominal operating mode, an event is triggered when the energy deposit in any single detector rises above its threshold energy. A measurement is then made of the energy deposit in all six detectors. Directional information can be inferred for events that deposit energy into more than one detector (detection coincidences). Endcaps shield the detectors from protons with less than ~13MeV. Extra mass placed around the edges of the detectors provides additional shielding from some particles which may be able to penetrate through the sides of the instrument.

Go to the web page for a proper diagram of the instrument, but here's some quick-n-dirty ASCII art:


============ --- Deep Space (Zenith) Shield
|||||||||||| --- D1 (148 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D2 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (54 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D3 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D4 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (27 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D5 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D6 (1 mm)
============ --- Lunar Surface (Nadir) Shield


So, several things that are obvious right off the bat:


One particularly amusing aspect of Tim's confusion (=coughtrollerycough=) is the idea that, because the measurements are reported in cGy/day, that you must sum all the measurements taken on the same day to get the proper cGy/day amount. 

cGy/day is a rate, not a total.  It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next.  It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 06:11:31 PM
So Jason, say the devil's name.  Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective.  Yes or no?

Jason has provided a concrete model. Two different ellipses, one avoids the torus, one does not. That's possible in 3D orbital mechanics.

The 2D representation is a coplanar issue dependent on rotation. The 3D model shows the problem in all spatial dimensions. That is not difficult to understand. Two different ellipses, two different flight paths.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 06:14:46 PM
Jason has provided a concrete model.

Or, more accurately, a cardboard model that took me five minutes to knock up on the fly. Amazing what you can do when you actually grasp 3D geometry...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 20, 2018, 06:16:01 PM
You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception.  It goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on.  They all appear to be a straight line.  The only question that remained to be answered is are they on the same plane.  You all agree that they are.  This being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths.  This is a truism.  If you cannot see that then you are spatially challenged and any further discussion is pointless as you lack the ability to evaluate the information from the proper perspective.

Obfuscation of the very worst kind.

You have been shown quite clearly how the paths differ. You have been given diagrams from me, simple pictures from Jason and numerous times had the excruciatingly simple detail of the ellipse explained to you. You are wrong and are too much of a big baby to admit it. This thread is the archetypal example of what is wrong with HBs.

They are always wrong, are always afraid to admit it and will do everything they can to divert from their embarrassing and laughable mistakes. The only difference that you exhibit is an alarming persistence of all 3 of those.

I said this before. Arrogance only works if you know what you are talking about. No matter what you keep telling yourself, you don't.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 06:16:27 PM
I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page (http://crater.sr.unh.edu/instrument.shtml) and read up on the instrument's description

No they have not, and this is a great explanation. Thanks.

Quote
cGy/day is a rate, not a total.  It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next.  It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph.

Great analogy. That really make sense why we don't add rates, and links in nicely with the detector ensemble.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 06:18:47 PM
Or, more accurately, a cardboard model that took me five minutes to knock up on the fly. Amazing what you can do when you actually grasp 3D geometry...

That made me laugh. Yes, cardboard, but from the abstract to the concrete. I admire your effort, it really does illustrate the problem and is irrefutable... oh wait!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 06:18:57 PM
So Jason, say the devil's name.  Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective.  Yes or no?

Jason has provided a concrete model. Two different ellipses, one avoids the torus, one does not. That's possible in 3D orbital mechanics.

The 2D representation is a coplanar issue dependent on rotation. The 3D model shows the problem in all spatial dimensions. That is not difficult to understand. Two different ellipses, two different flight paths.
There are truths and there are not so true truths and generally perspective is to blame.  If we all assume a 2d perspective as viewed from the side, is not the illustration I provide correct?  We can move beyond this as soon as we acknowledge it is a correct two demensional perspective of the flight paths of the Orion EFT and the Apollo mission.  Can we do that?  There has been no claims on my part that it is the complete picture.  My only claim is that it is technically correct from that perspective..  Break me off some crumbs.  Let's move beyond this.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 06:21:04 PM
If we all assume a 2d perspective as viewed from the side is not the illustration I provide correct.  We can move beyond this as soon as we acknowledge it is a correct two dnsional perspective of the flight paths of the Orion EFT and the Apollo mission.  Can we do that?

Tim, everyone here, literally, has done that. You are the one who will not move on.

Quote
There has been no claims on my part that it is the complete picture.

Then deal with the complete picture.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
There are truths and there are not so true truths and generally perspective is to blame.  If we all assume a 2d perspective as viewed from the side is not the illustration I provide correct.  We can move beyond this as soon as we acknowledge it is a correct two dnsional perspective of the flight paths of the Orion EFT and the Apollo mission.  Can we do that?  There has been no claims on my part that it is the complete picture.  My only claim is that it is technically correct from that perspective..  Break me off some crumbs.  Let's move beyond this.

Except Apollo was in 3D, and the ellipses for Orion and Apollo, while they are drawn in 2D, take the craft through different 3D space; one through the central VAB and one around it and skirting the outer VAB. So no, we won't move beyond it, we'll add it to your list of errors.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 06:25:00 PM
If we all assume a 2d perspective as viewed from the side is not the illustration I provide correct.  We can move beyond this as soon as we acknowledge it is a correct two dnsional perspective of the flight paths of the Orion EFT and the Apollo mission.  Can we do that?

Tim, everyone here, literally, has done that. You are the one who will not move on.

Quote
There has been no claims on my part that it is the complete picture.

Then deal with the complete picture.

I was hoping for a concession speech but I won't belabor the point.  But let's move on.  If we change the perspective to a view looking down on the orbital plane is there a portion of the VAB that is skirted by the apollo craft?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 06:26:33 PM
I was hoping for a concession speech but I won't belabor the point.  But let's move on.  If we change the perspective to a view looking down on the orbital plane is there a portion of the VAB that is skirted by the apollo craft?

There is nothing to concede because literally no-one challenged the similar inclinations, only the significance of that similarity. How about you deal with the actual 3D model that has been presented and stop trying to reduce 3D spaceflight to a 2D issue. You have ignored the spatial and temporal realities of the two spacecraft orbital paths. Let's have the same from you that you demand from us: do you acknowldge that in 3D it is possible for two orbits on the same plane to interact differently with a torus on another plane?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 06:27:50 PM

So Jason, say the devil's name.  Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective.  Yes or no?
You are stating that you cannot  understand 3D representation so it must be reduced to 2D representation but we have already established that you are unable to even understand that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 20, 2018, 06:30:43 PM
So Jason, say the devil's name.  Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective.  Yes or no?

Jason has provided a concrete model. Two different ellipses, one avoids the torus, one does not. That's possible in 3D orbital mechanics.

The 2D representation is a coplanar issue dependent on rotation. The 3D model shows the problem in all spatial dimensions. That is not difficult to understand. Two different ellipses, two different flight paths.
There are truths and there are not so true truths and generally perspective is to blame.  If we all assume a 2d perspective as viewed from the side, is not the illustration I provide correct?  We can move beyond this as soon as we acknowledge it is a correct two demensional perspective of the flight paths of the Orion EFT and the Apollo mission.  Can we do that?  There has been no claims on my part that it is the complete picture.  My only claim is that it is technically correct from that perspective..  Break me off some crumbs.  Let's move beyond this.

I can run as fast as Usain Bolt for about 0.1 of a second. A comparable crumb. Admit you are wrong. Be that military man. I thought their watchword was honour  not evasion!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 06:32:04 PM
You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception.  It goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on.  They all appear to be a straight line.  The only question that remained to be answered is are they on the same plane.  You all agree that they are.  This being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths.  This is a truism.  If you cannot see that then you are spatially challenged and any further discussion is pointless as you lack the ability to evaluate the information from the proper perspective.

You missed my point exactly, Apollo was on a different plane by those 7 degrees.  Do you really have reading comprehension issues?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 06:34:27 PM
I was hoping for a concession speech but I won't belabor the point.  But let's move on.  If we change the perspective to a view looking down on the orbital plane is there a portion of the VAB that is skirted by the apollo craft?

There is nothing to concede because literally no-one challenged the similar inclinations, only the significance of that similarity. How about you deal with the actual 3D model that has been presented and stop trying to reduce 3D spaceflight to a 2D issue. You have ignored the spatial and temporal realities of the two spacecraft orbital paths. Let's have the same from you that you demand from us: do you acknowldge that in 3D it is possible for two orbits on the same plane to interact differently with a torus on another plane?
It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path.  It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it.  The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB.  If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether.  Is this not true?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 06:36:32 PM
It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path.  It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it.  The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB.  If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether.  Is this not true?

You have literally been given pictures of a 3D representation of why that is not the case. Two ellipses on the same angle, one passed through, one missed. THhs is getting boring.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 06:36:43 PM
You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception.  It goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on.  They all appear to be a straight line.  The only question that remained to be answered is are they on the same plane.  You all agree that they are.  This being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths.  This is a truism.  If you cannot see that then you are spatially challenged and any further discussion is pointless as you lack the ability to evaluate the information from the proper perspective.

You missed my point exactly, Apollo was on a different plane by those 7 degrees.  Do you really have reading comprehension issues?
The others disagree with you.  They accept the fact that the Orion and the apollo have very similar inclinations.  If you have data indicating otherwise please share it with the group.  The would love the opportunity to rub my nose in it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 06:39:11 PM
It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path.  It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it.  The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB.  If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether.  Is this not true?

You have literally been given pictures of a 3D representation of why that is not the case. Two ellipses on the same angle, one passed through, one missed. THhs is getting boring.
You are spatially challenged and find it difficult to transition between perspectives.  I understand and you have my sympathies.  I cannot fix that which is terminally broken.  I will just move on without you and hope you find success with your impairment.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 06:40:48 PM
It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path.  It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it.  The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB.  If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether.  Is this not true?

This has been explained, in as simple terms as possible -  A higher speed means an ellipse with a higher eccentricity. You move through the VAB differently compared to Orion, both spatially and temporally. On TLI the Apollo craft was 'swinging away' from the Earth so avoided the most intense region of the inner VAB and skirted the outer VAB. The Orion swung into it's apogee sooner. Jason has shown you how the two different ellipses provide different paths through the VABs with his cardboard model.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 06:43:07 PM
Did I mention I am just home from the hospital and that I am weak and in recovery?  This has been taxing and I must rest.  I will rejoin the conversation tomorrow.  I am optimistic that we are making progress.  I cannot wait to re-engage in the CraTer Data discussion but there still  remains work to be done on the path through the VAB.  Until tomorrow my fellow seekers.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 06:43:15 PM
You are spatially challenged and find it difficult to transition between perspectives.  I understand and you have my sympathies.  I cannot fix that which is terminally broken.  I will just move on without you and hope you find success with your impairment.

Please explain exactly what is wrong with the model I provided then. I do not need to transition between perspectives, I not only visualised it I created a model of it. Address that model.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 06:44:50 PM
You are spatially challenged and find it difficult to transition between perspectives.  I understand and you have my sympathies.  I cannot fix that which is terminally broken.  I will just move on without you and hope you find success with your impairment.

Jason has spent his Friday evening making a model to show you, and it's obvious to anyone that two different ellipses can interect a torus differently. This was simply rude and uncalled for when a member has tried to help you with a model.

It's a tricky problem to get one's mind around, so cut the obnoxious tone.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 20, 2018, 06:46:29 PM
It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path.  It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it.  The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB.  If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether.  Is this not true?

What has that got to do with anything you have claimed. The whole concept of taking a higher path to skirt weaker areas is the very point that has been explained to you, in so many different ways and painfully so.

Apollo transfer orbits do not follow the same paths as Orion. Period. Why are you so afraid to withdraw incorrect claims? You now want to move on after all your arrogant posturing.

The elephant in the room has become a boomerang that just took your head off!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 06:46:48 PM
Did I mention I am just home from the hospital and that I am weak and in recovery?

It's not the only thing that is weak about you. Believe me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 20, 2018, 06:53:39 PM
Did I mention I am just home from the hospital and that I am weak and in recovery?  This has been taxing and I must rest.  I will rejoin the conversation tomorrow.  I am optimistic that we are making progress.  I cannot wait to re-engage in the CraTer Data discussion but there still  remains work to be done on the path through the VAB.  Until tomorrow my fellow seekers.

Your most powerful asset is your over inflated ego. The only things to resolve over the VAB include your stunning inability to understand simple concepts, your inability to attend to data models given to you, a lack of your own analysis and a concession that you are hopelessly out of your depth.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 06:54:35 PM
If it is dependent on the angle of perception then why have you such a difficult time with the 2d angle of perception?

Because it doesn't tell the whole story.

Have some fun pictures to think about, then tell me it doesn't matter if you only consider the 2D perspective from one angle. See how these two ellipses are on the same plane but pass through or around the ring entirely differently?

Jason, I really need to rest but I will make one final attempt.  if you viewed your model from the side with the representation of your VAB being horizontal then your orbit would be at 90 degrees to the VAB and we know that is incorrect. We know that is is closer to 18 degrees which would mean it passed right through it and not above it.  Until tomorrow.  I meant no disrespect.  It was an impartial assessment that although insensitive I contend it appears to be correct.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 07:01:16 PM
if you viewed your model from the side with the representation of your VAB being horizontal then your orbit would be at 90 degrees to the VAB

And I'm the one who's spatially challenged?

Quote
We know that is is closer to 18 degrees which would mean it passed right through it and not above it.

This is actually irrelevant to the point. I never contended it was an accurate model of Apollo. I didn't measure angles or create precise orbits. The point was to get you to understand that two ellipses on the same plane do not ave the same path and therefore cannot be compared in the way you insisted.
 
Quote
I meant no disrespect.

Crap. Your disrespect for me, my time and my efforts was clear. All because you cannot bear to admit you were wrong about something.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 07:13:00 PM
I was hoping for a concession speech but I won't belabor the point.  But let's move on.  If we change the perspective to a view looking down on the orbital plane is there a portion of the VAB that is skirted by the apollo craft?

There is nothing to concede because literally no-one challenged the similar inclinations, only the significance of that similarity. How about you deal with the actual 3D model that has been presented and stop trying to reduce 3D spaceflight to a 2D issue. You have ignored the spatial and temporal realities of the two spacecraft orbital paths. Let's have the same from you that you demand from us: do you acknowldge that in 3D it is possible for two orbits on the same plane to interact differently with a torus on another plane?
It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path.  It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it.  The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB.  If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether.  Is this not true?
No. It is not true. The VAB does not surround the earth completely. Even the most abject hoaxmonsters do not believe any such thing. The notion is horribly stupid. Even jack white would crawl out of his grave because that is simply a dumb idea.

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND A DONUT SHAPE?



How hard can this be?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2018, 07:16:04 PM
Not even close to 90 degrees...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 07:19:34 PM
if you viewed your model from the side with the representation of your VAB being horizontal then your orbit would be at 90 degrees to the VAB

And I'm the one who's spatially challenged?
Nope. we are the ones wondering how tim can put on his pants in the morning. The evidence suggests that they end up on his head.

Quote
We know that is is closer to 18 degrees which would mean it passed right through it and not above it.

This is actually irrelevant to the point. I never contended it was an accurate model of Apollo. I didn't measure angles or create precise orbits. The point was to get you to understand that two ellipses on the same plane do not ave the same path and therefore cannot be compared in the way you insisted.
 
Quote
I meant no disrespect.

Crap. Your disrespect for me, my time and my efforts was clear. All because you cannot bear to admit you were wrong about something.
Yup. There is a term for that. Well two terms, but you can select either or both. Tim ticks both.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 20, 2018, 07:20:46 PM
ladies and gents.

firstly can I apologise again. everybody here has answered tim on every single point he has asked and I am now genuinely embarrassed by his responses. I invited Tim here to propose his theory and it is clear no amount of work by anybody will do.

Tim. you should be ashamed. people here have given a lot of their time to help you and you have trolled your way through well more than 100 pages. I intend to block you on facebook as I am very bored now with the conversation.

I read earlier that abaddon has asked the mod not to block you which is fine and I will continue to read this thread without commenting but I am genuinely embarrassed.

can I just say many thanks to everybody here for the responses. I have learnt a lot and I am very satisfied that I was correct in what I said to tim at the very start when we met which in a nutshell was it depends in what part of space they were in and for how long.

again sorry for wasting everybodies time.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 20, 2018, 07:21:42 PM
I was hoping for a concession speech but I won't belabor the point. 

You can't even admit a theoretical possibility that you're wrong, and you want concession speeches from other people?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 07:24:39 PM
You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception.  It goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on.  They all appear to be a straight line.  The only question that remained to be answered is are they on the same plane.  You all agree that they are.  This being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths.  This is a truism.  If you cannot see that then you are spatially challenged and any further discussion is pointless as you lack the ability to evaluate the information from the proper perspective.

You missed my point exactly, Apollo was on a different plane by those 7 degrees.  Do you really have reading comprehension issues?
The others disagree with you.  They accept the fact that the Orion and the apollo have very similar inclinations.  If you have data indicating otherwise please share it with the group.  The would love the opportunity to rub my nose in it.
You do have reading comprehension issues, all of us are in agreement with the LEO inclination of around 30 degrees, but when the SIV-B fired it WAS NOT fired in the same attitude as the orbit.  They were changing the plane by those 7 degrees, from the moment of ignition they were NOT in the same plane.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 20, 2018, 07:30:48 PM
Apogee would reflect the length of the elliptical and has nothing to do with the plane of the elliptical.  From a side view each would appear as straight lines of different lengths on the same angle.

Which is irrelevant as a 3D spaceflight problem. Different eliptical eccentricity = different path even if it is on the same plane. It also, incidentally, has a huge effect on time by virtue of speed. But no doubt you won't grasp that either.
Dancing like a butterfly.  Is it in your mind the path cannot be accurately described on a 2d illustration and if so then why the proliferation of such depictions?  NASA used a 2d representation and so did Braeuninig.  Why can't you?

Because it's really tough to ship a 3d model with a magazine subscription?

Materials designed for a lay audience simplify. People actually plotting orbits, however, don't use these kinds of simplifications. They use math.

An ellipse is an ellipse is an ellipse. You keep trying to find a way of simplifying the problem into a straight-line path at a constant velocity.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 07:36:01 PM
ladies and gents.

firstly can I apologise again. everybody here has answered tim on every single point he has asked and I am now genuinely embarrassed by his responses. I invited Tim here to propose his theory and it is clear no amount of work by anybody will do.

Tim. you should be ashamed. people here have given a lot of their time to help you and you have trolled your way through well more than 100 pages. I intend to block you on facebook as I am very bored now with the conversation.

I read earlier that abaddon has asked the mod not to block you which is fine and I will continue to read this thread without commenting but I am genuinely embarrassed.

can I just say many thanks to everybody here for the responses. I have learnt a lot and I am very satisfied that I was correct in what I said to tim at the very start when we met which in a nutshell was it depends in what part of space they were in and for how long.

again sorry for wasting everybodies time.
Nope. Because
1. Everybody here gives freely and charity to the less abled is always a good thing to do.
2. Information that is not generally available has been raised so that others will not get suckered by the likes of tim.
3. Once again, tim has been exposed for his ignorance. If that happens on a single site, one might dismiss it, but on two sites? or 3? or 4? and what of the various bannings? No. Don't apologise. Just observe tim racking up the internet idiot points.
4. While tim may have mooched on to some new pasture, nobody cares. Tim had no clue which end was up and it showed. Someone else has to deal with his crap now.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 07:43:47 PM
Because it's really tough to ship a 3d model with a magazine subscription?

Materials designed for a lay audience simplify. People actually plotting orbits, however, don't use these kinds of simplifications. They use math.

An ellipse is an ellipse is an ellipse. You keep trying to find a way of simplifying the problem into a straight-line path at a constant velocity.

Quite, and when Bob published his radiation page many members asked for an explanation of the 2D representation and its links to the coordinates that are employed by the radiation model. I actually felt quite sorry for Bob having spent all that work on the calculations, and then was quizzed by forum. It was only because people were struggling with the representation of the orbit with respect to the belts, and sought clarification. It's quite hard to visualise at first.

I actually quite like the two YouTube videos. They really show how the space craft avoided the most intense parts. Of course, even after bknight had posted this, Tim has to go away and somehow declare his diagram of Orion has equivalence with Apollo. Why, when it was there to see on the YT videos?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 07:45:49 PM
You do have reading comprehension issues, all of us are in agreement with the LEO inclination of around 30 degrees, but when the SIV-B fired it WAS NOT fired in the same attitude as the orbit.  They were changing the plane by those 7 degrees, from the moment of ignition they were NOT in the same plane.

Yeah, but all that means is you draw the Apollo line at 7 degrees above the Orion line, in a straight line.  ::)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 20, 2018, 08:01:08 PM
This is Tim, after all. Who misread a log graph. Rather than admit it, he decided it was a linear graph. Confronted with the impossibility, rather than admit he was wrong again he invented a whole new kind of graph and made up a new name for it.

All of that I could perhaps forgive (but not forget...oh, no, it is much too funny). His next move, however, was to start using it like a log graph...but instead of manning up and admitting his earlier error, he put on an arrogant air and pretended he was lecturing everyone else on how graphs work.

That's the point at which it becomes unforgivable.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 20, 2018, 08:06:47 PM
..but instead of manning up and admitting his earlier error, he put on an arrogant air and pretended he was lecturing everyone else on how graphs work.

Yeah, but if you get to make stuff up, then you get to lecture people on how it works; that's how it goes, right?

The universe is a giant sausage covered in boiled onions and American hot dog mustard. I've made that up, and now get to lecture you on the finer points of my cosmological model.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 20, 2018, 08:31:15 PM
You do have reading comprehension issues, all of us are in agreement with the LEO inclination of around 30 degrees, but when the SIV-B fired it WAS NOT fired in the same attitude as the orbit.  They were changing the plane by those 7 degrees, from the moment of ignition they were NOT in the same plane.

Yeah, but all that means is you draw the Apollo line at 7 degrees above the Orion line, in a straight line.  ::)

By my reading of the data the inclination is over 70 degrees by 36000 nautical miles.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 20, 2018, 08:41:12 PM
So lets see. BP arrives out of nowhere with a mythical "friend ". BP introduces friend. Friend fights with own toenails and BP defends the undefensible. And pretends not to. Milk that for as long as possible and resign and resign the sock.

If this happened once, sure, I could be paranoid but we are the SECOND target and there may be others. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 20, 2018, 09:34:23 PM
I'm bowing to LO's wishes here. Not saying I'm not still getting a little flavor of dog in the nighttime.

As for Tim...more and more the flavor is IDW...with a profanity filter that works. Or is this just Standard Pattern A for hoax believers? Arrogant, mock-folksy...and mathematically illiterate?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 20, 2018, 10:05:19 PM
Anyone who has questions for Tim that they feel he has ignored, please send them to me in a private message so that I can compile them into one post. Thanks.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 11:33:06 PM
Let me set the record straight.  I am not who you think I am.  I am not a conspiracy theorist.  I can not answer the multitude of questions arising the from the conspiracy theories and I lack the interest to do so.  What I am is a an inquiring mind and a opinionated person.  I am not subtle and I am prone to offend.  I make no excuses for that .  I am honest and diligent in my pursuit of the truth.  I form my opinions starting from a neutral point and spend the effort to sort through the technical jargon and the attempts to distract and divert.  My own opinion is not spontaneous and is derived from logical deduction and careful evaluation of the available data.  I am a simple mind incapable of disseminating complex and dynamic situations and require simple problems and concrete solutions to move beyond any point.  I can and will entertain any questions that observe these simple boundaries.  Any attempt to expand the inquiry beyond a distinct and succinct point will be resisted by me.  I prefer  a serial approach to problem solving and insist upon solving individual problems before moving to the next problem.  I find it confusing to keep track of multiple threads expanding out and exponentially with convoluted questions that do nothing to clarify the original question.   I adhere to the time worn US Navy's principle of "KISS" keep it simple stupid.  I also adhere to the adage that if you can not explain it simply then you do not know it well enough.  I am sure your experience and expertise has merit but it means nothing if you cannot justify it with corroborating data.  In the absence of this corroboration it is merely an opinion lacking worth.  I will challenge you at every point and expect nothing less from you.  Victory means nothing unless it is won.  Anyone can be lucky but to be truly good you must be unbeatable.  The challenge lies before you.  Prove me wrong on any single issue.  Provide the data to support your assertion and make me change my opinion.  Then and only then can you be assured that your truth is sound and justified.  There are no freebies and no quarter given or asked.  Bring your "A" game or make yourself comfortable in the cheap seap seats and spectate.  Respect is earned not inferred.  Prove you deserve my respect.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 20, 2018, 11:40:11 PM
are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane?  If so, why and by how much?

That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.

Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.

(https://i.imgur.com/05C5Utc.png)

Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.
The obvious problem with this illustration is it simultaneously displays two vantage points.  It shows the VAB from a 2d side view and the elliptical orbit from a top view.  Pick a single view and stick with it and there would be no confusion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 12:00:28 AM
Step away from this thread for a week and abandon all hope of catching up.

I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page (http://crater.sr.unh.edu/instrument.shtml) and read up on the instrument's description:

Quote
CRaTER consists of six silicon detectors in thin/thick pairs separated by sections of Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP). The Tissue Equivalent Plastic (such as A-150 manufactured by Standard Imaging) simulates soft body tissue (muscle) and has been used for both ground-based as well as space-based (i.e. Space Station) experiments.

The thin detectors (140 μm) are optimized for high energy deposits and the thick detectors (1000 μm) are optimized for low energy deposits, in particular, for protons. In nominal operating mode, an event is triggered when the energy deposit in any single detector rises above its threshold energy. A measurement is then made of the energy deposit in all six detectors. Directional information can be inferred for events that deposit energy into more than one detector (detection coincidences). Endcaps shield the detectors from protons with less than ~13MeV. Extra mass placed around the edges of the detectors provides additional shielding from some particles which may be able to penetrate through the sides of the instrument.

Go to the web page for a proper diagram of the instrument, but here's some quick-n-dirty ASCII art:


============ --- Deep Space (Zenith) Shield
|||||||||||| --- D1 (148 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D2 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (54 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D3 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D4 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (27 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D5 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D6 (1 mm)
============ --- Lunar Surface (Nadir) Shield


So, several things that are obvious right off the bat:

  • This is why you have combined readings for D1 & D2, D3 & D4, D5 & D6.  Each pair is at the same depth of "tissue", each sensor of the pair is optimized for different energies.
  • This is why you don't sum up readings from all 6 detectors, because each pair is measuring energies at different "tissue" depths.  D1 & D2 give the "skin" dose, D5 & D6 give the "deep tissue" dose.
  • As per the description, an event is recorded when the energy deposited in a single detector rises above its threshold energy.  Raw events are measured in keV/μm. Obviously, during analysis, these measurements are fed into a mathematical model that spits results out in cGy/day.

One particularly amusing aspect of Tim's confusion (=coughtrollerycough=) is the idea that, because the measurements are reported in cGy/day, that you must sum all the measurements taken on the same day to get the proper cGy/day amount. 

cGy/day is a rate, not a total.  It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next.  It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph.
I love planting a seed and watching it sprout.  You now understand the data reflects multiple snapshots taken during the day and to provide a truly comprehensive picture one must collate those snapshots into a single daily dose .  Good!  the force is flowing through you Luke (JFB).  Let it flow.  You are on the right track.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 21, 2018, 12:08:46 AM
Ask yourself this simple question:  Why would the Orion not simply enter the VAB on a zero inclination?  Why did they choose an inclination of a lunar plane TLI?

Lets out large sigh ::)

Cape Kennedy sits at 28.4 degrees. It is the optimal flight path.
What has the location of the launch site have to do with the inclination of the orbit>  They could select any orbit they would like.  Cape canaveral is 28.4 degrees from what?  The equator?


You didn't just write that? Yes, you did. What a howler. Are you a flatearther? That is the only explanation left.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nweber on April 21, 2018, 12:10:14 AM
Cape Kennedy sits at 28.4 degrees. It is the optimal flight path.
What has the location of the launch site have to do with the inclination of the orbit>  They could select any orbit they would like.

They can select any orbit with an inclination of 28.4 degrees or higher.  Well, actually, they could select any orbit they like, but if the inclination is less than 28.4 degrees, then there will be a large cost in fuel to achieve it.

Let's take an orbit with an inclination of zero as an example.  Such an orbit is above the equator.  So if you launch from Cape Canaveral, how do you achieve an orbit with an inclination of zero?  The rocket takes off at 28.4 degrees, then it has to travel south to get to the equator.  That's a long way - the rocket will be in orbit by then.  So if it just coasts to the equator, then it will continue south to at least 28.4 degrees south.  If the rocket was launched straight east (or west, for that matter, although there are reasons not to do that) from Cape Canaveral, then 28.4 degrees south will be the southernmost point of the orbit (farther south than Rio de Janeiro, but not quite as far south as Buenos Aires).  If they launched it either southward or northward, then the most southerly latitude the orbit reaches will be more south than 28.4 degrees.

So if you don't do anything to change the orbit after launch, the spacecraft will be oscillating north and south of the equator each orbit, by at least 28.4 degrees (and possibly more, depending on the direction of the rocket when it was launched).

To get into an orbit over the equator, there would have to be a course correction when the craft reaches the equator, to stop the southward motion.  This can be done in theory, but you're going to need enough fuel to do it.  And the amount of fuel will be a lot.

So, yes, in theory, you can achieve any orbit you like launching from Cape Canaveral, but if the inclination is less than 28.4 degrees, you have to carry enough fuel to do the course correction (which will cut down on how much payload you can carry, and possibly exceed the carrying capacity of your craft), and you need to have an engine that can do the burn.  It's hard enough and expensive enough to get a spacecraft into orbit, that you don't want to choose suboptimal orbits (like having an inclination of less than the latitude of your launch site) unless you really need to.

The Soviet Union (and now the Russian Space Agency) were at something of a disadvantage in this regard, since their launch site is so far north.  This limited the orbits they could easily achieve.  (There is another reason south is better as well.)  There's a reason the US launch site is in Florida, and not in North Dakota or Alaska.  It's the same reason the Soviet (now Russian) launch site is as far south as they could make it, and the European Space Agency launches from the northern part of South America.

Cape canaveral is 28.4 degrees from what?  The equator?

Yes, the equator.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 12:21:13 AM
Cape Kennedy sits at 28.4 degrees. It is the optimal flight path.
What has the location of the launch site have to do with the inclination of the orbit>  They could select any orbit they would like.

They can select any orbit with an inclination of 28.4 degrees or higher.  Well, actually, they could select any orbit they like, but if the inclination is less than 28.4 degrees, then there will be a large cost in fuel to achieve it.

Let's take an orbit with an inclination of zero as an example.  Such an orbit is above the equator.  So if you launch from Cape Canaveral, how do you achieve an orbit with an inclination of zero?  The rocket takes off at 28.4 degrees, then it has to travel south to get to the equator.  That's a long way - the rocket will be in orbit by then.  So if it just coasts to the equator, then it will continue south to at least 28.4 degrees south.  If the rocket was launched straight east (or west, for that matter, although there are reasons not to do that) from Cape Canaveral, then 28.4 degrees south will be the southernmost point of the orbit (farther south than Rio de Janeiro, but not quite as far south as Buenos Aires).  If they launched it either southward or northward, then the most southerly latitude the orbit reaches will be more south than 28.4 degrees.

So if you don't do anything to change the orbit after launch, the spacecraft will be oscillating north and south of the equator each orbit, by at least 28.4 degrees (and possibly more, depending on the direction of the rocket when it was launched).

To get into an orbit over the equator, there would have to be a course correction when the craft reaches the equator, to stop the southward motion.  This can be done in theory, but you're going to need enough fuel to do it.  And the amount of fuel will be a lot.

So, yes, in theory, you can achieve any orbit you like launching from Cape Canaveral, but if the inclination is less than 28.4 degrees, you have to carry enough fuel to do the course correction (which will cut down on how much payload you can carry, and possibly exceed the carrying capacity of your craft), and you need to have an engine that can do the burn.  It's hard enough and expensive enough to get a spacecraft into orbit, that you don't want to choose suboptimal orbits (like having an inclination of less than the latitude of your launch site) unless you really need to.

The Soviet Union (and now the Russian Space Agency) were at something of a disadvantage in this regard, since their launch site is so far north.  This limited the orbits they could easily achieve.  (There is another reason south is better as well.)  There's a reason the US launch site is in Florida, and not in North Dakota or Alaska.  It's the same reason the Soviet (now Russian) launch site is as far south as they could make it, and the European Space Agency launches from the northern part of South America.

Cape canaveral is 28.4 degrees from what?  The equator?

Yes, the equator.
Why do you think it was chosen as the optimum site when a a norther location closer to the poles would have have allowed the VAB to be bypassed?  What was the logic?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 12:24:18 AM
A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 12:26:17 AM
I'm just thinking out loud.  Maybe it was chosen because it coincided with the lunar plane?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 21, 2018, 12:34:42 AM
No, you are not thinking.

Why are rockets launched eastward, and not to the west, north or south?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 12:37:16 AM
No, you are not thinking.

Why are rockets launched eastward, and not to the west, north or south?
It takes advantage of the spin of the earth and reduces the required energy and or cost..
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 21, 2018, 12:37:27 AM
Step away from this thread for a week and abandon all hope of catching up.

I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page (http://crater.sr.unh.edu/instrument.shtml) and read up on the instrument's description:

Quote
CRaTER consists of six silicon detectors in thin/thick pairs separated by sections of Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP). The Tissue Equivalent Plastic (such as A-150 manufactured by Standard Imaging) simulates soft body tissue (muscle) and has been used for both ground-based as well as space-based (i.e. Space Station) experiments.

The thin detectors (140 μm) are optimized for high energy deposits and the thick detectors (1000 μm) are optimized for low energy deposits, in particular, for protons. In nominal operating mode, an event is triggered when the energy deposit in any single detector rises above its threshold energy. A measurement is then made of the energy deposit in all six detectors. Directional information can be inferred for events that deposit energy into more than one detector (detection coincidences). Endcaps shield the detectors from protons with less than ~13MeV. Extra mass placed around the edges of the detectors provides additional shielding from some particles which may be able to penetrate through the sides of the instrument.

Go to the web page for a proper diagram of the instrument, but here's some quick-n-dirty ASCII art:


============ --- Deep Space (Zenith) Shield
|||||||||||| --- D1 (148 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D2 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (54 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D3 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D4 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (27 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D5 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D6 (1 mm)
============ --- Lunar Surface (Nadir) Shield


So, several things that are obvious right off the bat:

  • This is why you have combined readings for D1 & D2, D3 & D4, D5 & D6.  Each pair is at the same depth of "tissue", each sensor of the pair is optimized for different energies.
  • This is why you don't sum up readings from all 6 detectors, because each pair is measuring energies at different "tissue" depths.  D1 & D2 give the "skin" dose, D5 & D6 give the "deep tissue" dose.
  • As per the description, an event is recorded when the energy deposited in a single detector rises above its threshold energy.  Raw events are measured in keV/μm. Obviously, during analysis, these measurements are fed into a mathematical model that spits results out in cGy/day.

One particularly amusing aspect of Tim's confusion (=coughtrollerycough=) is the idea that, because the measurements are reported in cGy/day, that you must sum all the measurements taken on the same day to get the proper cGy/day amount. 

cGy/day is a rate, not a total.  It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next.  It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph.
I love planting a seed and watching it sprout.  You now understand the data reflects multiple snapshots taken during the day and to provide a truly comprehensive picture one must collate those snapshots into a single daily dose .  Good!  the force is flowing through you Luke (JFB).  Let it flow.  You are on the right track.

=sigh=

I knw you’re pretending to be this dense (because otherwise there’s no way you could walk out the door without gravely injuring yourself), but even so this is getting tiresome.  No, you do not need to “collate” anything.  There’s no need to add readings together.  cGy/day is a rate at a given instant.  It could be cGy/hr, mGy/fortnight, kGy/sec, whatever.

Just do everyone a favor, take your bow, and piss off. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 12:38:46 AM
Step away from this thread for a week and abandon all hope of catching up.

I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page (http://crater.sr.unh.edu/instrument.shtml) and read up on the instrument's description:

Quote
CRaTER consists of six silicon detectors in thin/thick pairs separated by sections of Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP). The Tissue Equivalent Plastic (such as A-150 manufactured by Standard Imaging) simulates soft body tissue (muscle) and has been used for both ground-based as well as space-based (i.e. Space Station) experiments.

The thin detectors (140 μm) are optimized for high energy deposits and the thick detectors (1000 μm) are optimized for low energy deposits, in particular, for protons. In nominal operating mode, an event is triggered when the energy deposit in any single detector rises above its threshold energy. A measurement is then made of the energy deposit in all six detectors. Directional information can be inferred for events that deposit energy into more than one detector (detection coincidences). Endcaps shield the detectors from protons with less than ~13MeV. Extra mass placed around the edges of the detectors provides additional shielding from some particles which may be able to penetrate through the sides of the instrument.

Go to the web page for a proper diagram of the instrument, but here's some quick-n-dirty ASCII art:


============ --- Deep Space (Zenith) Shield
|||||||||||| --- D1 (148 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D2 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (54 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D3 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D4 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (27 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D5 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D6 (1 mm)
============ --- Lunar Surface (Nadir) Shield


So, several things that are obvious right off the bat:

  • This is why you have combined readings for D1 & D2, D3 & D4, D5 & D6.  Each pair is at the same depth of "tissue", each sensor of the pair is optimized for different energies.
  • This is why you don't sum up readings from all 6 detectors, because each pair is measuring energies at different "tissue" depths.  D1 & D2 give the "skin" dose, D5 & D6 give the "deep tissue" dose.
  • As per the description, an event is recorded when the energy deposited in a single detector rises above its threshold energy.  Raw events are measured in keV/μm. Obviously, during analysis, these measurements are fed into a mathematical model that spits results out in cGy/day.

One particularly amusing aspect of Tim's confusion (=coughtrollerycough=) is the idea that, because the measurements are reported in cGy/day, that you must sum all the measurements taken on the same day to get the proper cGy/day amount. 

cGy/day is a rate, not a total.  It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next.  It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph.
I love planting a seed and watching it sprout.  You now understand the data reflects multiple snapshots taken during the day and to provide a truly comprehensive picture one must collate those snapshots into a single daily dose .  Good!  the force is flowing through you Luke (JFB).  Let it flow.  You are on the right track.

=sigh=

I knw you’re pretending to be this dense (because otherwise there’s no way you could walk out the door without gravely injuring yourself), but even so this is getting tiresome.  No, you do not need to “collate” anything.  There’s no need to add readings together.  cGy/day is a rate at a given instant.  It could be cGy/hr, mGy/fortnight, kGy/sec, whatever.

Just do everyone a favor, take your bow, and piss off.
what is the daily reading if the 24 snapshots are different?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 21, 2018, 12:40:26 AM
A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA...

Please describe what a polar orbit is.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 12:46:41 AM
A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA...

Please describe what a polar orbit is.
the orbit would be perpendicular to the equator.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 21, 2018, 12:48:30 AM
A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA...

Please describe what a polar orbit is.
the orbit would be perpendicular to the equator.

Which would mean it would pass over EVERY part of the Earth - including the SAA.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 12:48:53 AM
Step away from this thread for a week and abandon all hope of catching up.

I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page (http://crater.sr.unh.edu/instrument.shtml) and read up on the instrument's description:

Quote
CRaTER consists of six silicon detectors in thin/thick pairs separated by sections of Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP). The Tissue Equivalent Plastic (such as A-150 manufactured by Standard Imaging) simulates soft body tissue (muscle) and has been used for both ground-based as well as space-based (i.e. Space Station) experiments.

The thin detectors (140 μm) are optimized for high energy deposits and the thick detectors (1000 μm) are optimized for low energy deposits, in particular, for protons. In nominal operating mode, an event is triggered when the energy deposit in any single detector rises above its threshold energy. A measurement is then made of the energy deposit in all six detectors. Directional information can be inferred for events that deposit energy into more than one detector (detection coincidences). Endcaps shield the detectors from protons with less than ~13MeV. Extra mass placed around the edges of the detectors provides additional shielding from some particles which may be able to penetrate through the sides of the instrument.

Go to the web page for a proper diagram of the instrument, but here's some quick-n-dirty ASCII art:


============ --- Deep Space (Zenith) Shield
|||||||||||| --- D1 (148 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D2 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (54 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D3 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D4 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (27 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D5 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D6 (1 mm)
============ --- Lunar Surface (Nadir) Shield


So, several things that are obvious right off the bat:

  • This is why you have combined readings for D1 & D2, D3 & D4, D5 & D6.  Each pair is at the same depth of "tissue", each sensor of the pair is optimized for different energies.
  • This is why you don't sum up readings from all 6 detectors, because each pair is measuring energies at different "tissue" depths.  D1 & D2 give the "skin" dose, D5 & D6 give the "deep tissue" dose.
  • As per the description, an event is recorded when the energy deposited in a single detector rises above its threshold energy.  Raw events are measured in keV/μm. Obviously, during analysis, these measurements are fed into a mathematical model that spits results out in cGy/day.

One particularly amusing aspect of Tim's confusion (=coughtrollerycough=) is the idea that, because the measurements are reported in cGy/day, that you must sum all the measurements taken on the same day to get the proper cGy/day amount. 

cGy/day is a rate, not a total.  It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next.  It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph.
I love planting a seed and watching it sprout.  You now understand the data reflects multiple snapshots taken during the day and to provide a truly comprehensive picture one must collate those snapshots into a single daily dose .  Good!  the force is flowing through you Luke (JFB).  Let it flow.  You are on the right track.
Are you sure D5 & D6 do not measure radiation from the moon and not from cislunar space?  I am asking for a friend.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 12:51:05 AM
A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA...

Please describe what a polar orbit is.
the orbit would be perpendicular to the equator.

Which would mean it would pass over EVERY part of the Earth - including the SAA.
Visualize.    Both equatorial orbits and polar orbits would never cross the South Atlantic Anomaly
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 21, 2018, 12:55:47 AM
So going in an orbit from pole to pole wouldn't cross the SAA?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 21, 2018, 12:58:26 AM
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/remote/lecture_notes/satellite/platforms/poe_scan_strat.html

This is the ground track of a polar orbit. Does it not cross the SAA?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 12:59:37 AM
So going in an orbit from pole to pole wouldn't cross the SAA?

Maybe I was wrong.  Looking at this illustration it wold run right down the middle of it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 01:03:41 AM
Which is confusing because that illustration indicates an equatorial orbit would also pass right through it and we know that isn't true.  I need to reconsider my position.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 01:08:47 AM
I stand corrected.  a polar orbit will pass through the SAA.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 21, 2018, 01:09:32 AM
So going in an orbit from pole to pole wouldn't cross the SAA?

Maybe I was wrong.  Looking at this illustration it wold run right down the middle of it.

Hmm... if you were wrong about that... do you think it's possible you were wrong about some of the other things you have believed?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 01:14:24 AM
So going in an orbit from pole to pole wouldn't cross the SAA?

Maybe I was wrong.  Looking at this illustration it wold run right down the middle of it.

Hmm... if you were wrong about that... do you think it's possible you were wrong about some of the other things you have believed?
I am human and as such the possibility always exist that I may have have had lapses in judgement.  I am honest and a man of integrity.  If it can be demonstrated that I have erred and I can understand the error then I will own it and change my position.  I am flexible like that.  Integrity demands nothing less.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 01:23:48 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 21, 2018, 01:27:22 AM


Hmm... if you were wrong about that... do you think it's possible you were wrong about some of the other things you have believed?
I am human and as such the possibility always exist that I may have have had lapses in judgement.  I am honest and a man of integrity.  If it can be demonstrated that I have erred and I can understand the error then I will own it and change my position.  I am flexible like that.  Integrity demands nothing less.

The thing is, most rational people will recognize that they are likely the one that is wrong when all of the world's experts disagree with them about something.

People like you, on the other hand, arrogantly believe that they are right even when people with decades more experience disagree.

You are wrong. The facts... and simple logic... do not support the hoax theory. You just need to accept that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 01:36:24 AM


Hmm... if you were wrong about that... do you think it's possible you were wrong about some of the other things you have believed?
I am human and as such the possibility always exist that I may have have had lapses in judgement.  I am honest and a man of integrity.  If it can be demonstrated that I have erred and I can understand the error then I will own it and change my position.  I am flexible like that.  Integrity demands nothing less.

The thing is, most rational people will recognize that they are likely the one that is wrong when all of the world's experts disagree with them about something.

People like you, on the other hand, arrogantly believe that they are right even when people with decades more experience disagree.

You are wrong. The facts... and simple logic... do not support the hoax theory. You just need to accept that.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."

I have repeatedly stated that I am uninterested in promoting  or disproving a hoax theory.  My goal is singular.  I  intend to prove that the reported mission dose of Apollo 11 is unrealistic.  As a consequence of that goal if it can be deduced the existence of a hoax exist then consider it collateral damage.  That is not my intent.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 21, 2018, 01:51:50 AM
"Because I said so" is the resort most often used when you have exhausted all reasonable attempts to explain something to someone who is simply incapable of, or refusing to, accept rational argument and explanation of the facts. It was not the starting point used by anyone here. It is pretty much the standpoint you have employed from the start and its use is entirely inappropriate given your lack of understanding of the things you are trying to examine.

The facts are that Apollo went to the moon. Every piece of evidence supports that. You have absolutely nothing that contradicts it no matter how many times you claim you do. All you have is a small collection of numbers collected from dosimeters worn next to the skin inside a structure that (regardless of whether you believe this) will intercept radiation. The numbers you report are adjusted from the original raw figures, which are higher. If you put some effort in you might even find those numbers.

You do not have adequate data on which to draw the unreasonably firm conclusions that you espouse, and your claim that it invalidates everything else in the Apollo record is incorrect. You need to look at the point you actually make yourself: there is an overwhelming amount of verifiable evidence supporting Apollo, how can it be possible if you are correct? You might just have to grasp the reality that you are wrong.

China, India and Japan have all taken images at the Apollo sites showing human activity. Not hardware, not physical objects, but the activity around them. Your a priori conclusions based on faulty assumptions cannot explain that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 02:02:07 AM
"Because I said so" is the resort most often used when you have exhausted all reasonable attempts to explain something to someone who is simply incapable of, or refusing to, accept rational argument and explanation of the facts. It was not the starting point used by anyone here. It is pretty much the standpoint you have employed from the start and its use is entirely inappropriate given your lack of understanding of the things you are trying to examine.

The facts are that Apollo went to the moon. Every piece of evidence supports that. You have absolutely nothing that contradicts it no matter how many times you claim you do. All you have is a small collection of numbers collected from dosimeters worn next to the skin inside a structure that (regardless of whether you believe this) will intercept radiation. The numbers you report are adjusted from the original raw figures, which are higher. If you put some effort in you might even find those numbers.

You do not have adequate data on which to draw the unreasonably firm conclusions that you espouse, and your claim that it invalidates everything else in the Apollo record is incorrect. You need to look at the point you actually make yourself: there is an overwhelming amount of verifiable evidence supporting Apollo, how can it be possible if you are correct? You might just have to grasp the reality that you are wrong.

China, India and Japan have all taken images at the Apollo sites showing human activity. Not hardware, not physical objects, but the activity around them. Your a priori conclusions based on faulty assumptions cannot explain that.
You are starting at the conclusion which is from the opposite end that draws my attention.  What human activities do you speak of and which of these activities could not be easily replicated by machines?  I do not contend that man did not go to the moon.  I contend that no man has ever ventured beyond the VAB.  The equipment of man has been to the moon many times and by many nations.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 02:10:37 AM
I have proven that Robert Braeunig has deceived you.  I have proven that there is no low radiation path through the VAB.  I have proven that the background radiation is as high as the reported mission dose of Apollo 11.  I have proven that the lunar soil is radioactive and I have proven that the moon itself is a source of radiation.  I have proven that a transit through the VAB is at a radiation level that is the significant component of a lunar transit.  What remains to be proven to convince you that the lunar landing could not have occurred?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 21, 2018, 02:20:01 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

The only one labouring this point is you, because you still refuse to accept or understand that a 2D representation does not have enough information to draw the conclusions you want to draw. You have been shown why this is not the case.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 02:23:30 AM
To do list

1.  Prove that the VAB can be transited with less than 1.5 mgy total dose in a two way trip.
2.  Prove that an 0 mgy/day background radiation  is possible if a 1.5 mgy or greater VAB transit is the minimum transit possible.
3.  Prove the lunar surface is not radioactive
4.  Prove it is safe to smell and taste lunar dust.
5.  Prove that intellectual integrity is not a unicorn.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 02:24:28 AM
A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA...

Please describe what a polar orbit is.

Wait, wait (raises hand) I've seen this one!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 21, 2018, 02:26:11 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?
So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 02:26:29 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

The only one labouring this point is you, because you still refuse to accept or understand that a 2D representation does not have enough information to draw the conclusions you want to draw. You have been shown why this is not the case.
I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.  I am not the villain here.  I am the bringer of the light and truth.
Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 02:28:34 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

The only one labouring this point is you, because you still refuse to accept or understand that a 2D representation does not have enough information to draw the conclusions you want to draw. You have been shown why this is not the case.
I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.  I am not the villain here.  I am the bringer of the light and truth.
Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.

The "truth" of someone who is willing to lie about how graphs work?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 02:28:59 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?
So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 21, 2018, 02:29:13 AM
I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.

You've been shown videos and models to explain that point. Quit with the obfuscation.

You claimed that two orbits with the same inclination had the same flight path through the belts, entered and left the belts at the same place, and so on. You have been shown why this is not true. Deal with that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 02:31:06 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

The only one labouring this point is you, because you still refuse to accept or understand that a 2D representation does not have enough information to draw the conclusions you want to draw. You have been shown why this is not the case.
I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.  I am not the villain here.  I am the bringer of the light and truth.
Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.

The "truth" of someone who is willing to lie about how graphs work?
Maybe you should review the thread.  You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding.  Everything I have said about a logarithmic graph is true and I am willing and capable of defending.  Cite a specific point and I will address it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 02:31:17 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?
So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.

"Perspective." Interesting word to use for flattening 3D data into 2D by hand-waving away everything that doesn't fit a simplistic transformation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 21, 2018, 02:34:15 AM
Maybe you should review the thread.  You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding.  Everything I have said about a logarithmic graph is true and I am willing and capable of defending.  Cite a specific point and I will address it.

But you invented a whole new kind of graph which simply does not exist, all because you think there are minor graduations on an axis that it has been shown are not actually there.

And while we're on the subject of that data set, if I take note of my speedometer every ten minutes for an hour and get readings of 35, 38, 28, 32, 39 and 25mph, what is my speed over that hour? Did yu add them or average them? If the former, wy? Of the latter, why do you think you should add up radiation dose rates measured over one day to get an overall daily dose rate?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 02:34:19 AM
I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.

You've been shown videos and models to explain that point. Quit with the obfuscation.

You claimed that two orbits with the same inclination had the same flight path through the belts, entered and left the belts at the same place, and so on. You have been shown why this is not true. Deal with that.
You exaggerate.  I contend that each entered the VAB at the same inclination and as such there is commonality and one can extrapolate exposure because of that commonality.  The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 02:34:41 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

The only one labouring this point is you, because you still refuse to accept or understand that a 2D representation does not have enough information to draw the conclusions you want to draw. You have been shown why this is not the case.
I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.  I am not the villain here.  I am the bringer of the light and truth.
Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.

The "truth" of someone who is willing to lie about how graphs work?
Maybe you should review the thread.  You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding.  Everything I have said about a logarithmic graph is true and I am willing and capable of defending.  Cite a specific point and I will address it.

What you say NOW is more-or-less aligned with reality. Somehow, though, you went from clearly wrong to probably right without ever passing the "owning up to your mistake" part of intellectual integrity. You insulted half the people in this thread when they didn't follow you down the rabbit hole of your wacky hybrid graph, then turned around and insulted them again by pretending it was them that didn't get it earlier.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 21, 2018, 02:38:42 AM
You exaggerate.  I contend that each entered the VAB at the same inclination and as such there is commonality

Except you have been shown why this is not the case. With a 3D model, with pictures, with words.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 02:40:14 AM
Maybe you should review the thread.  You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding.  Everything I have said about a logarithmic graph is true and I am willing and capable of defending.  Cite a specific point and I will address it.

But you invented a whole new kind of graph which simply does not exist, all because you think there are minor graduations on an axis that it has been shown are not actually there.

And while we're on the subject of that data set, if I take note of my speedometer every ten minutes for an hour and get readings of 35, 38, 28, 32, 39 and 25mph, what is my speed over that hour? Did yu add them or average them? If the former, wy? Of the latter, why do you think you should add up radiation dose rates measured over one day to get an overall daily dose rate?
I invented nothing.  A logarithmic graph is defined by the fact that it's scale is logarithmic and not exponential.  This remains an obstacle to your comprehension.  if you had varying speeds then it is an average of those speeds that indicates the speed of travel.  it is obvious if you take 24 readings over a day no single reading is an accurate indication of the daily exposure as conditions could vary considerably minute to minute.  An average over that time period would be more of an accurate assessment of the daily dose.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 02:42:26 AM
You exaggerate.  I contend that each entered the VAB at the same inclination and as such there is commonality

Except you have been shown why this is not the case. With a 3D model, with pictures, with words.
I have been shown no such thing.  What I have been shown is a spatial impairment.  Most lack the ability to perceive data in anything except a 3 dimensional context.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 21, 2018, 02:43:23 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?
So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.
That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 21, 2018, 02:44:22 AM
I invented nothing.  A logarithmic graph is defined by the fact that it's scale is logarithmic and not exponential.  This remains an obstacle to your comprehension.

No, it really doesn't. I have told you before I plot and analyse graphs, arithmetic and logarithmic, for a living. You placed emphasis on minor graduations on the axis that simply are not present on the CraTER graph, which clearly has a logarithmic scale on the y-axis.

Quote
if you had varying speeds then it is an average of those speeds that indicates the speed of travel.  it is obvious if you take 24 readings over a day no single reading is an accurate indication of the daily exposure as conditions could vary considerably minute to minute.  An average over that time period would be more of an accurate assessment of the daily dose.

Then why did you insist that one must add up the dose rates reported on the CraTER data set to get an overall daily dose rate? Why insist that they can't be dose rates, despite obviously being labelled as such, just because there were multiple readings given per day?
[/quote]
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 21, 2018, 02:47:20 AM
I have been shown no such thing.  What I have been shown is a spatial impairment.  Most lack the ability to perceive data in anything except a 3 dimensional context.

When dealing with a 3 dimensional situation it is entirely appropriate to consider it in 3 dimensions.

There is no spatial impairment here except in your case. You have been shown that it is possible for two orbits on the same inclination to have entirely different outcomes in relation to passing through or avoiding a torus on a different plane. Note that I never said I had produced an accurate depiction of the belts or the spacecraft, I was illustrating a point. But despite the obvious conclusion to be drawn you insist still there is commonality in the way two orbits interact with the torus just because they are on the same plane. Reality disagrees.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 02:55:43 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?
So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.
That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?
All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.  They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 21, 2018, 02:59:36 AM
All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.

This is absolutely untrue. The first 20 seconds of one of the videos explicitly shows the equatorial plane and the geomagnetic plane as different.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 03:01:10 AM
I have been shown no such thing.  What I have been shown is a spatial impairment.  Most lack the ability to perceive data in anything except a 3 dimensional context.

When dealing with a 3 dimensional situation it is entirely appropriate to consider it in 3 dimensions.

There is no spatial impairment here except in your case. You have been shown that it is possible for two orbits on the same inclination to have entirely different outcomes in relation to passing through or avoiding a torus on a different plane. Note that I never said I had produced an accurate depiction of the belts or the spacecraft, I was illustrating a point. But despite the obvious conclusion to be drawn you insist still there is commonality in the way two orbits interact with the torus just because they are on the same plane. Reality disagrees.
Why you find it difficult to envision a plane slicing through a donut at an angle is a mystery to me.  Keep working on it.  I am in your corner.  You can do this.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 03:02:42 AM
All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.

This is absolutely untrue. The first 20 seconds of one of the videos explicitly shows the equatorial plane and the geomagnetic plane as different.
If that is true then why the misconception of bypassing the dangerous part of the VAB?  There is no justification for the misconception.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 21, 2018, 03:02:56 AM
Why you find it difficult to envision a plane slicing through a donut at an angle is a mystery to me.

Why you think someone who actually created a 3D model of what you describe can't visualise it is beyond me, and why you think the plane slicing the donut is actually the key point when the spacecraft's path on the ellipse is actually the key element is beyond me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 21, 2018, 03:04:50 AM
If that is true then why the misconception of bypassing the dangerous part of the VAB?  There is no justification for the misconception.

The only thing there is no justification for is your lying. There is no 'if', it is demonstrably true that the portrayal do not ignore the difference between equatorial and geomagnetic planes. The only question is why you feel you need to lie about it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 21, 2018, 03:07:47 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?
So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.
That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?
All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.  They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.
Did you . . . read the link I posted? Like, look at it at all? No, you did not, because if you did, the author did EXACTLY that. 
Go look at it again. Scroll down the section title 'Van Allen Radiation Belt Belts' in bold. Keep reading from there.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 03:10:38 AM
Why you find it difficult to envision a plane slicing through a donut at an angle is a mystery to me.

Why you think someone who actually created a 3D model of what you describe can't visualise it is beyond me, and why you think the plane slicing the donut is actually the key point when the spacecraft's path on the ellipse is actually the key element is beyond me.
The ellipse from a side view is a straight line.  It is obvious that it passes through the highest regions of the VAB.  Shift the view from a top vied looking down on the north pole where the elliptical path is clearly defined.  Once again it is obvious that the path goes through the highest radiation zones of the VAB.  The only view in which it doesn't is the imaginary one in which the path proceeds at a ninety degree angle and then moves along the outer boundary of the VAB which is fictitious bull defecations spoon fed to retarded children.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 21, 2018, 03:10:58 AM
In summary:

1: Gets shown numerous diagrams, videos, models to explain the way Apollo missed the most intense regions of the belts
2: Says they must all be wrong because they fail to include the difference between equatorial and geomagnetic inclination
3: Gets shown the numerus cases that do not fail to include that factor
4: Insists they are still wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 21, 2018, 03:13:03 AM
The only view in which it doesn't is the imaginary one in which the path proceeds at a ninety degree angle and then moves along the outer boundary of the VAB which is fictitious bull defecations spoon fed to retarded children.

Tim, there is literally a model that is not at 90 degrees, and the larger ellipse still goes over and under the belt. Show me where my model shows a '90 degree' avoidance of the belt.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 03:13:42 AM
are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane?  If so, why and by how much?

That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.

Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.

(https://i.imgur.com/05C5Utc.png)

Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.
The obvious problem with this illustration is it simultaneously displays two vantage points.  It shows the VAB from a 2d side view and the elliptical orbit from a top view.  Pick a single view and stick with it and there would be no confusion.

It shows them both from a top view, there is nothing wrong with the illustration. You simply are afraid to concede because you think it makes you look stupid.

Quite clearly, to anyone who can understand an ellipse, the yellow line will pass through areas that the red line cannot. It will also do it every orbit.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 03:14:32 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?
So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.
That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?
All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.  They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.
Did you . . . read the link I posted? Like, look at it at all? No, you did not, because if you did, the author did EXACTLY that. 
Go look at it again. Scroll down the section title 'Van Allen Radiation Belt Belts' in bold. Keep reading from there.
Could you kindly repost it it?  I scrolled back 4 pages and didn't see it and I don't remember you posting it.  Help me out here.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 03:16:07 AM
are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane?  If so, why and by how much?

That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.

Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.

(https://i.imgur.com/05C5Utc.png)

Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.
The obvious problem with this illustration is it simultaneously displays two vantage points.  It shows the VAB from a 2d side view and the elliptical orbit from a top view.  Pick a single view and stick with it and there would be no confusion.

It shows them both from a top view, there is nothing wrong with the illustration. You simply are afraid to concede because you think it makes you look stupid.

Quite clearly, to anyone who can understand an ellipse, the yellow line will pass through areas that the red line cannot. It will also do it every orbit.
Is that the way the Van Allen Belt appears when you are looking down from the poles?  Why do they call it a donut or toroidal?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 03:17:20 AM
I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.  I am not the villain here.  I am the bringer of the light and truth.

Don't shoot the messenger because you didn't understand the 2D representation in 3D space. This is like the graph debacle again. You didn't understand the representation of the pretty picture. You've been shown how how different ellipses can intersect a torus at different positions. Anyone with a set of eyes can see it, and anyone with integrity would have put their hand up and admitted their mistake.

Your howler on the position of the Cape and launch site, and the polar orbit shows you really are fumbling around in the dark. The polar orbit illustrates you are utterly clueless. You've read a few words on Wikipedia, threw them in here and hope they stuck. Polar orbit indeed, now that it funny.

Quote
Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.

Polar orbit... that's all I have to say to you now. Polar orbit. What buffoonery.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 03:20:05 AM
I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.  I am not the villain here.  I am the bringer of the light and truth.

Don't shoot the messenger because you didn't understand the 2D representation in 3D space. This is like the graph debacle again. You didn't understand the representation of the pretty picture. You've been shown how how different ellipses can intersect a torus at different positions. Anyone with a set of eyes can see it, and anyone with integrity would have put their hand up and admitted their mistake.

Your howler on the position of the Cape and launch site, and the polar orbit shows you really are fumbling around in the dark. The polar orbit illustrates you are utterly clueless. You've read a few words on Wikipedia, threw them in here and hope they stuck. Polar orbit indeed, now that it funny.

Quote
Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.

Polar orbit... that's all I have to say to you now. Polar orbit. What buffoonery.
Caution!  There is a sniper in the trees taking pot shots...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 21, 2018, 03:21:10 AM
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."

Ah, but you miss an important point about that particular fallacy.  Namely, "the people" in the argument must, for it to be fallacious, have no particular expertise in the subject.  Once the people being cited are experts in their fields, using their consensus as evidence is no longer fallacious. 

Quote
I have repeatedly stated that I am uninterested in promoting  or disproving a hoax theory.  My goal is singular.  I  intend to prove that the reported mission dose of Apollo 11 is unrealistic.  As a consequence of that goal if it can be deduced the existence of a hoax exist then consider it collateral damage.  That is not my intent.

However, in making that argument, you insist that everything else must have somehow been faked.  Which means you're absolutely promoting a hoax, and that you cannot even begin to suggest how that hoax would be perpetrated just makes you look foolish, since--as I do keep pointing out--you are incapable of explaining why the answer is not more simply "I do not understand the thing I'm claiming is wrong so well as I say I do."
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 03:25:39 AM
The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.

You have had this explained to you in excruciating detail. The plane the ellipses occur on has no significance to the way one intersects areas of the belts and the other does not.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 03:29:50 AM
Maybe you should review the thread.  You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding.  Everything I have said about a logarithmic graph is true and I am willing and capable of defending.  Cite a specific point and I will address it.

But you invented a whole new kind of graph which simply does not exist, all because you think there are minor graduations on an axis that it has been shown are not actually there.

And while we're on the subject of that data set, if I take note of my speedometer every ten minutes for an hour and get readings of 35, 38, 28, 32, 39 and 25mph, what is my speed over that hour? Did yu add them or average them? If the former, wy? Of the latter, why do you think you should add up radiation dose rates measured over one day to get an overall daily dose rate?
I invented nothing.  A logarithmic graph is defined by the fact that it's scale is logarithmic and not exponential.  This remains an obstacle to your comprehension.  if you had varying speeds then it is an average of those speeds that indicates the speed of travel.  it is obvious if you take 24 readings over a day no single reading is an accurate indication of the daily exposure as conditions could vary considerably minute to minute.  An average over that time period would be more of an accurate assessment of the daily dose.
What kind of graph is this?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 03:35:13 AM

Is that the way the Van Allen Belt appears when you are looking down from the poles?  Why do they call it a donut or toroidal?
Can you stick your finger in a ring donut? Without touching the edges? You claim that this is an impossible task. And further, that nobody ever anywhere can do such a thing because it is physically impossible to do so. That is how daft your claim is.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 03:35:19 AM
I have proven that Robert Braeunig has deceived you.

A lie.

Quote
I have proven that there is no low radiation path through the VAB.

A lie.

Quote
I have proven that the background radiation is as high as the reported mission dose of Apollo 11.

A lie. You have proven you don't know how to read graphs or look at the data that forms them.

Quote
I have proven that the lunar soil is radioactive and I have proven that the moon itself is a source of radiation.

No, NASA proved there was secondary radiation, not you. You haven't quantified it or explained how it significantly penetrates the suit and boots.

Quote
I have proven that a transit through the VAB is at a radiation level that is the significant component of a lunar transit.

A point that was never in question. You arrogantly claim to have proven this?

Quote
What remains to be proven to convince you that the lunar landing could not have occurred?

They occurred as the evidence records. You have proven that you are made from the same mould as all Moon landing deniers. No matter what is presented to you, you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the problem could simply be your inept understanding.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 03:36:54 AM


Ah, but you miss an important point about that particular fallacy.  Namely, "the people" in the argument must, for it to be fallacious, have no particular expertise in the subject.  Once the people being cited are experts in their fields, using their consensus as evidence is no longer fallacious. 
  Opinion?
Quote
I have repeatedly stated that I am uninterested in promoting  or disproving a hoax theory.  My goal is singular.  I  intend to prove that the reported mission dose of Apollo 11 is unrealistic.  As a consequence of that goal if it can be deduced the existence of a hoax exist then consider it collateral damage.  That is not my intent.

However, in making that argument, you insist that everything else must have somehow been faked.  Which means you're absolutely promoting a hoax, and that you cannot even begin to suggest how that hoax would be perpetrated just makes you look foolish, since--as I do keep pointing out--you are incapable of explaining why the answer is not more simply "I do not understand the thing I'm claiming is wrong so well as I say I do."
[/quote]
It is a consequence and not an intention.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 03:39:52 AM
The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.

You have had this explained to you in excruciating detail. The plane the ellipses occur on has no significance to the way one intersects areas of the belts and the other does not.
You suffer from a gross conceptional area.  Rethink and repost.  I am embarrassed for you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 03:41:23 AM
I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.  I am not the villain here.  I am the bringer of the light and truth.

Don't shoot the messenger because you didn't understand the 2D representation in 3D space. This is like the graph debacle again. You didn't understand the representation of the pretty picture. You've been shown how how different ellipses can intersect a torus at different positions. Anyone with a set of eyes can see it, and anyone with integrity would have put their hand up and admitted their mistake.

Your howler on the position of the Cape and launch site, and the polar orbit shows you really are fumbling around in the dark. The polar orbit illustrates you are utterly clueless. You've read a few words on Wikipedia, threw them in here and hope they stuck. Polar orbit indeed, now that it funny.

Quote
Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.

Polar orbit... that's all I have to say to you now. Polar orbit. What buffoonery.
Caution!  There is a sniper in the trees taking pot shots...
Some of us have to live with such realities.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 03:42:19 AM
There it is.  I am tired again.  Off to bed.  Look for me in 9 to 10 hours.  Keep thinking and to thine ownself be true
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 03:43:28 AM

You suffer from a gross conceptional area.  Rethink and repost.  I am embarrassed for you.
Define a "gross conceptional area". Yet another clanger from tim.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 03:45:25 AM
There it is.  I am tired again.  Off to bed.  Look for me in 9 to 10 hours.  Keep thinking and to thine ownself be true
You are incapable of being true to yourself.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 03:45:59 AM
are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane?  If so, why and by how much?

That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.

Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.

(https://i.imgur.com/05C5Utc.png)

Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.
The obvious problem with this illustration is it simultaneously displays two vantage points.  It shows the VAB from a 2d side view and the elliptical orbit from a top view.  Pick a single view and stick with it and there would be no confusion.

It shows them both from a top view, there is nothing wrong with the illustration. You simply are afraid to concede because you think it makes you look stupid.

Quite clearly, to anyone who can understand an ellipse, the yellow line will pass through areas that the red line cannot. It will also do it every orbit.
Is that the way the Van Allen Belt appears when you are looking down from the poles?  Why do they call it a donut or toroidal?

My diagram would have the VABs tilted 30 degrees. You are being deliberately pedantic about the illustration whilst avoiding the point it makes. You also quoted my post and did not respond to the points I raised.

Simple question. Does the yellow line pass through the VAB on its route back around the Earth in a way that the red one does not.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 21, 2018, 03:47:24 AM
You suffer from a gross conceptional area.  Rethink and repost.  I am embarrassed for you.

This from someone who can't even process a model when it's shown to him. A simple one. In 3D.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 03:51:21 AM
The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.

You have had this explained to you in excruciating detail. The plane the ellipses occur on has no significance to the way one intersects areas of the belts and the other does not.
You suffer from a gross conceptional area.  Rethink and repost.  I am embarrassed for you.

I rethought it and confirm that my findings were accurate. You are persistently wrong about everything you post and are afraid to admit you are wrong. There lies your real embarrassment.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 21, 2018, 03:55:10 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?
So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.
That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?
All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.  They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.
Did you . . . read the link I posted? Like, look at it at all? No, you did not, because if you did, the author did EXACTLY that. 
Go look at it again. Scroll down the section title 'Van Allen Radiation Belt Belts' in bold. Keep reading from there.
Could you kindly repost it it?  I scrolled back 4 pages and didn't see it and I don't remember you posting it.  Help me out here.
The link is in the very  nest of quotes you just quoted!
Still, here you go (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 03:57:48 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?
So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.
That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?
All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.  They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.
Lie. Why must you lie so much?  Is it that you are so daft that you don't grok science and thus have to lash out?

In any event, another one for the list. Tim thinks the moon orbits over the equator.

I may have a bingo.

Have a diagram, tim, although the chances that you will figure it out are slim given past performance.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 04:03:22 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?
So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.
That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?
All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.  They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.
Did you . . . read the link I posted? Like, look at it at all? No, you did not, because if you did, the author did EXACTLY that. 
Go look at it again. Scroll down the section title 'Van Allen Radiation Belt Belts' in bold. Keep reading from there.
Could you kindly repost it it?  I scrolled back 4 pages and didn't see it and I don't remember you posting it.  Help me out here.
The link is in the very  nest of quotes you just quoted!
Still, here you go (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm).

As stated, the adjustment was made. Now this I find really interesting, so rather than allow Tim (KC?) to ignore it, I shall quote it here:

Quote from: BobB
Apollo 11's TLI launch point was very close to the descending node of the geomagnetic plane, which is a very advantageous place to start. As the spacecraft swings around Earth and heads out toward the Moon, it travels in the direction where the geomagnetic plane slopes away from it. In fact, by the time Apollo 11 reaches a distance of about three Earth radii, the geomagnetic axis is tilted almost exactly in the direction of the spacecraft, resulting in maximum separation between Apollo 11 and the geomagnetic plane. This optimal alignment is maintained until the spacecraft is well beyond the limits of the VARB.

What is that quote about hoisting and petards.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 21, 2018, 04:29:15 AM
"Because I said so" is the resort most often used when you have exhausted all reasonable attempts to explain something to someone who is simply incapable of, or refusing to, accept rational argument and explanation of the facts. It was not the starting point used by anyone here. It is pretty much the standpoint you have employed from the start and its use is entirely inappropriate given your lack of understanding of the things you are trying to examine.

The facts are that Apollo went to the moon. Every piece of evidence supports that. You have absolutely nothing that contradicts it no matter how many times you claim you do. All you have is a small collection of numbers collected from dosimeters worn next to the skin inside a structure that (regardless of whether you believe this) will intercept radiation. The numbers you report are adjusted from the original raw figures, which are higher. If you put some effort in you might even find those numbers.

You do not have adequate data on which to draw the unreasonably firm conclusions that you espouse, and your claim that it invalidates everything else in the Apollo record is incorrect. You need to look at the point you actually make yourself: there is an overwhelming amount of verifiable evidence supporting Apollo, how can it be possible if you are correct? You might just have to grasp the reality that you are wrong.

China, India and Japan have all taken images at the Apollo sites showing human activity. Not hardware, not physical objects, but the activity around them. Your a priori conclusions based on faulty assumptions cannot explain that.
You are starting at the conclusion which is from the opposite end that draws my attention.  What human activities do you speak of and which of these activities could not be easily replicated by machines?  I do not contend that man did not go to the moon.  I contend that no man has ever ventured beyond the VAB.  The equipment of man has been to the moon many times and by many nations.

I don't care that you are unwilling to look at the entirety of the data record and are so busy focusing on what you believe to be wood that you can't see trees. Your inability to see the flaw in your own argument is the problem you need to address alongside your ignorance of the subject matter in which your self-proclaimed expertise falls short.

The simple fact is that you are claiming that man did not go to the moon because you are claiming they have not left Earth orbit. You continually avoid to provide any kind of explanation as to how there is a TV, video and photographic record demonstrably taken outside Earth orbit by people was done in another way.

How would you like to explain the evidence of human activity? Was there room inside a lunar module for something to be extracted and run around making pretty patterns, setting up experiments to return data and at the same time broadcast live images of Earth to be somehow inserted on a lunar set back home? You have to invent some impossible techniques and methods to produce your scenario. That is the consequence of your argument that you are afraid to address.

Let me make it clear that the evidence I'm citing is not something you will find on the website or publications of the space agencies concerned, they are what I have found through my own efforts. I am not lazily parroting some official line or regurgitating someone else's work, and you'll notice I haven't bothered to cite LRO imagery supporting Apollo. The evidence entirely matches the Apollo record. Despite your protestations to the contrary, you do need to account for that.

You have not shown any curiosity at all when this has been drawn to your attention, you have made no effort to follow up the leads you have been given. Instead you have continued to bleat on about a subject you just don't get. If you want a definition of intellectual cowardice, that's it. Using a flawed argument to claim an unwarranted victory and refusing to follow through the logic of your claim is just gutless.

Either the entire scientific community is incorrect or you are. My money isn't on you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 04:31:33 AM
So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?
So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.
That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?
All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.  They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.
Did you . . . read the link I posted? Like, look at it at all? No, you did not, because if you did, the author did EXACTLY that. 
Go look at it again. Scroll down the section title 'Van Allen Radiation Belt Belts' in bold. Keep reading from there.
Could you kindly repost it it?  I scrolled back 4 pages and didn't see it and I don't remember you posting it.  Help me out here.
The link is in the very  nest of quotes you just quoted!
Still, here you go (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm).

Well, that tells you many things. "I demand you give me the link you just gave me! That's right, the link I just quoted back at you." Tim is simply not here to learn anything because he can't or to make an argument because he hasn't got one or even to read because he has demonstrated that he can't. So what is tim here for? Well that is simple. Tim gets his jollies pretending to be a moron and causing the rest of us to jump through hoops feverishly researching his latest inept claim. What tim fails to realise is that we mostly don't have to feverishly do anything at all, having the facts at our fingertips. Tim does not understand this. Tim thinks that any crackpot question he chucks out causes a conniption. He does not appreciate the sheer scale of knowledge and expertise that exists on this site. Jay all on his lonesome is encyclopedic, Jason, Luke, gillian, nomuse, OBM, raven, Mag and on and on and on, can and do field a vast amount of knowledge of so many diverse subjects that I would be amazed if a topic arose that we couldn't get a handle on without needing to reach out elsewhere.  On top of that, we are all old hands at this, we have all circulated the evidence, documents, maths, science and most anything one could conceive.

Tim crash lands into the middle of all of that with his delusion of grandeur as though this was all new to us.


To be fair, though, I cannot rule out the possibility that tim actually is a moron. He could very well be. It is impossible to say one way or the other.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 05:07:31 AM
Let me set the record straight. I am not who you think I am. I am not a conspiracy theorist.

Early in the thread you have already alluded to 'big government', so you are a conspiracy theorist. You even asked if members discuss other conspiracy theories at this board. On a scale of 1-10, how ardent are you? I won't speculate. In reality, this is another attempt at distraction. Having said this, I don't really care much for the labels you wish to assign. I have formed my opinion of you.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
I can not answer the multitude of questions arising the from the conspiracy theories and I lack the interest to do so.

Rubbish. You are now quibbling over the trajectory of TLI, so in your mind you can demonstrate the CM path through the VABs supports your narrative. Again, this is either because you cannot visualise 2D in 3D, lack the necessary knowledge of orbital mechanics; or after being shown you are wrong, cannot back down as your ego gets the better of you.

Answering questions is the rule of the forum. You agreed to the rules. You've shown the interest to keep a thread running that is now in excess of 2000+ replies, quibbling over details that most high school children would understand. You failed to read a graph properly, and are now hopelessly out of your depth regarding orbital mechanics. Experts in all fields reside in this forum, you chose to wade into these waters, and must stand up and show your expertise on all matters that are put forward to you. You do not get to pick and choose which questions you answer. You have made a claim that the shielding of the CM was insufficient and made Apollo prohibitive for flight, you have to demonstrate this based on your knowledge of science and engineering.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
What I am is a an inquiring mind and a opinionated person.

You are opinionated, I agree. Inquiring, no.

An inquiring mind would have looked closely at all the diagrams and models presented, withdrew from the debate and thought about their misconceptions. Your modus operandi is to flounce for 5 days, frantically google, throw more links in the hope something sticks, then proceed to gish gallop from a position of pedantry while ignoring detailed explanations. You have been shown from your arrival that you cannot interpret simple data, understand basic maths and graphical representations, you lack comprehension and want to oversimplify all that is presented so your preconceived narrative holds true. At every turn you attempt to massage your wiki-knowledge to fit a story. We've seen it all before here, and at other fora.

The recent instalment, where it has been shown to you in excruciating detail that two ellipses can intersect a torus differently, shows you are wilfully ignorant and making chooses to ensure you save face.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
I am not subtle and I am prone to offend.

Another badge of honour that you like to brandish and display to your critics. Bravado is not substitute for rigour.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
I make no excuses for that.

So you tacitly admit that you are quite prepared to offend people. That's poor form when members  have gone to great efforts with graphs, diagrams and models to explain away your buffoonery.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
I am honest and diligent in my pursuit of the truth.

I do not attribute you with honesty or truth. I attribute you with obfuscation and deception. I attribute you with an ego that overrides the objectivity of others. You have tried this same approach at another forum. You get a kick out of your pompous tone, your obnoxious manner and your delusion of grandeur; all arising from service on a nuclear submarine.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
I form my opinions starting from a neutral point and spend the effort to sort through the technical jargon and the attempts to distract and divert.

Adopting the position that questions and explanations preclude the use of technical jargon, you are in the wrong place. I've got some news for you. Spaceflight is technical. Mopping the floors on a submarine is not.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
My own opinion is not spontaneous and is derived from logical deduction and careful evaluation of the available data.

Says a man that failed to read a graph correctly and had to have others present the data on a plate.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
I am a simple mind incapable of disseminating complex and dynamic situations and require simple problems and concrete solutions to move beyond any point.

My bold. I agree, couldn't agree more. You were given a concrete solution in the form of two ellipses. You don't want to move on beyond a point once the answer is clear. You let your ego infest your mind and continue with your charade. You're a pedant, incapable of digesting simple ideas that most school children would grasp in a few minutes. In can only conclude that you are of low intelligence, egotistic or are now trolling.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
I can and will entertain any questions that observe these simple boundaries.  Any attempt to expand the inquiry beyond a distinct and succinct point will be resisted by me.

You only want to entertain yourself; picking over irrelevant detail, obfuscating, deceiving and trying to shift the conversation once your errors have become glaringly obvious. Polar orbit indeed, now that is funny.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
I prefer  a serial approach to problem solving and insist upon solving individual problems before moving to the next problem.

Apollo was a highly evolved integrated engineering project that did not deliver using a serial approach. The systems were highly integrated. You cannot drill into one area and ignore the other components of the project. You have to look at the problem through holistic eyes, hence the nature of the questions.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
I find it confusing to keep track of multiple threads expanding out and exponentially with convoluted questions that do nothing to clarify the original question.

We can deal with multiple threads and convoluted questions. It is your perception that other questions have little relevance to the original question because you simply don't understand the complexity of the problem. We do, and we will ask questions that are multi-faceted to expose your hand waving. You don't get to opt out of answering questions because you find them hard.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
I adhere to the time worn US Navy's principle of "KISS" keep it simple stupid.

I adhere to the UK Navy's principle of using a broadside. It worked for Nelson.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
I also adhere to the adage that if you can not explain it simply then you do not know it well enough.

General relativity and quantum mechanics are fairly incomprehensible to most of the population, but those who practise those fields understand the theories well. Your failings to understand the complexity of the problem does not exclude others from understanding the problem in technical detail. The problems that relate to this discussion are complex and require years of study to understand. Don't lay your inability at the feet of others.

But here lies the irony. You refuse to answer questions, dismissing them as trifling distractions, but expect others to explain technical issues to you in simple terms. You are are not prepared to explain your understanding of integrated engineering solutions when questioned, but demand a different standard of others.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
I am sure your experience and expertise has merit but it means nothing if you cannot justify it with corroborating data.

Currently we are working with cardboard models to articulate two ellipses having different paths through 3D space. We're not ready for data are we?

You have of course been given the links to Bob's pages, and have simply hand waved that away as 'Bob deceiving us.' We provide the data, you hand wave. We question your understanding of the data, you moan that the questions are too hard. Suck it up.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
I will challenge you at every point...

No you won't. You can't answer the questions. Again, when given the data you hand wave it away without any technical rebuttal, when cross examined, you whine that it is all too hard.  Are you a challenge? No, not in the slightest. You're just another HB howling from the shadows.

Polar orbit... now that's funny.

Quote
...and expect nothing less from you.

Your bombastic tone and ego get the better of you.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
Victory means nothing unless it is won. Anyone can be lucky but to be truly good you must be unbeatable. The challenge lies before you. Prove me wrong on any single issue.

Is this another reference to once mopping floors on a nuclear submarine. Your military maxims are quite boring now. No one cares.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
Provide the data to support your assertion and make me change my opinion.  Then and only then can you be assured that your truth is sound and justified.

We did, you hand waved it away and then bemoaned the questions being too hard and unable to keep up.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.

Quote
There are no...

Some utter drivel about respect and suchlike.

Polar orbit avoiding the SAA... now that's funny.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 21, 2018, 05:15:26 AM
I blush intensely at being put among that list, Abaddon. I am no expert, but even an admitted non-expert such as myself can call out some of the absolute bull cack malarkey our friend timfinch here tried to pull just now.
No one took into account the geomagnatic pole differences with the geographical pole until our friend timfinch?
"Ho ho, very funny. Ha ha. It is to laugh." to quote Daffy Duck from 'Robin Hood Daffy'*.
*Definitely one of my favourite shorts of all time. Porky Pig's laugh is just so delightfully infectious, for one.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 05:32:49 AM
I blush intensely at being put among that list, Abaddon.

I have said it in this thread. There are those here that are uncredentialed, but the Apollo enthusiasts have astounding knowledge and have answered my questions in the past. I value their knowledge equally.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 05:38:31 AM
I blush intensely at being put among that list, Abaddon. I am no expert, but even an admitted non-expert such as myself can call out some of the absolute bull cack malarkey our friend timfinch here tried to pull just now.
No one took into account the geomagnatic pole differences with the geographical pole until our friend timfinch?
"Ho ho, very funny. Ha ha. It is to laugh." to quote Daffy Duck from 'Robin Hood Daffy'*.
*Definitely one of my favourite shorts of all time. Porky Pig's laugh is just so delightfully infectious, for one.
In all fairness, there is only one area of expertise that matters. Knowing what you do know and knowing what you do not, and being able to tell the difference. This is where timfinch fails every time. For example, timfinch "thinks" he knows the difference between log and linear graphs despite all contrary evidence. timfinch clearly cannot comprehend 3D yet is convinced he does. And so on.

What timfinch fails to learn is that "I don't know." is a perfectly logical and acceptable answer to any question. Pretending that you do know when one clearly does not is neither logical nor acceptable. To frame it in a concrete example, do I know how to perform open heart surgery? Of course not. I am not a doctor of any stripe. However, given my long dead mother had a quad bypass, I have a good understanding of what is involved. Confronted with the very same question, tim would say "Because potato" and not even realise that he was wrong. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nweber on April 21, 2018, 05:47:57 AM
Why do you think it was chosen as the optimum site when a a norther location closer to the poles would have have allowed the VAB to be bypassed?  What was the logic?

You can launch into a polar orbit from anywhere.  At a location closer to the equator, you can also launch into orbits with a lower inclination.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 06:06:07 AM
Why do you think it was chosen as the optimum site when a a norther location closer to the poles would have have allowed the VAB to be bypassed?  What was the logic?

You can launch into a polar orbit from anywhere.  At a location closer to the equator, you can also launch into orbits with a lower inclination.
Tim doesn't do orbits or even 3 dimensions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 21, 2018, 06:28:15 AM
I laugh at the claim that if you can't explain it simply you don't know it well enough. Cutting out some bits of card and sticking them together constitutes a pretty simple explanation of the problem, wouldn't you say?

The problem with any explanation is not how simpe the explainer makes it, it's how well the questioner understands it. That latter part if the problem. I literally cannot make the 'two coplanar ellipses with different eccentricities intersect a non-coplanar torus in different ways' any simpler. This leads me to conclude either Tim does not understand or else he knws damn well he is wrong and is just getting his kicks, thinking we're jumping through hoops and getting all flustered. As I said, it took me all of five minutes to create that cardboard model because I already understood the geometry. Hardly putting myself out or performing mental gymnastics.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 06:53:31 AM
I laugh at the claim that if you can't explain it simply you don't know it well enough. Cutting out some bits of card and sticking them together constitutes a pretty simple explanation of the problem, wouldn't you say?

I thought it was a wonderful concrete model using cardboard. ;)

I've worked in educational outreach and explained eclipses, day and night and the seasons to young children. I've always used 3D models, so on your part it was text book. Seriously, it was brilliant, and solidified the orbit and VAB problem in my mind that little bit more.

Quote
The problem with any explanation is not how simple the explainer makes it, it's how well the questioner understands it.

In fairness it's a bit of both. Having said this, the explanations have been differentiated through words, diagrams, videos and your model. The contributors here could have done no more. It's down to Tim now.


Quote
This leads me to conclude either Tim does not understand or else he knows damn well he is wrong and is just getting his kicks, thinking we're jumping through hoops and getting all flustered.

There are a few possible scenarios. It has been said in this thread that dyed in the wool HBs would not even be debating the orbital mechanics. If Jarrah White was here now, I am sure he would agree with our explanation of the TLI orbit, but disagree on the radiation protection. I am beginning to question the true reason for Tim's presence. I find the obnoxious and condescending tone, punctuated with military maxims, tiresome now.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 08:15:51 AM
...

Could you kindly repost it it?  I scrolled back 4 pages and didn't see it and I don't remember you posting it.  Help me out here.
The link is in the very  nest of quotes you just quoted!
Still, here you go (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm).
Bob has done some very astounding work in this area.  tim would do well to read and hopefully understand what the implications of the trajectory around the most dense areas of the VARB and no tim, Bob is not a NASA shill, nor is anyone on this board.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 21, 2018, 12:35:47 PM
Opinion?

You know that putting things in "glow" makes them harder to read, right?  Stick to bold.  But no, it's not my opinion.  It's simply an aspect of rhetoric.  Which is another thing you clearly don't understand.

Quote
It is a consequence and not an intention.

Perhaps.  But your decision not to admit that the simpler answer is that you don't understand the radiation issue does indeed bear with it consequences, and it means you take responsibility for those consequences.  "It could have been robots" is an affirmative defense, and it means you bear responsibility for explaining how those robots were launched and how samples completely unlike those taken by any other unmanned mission were acquired.  "They could have been in LEO" is an affirmative defense, and it means you bear responsibility for explaining how they hid the Apollo craft from the naked eye when it wasn't supposed to be there despite its visibility when it was supposed to be there.  "I don't intend to propose a conspiracy theory" is simply not the get-out-of-jail-free card you think it is.  People are willing to let you slide on that because they'd rather attempt to pin Jell-O to a tree by trying to get you to understand radiation, but I want it made very clear that you are still at least intellectually on the hook for all other aspects of your claim.  "They must have done it because it was done" is as much circular reasoning as you accuse any of us of showing.  In fact, it is exactly the same circular reasoning.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 21, 2018, 12:37:23 PM
What is that quote about hoisting and petards.

"Hoist with his own petard."  "Hoist," not "hoisted."  Means blown up, in this case.  A petard was a grenade.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 12:41:12 PM
The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.

You have had this explained to you in excruciating detail. The plane the ellipses occur on has no significance to the way one intersects areas of the belts and the other does not.
You suffer from a gross conceptional error.  Rethink and repost.  I am embarrassed for you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 12:53:01 PM
Half of one, six dozen of the other.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 01:10:59 PM
The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.

You have had this explained to you in excruciating detail. The plane the ellipses occur on has no significance to the way one intersects areas of the belts and the other does not.
You suffer from a gross conceptional error.  Rethink and repost.  I am embarrassed for you.

What is this? Already answered. Repeated below.

I rethought it and confirm that my findings were accurate. You are persistently wrong about everything you post and are afraid to admit you are wrong. There lies your real embarrassment.

You are quite clearly just typing anything except legitimate responses, with the obvious intention of covering up your appalling blunders. I suspect that you think, not many will wade through such a large thread.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 01:14:41 PM
When viewed from the top (looking down at the poles) in a 2d drawing the VAB would look something like this drawing.  The spatially challenged, for some reason beyond my grasp, insist on displaying the VAB from a side view while displaying the elliptical orbits from a top view.  I'm just saying....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 01:19:20 PM
When viewed from the top (looking down at the poles) in a 2d drawing the VAB would look something like this drawing.  The spatially challenged, for some reason beyond my grasp, insist on displaying the VAB from a side view while displaying the elliptical orbits from a top view.  I'm just saying....

This is where you explain why a polar view is relevant. The route tilts from the side view, commonly shown, by 30 degrees. Not 90.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 01:19:52 PM
When viewed from the top (looking down at the poles) in a 2d drawing the VAB would look something like this drawing.  The spatially challenged, for some reason beyond my grasp, insist on displaying the VAB from a side view while displaying the elliptical orbits from a top view.  I'm just saying....

Did you forget that you have been shown a top down path OF THE Apollo?

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 01:20:20 PM
It's weird. It's like doing it in 3d is too complex, so he has to snap to some plane that conveniently aligns everything he wants to see. "Equatorial plane?" Nope.  Rotate and, Snap! "Lunar orbit plane?" Nope...rotate again, snap! "Geomagnetic plane?" "Plane of the transfer orbit?"

He's like A Square being visited by the Sphere.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 01:21:31 PM

I am sure you didn't mean what it appeared you said.  I heard you say that the angle of the plane of the ellipse has nothing to do with the amount of radiation received transiting the VAB. Did I state your position correctly?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 01:25:00 PM

I am sure you didn't mean what it appeared you said.  I heard you say that the angle of the plane of the ellipse has nothing to do with the amount of radiation received transiting the VAB. Did I state your position correctly?

No. Your quite appalling understanding seems to know no bounds.

"The plane the ellipses occur on has no significance to the way one intersects areas of the belts and the other does not."

Should I explain it in simple terms for you!

Edit: you really are flannelling in an attempt to cover your embarrassing errors.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 01:27:13 PM

I am sure you didn't mean what it appeared you said.  I heard you say that the angle of the plane of the ellipse has nothing to do with the amount of radiation received transiting the VAB. Did I state your position correctly?
Learn how the quote function works.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 01:30:23 PM
When viewed from the top (looking down at the poles) in a 2d drawing the VAB would look something like this drawing.  The spatially challenged, for some reason beyond my grasp, insist on displaying the VAB from a side view while displaying the elliptical orbits from a top view.  I'm just saying....

Did you forget that you have been shown a top down path OF THE Apollo?


That may be my problem.  I see that as a side view of the earth and the VAB and you see it as a top view.  Can you please explain why the VAB in that depiction does not circle the earth like a donut?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 01:32:39 PM

I am sure you didn't mean what it appeared you said.  I heard you say that the angle of the plane of the ellipse has nothing to do with the amount of radiation received transiting the VAB. Did I state your position correctly?
3D spatial reasoning fail.

Can you stick your finger through a ring donut without touching the edges? Yes, or no?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 01:34:43 PM
When viewed from the top (looking down at the poles) in a 2d drawing the VAB would look something like this drawing.  The spatially challenged, for some reason beyond my grasp, insist on displaying the VAB from a side view while displaying the elliptical orbits from a top view.  I'm just saying....

Did you forget that you have been shown a top down path OF THE Apollo?


That may be my problem.  I see that as a side view of the earth and the VAB and you see it as a top view.  Can you please explain why the VAB in that depiction does not circle the earth like a donut?

It's a side view. Even a stopped clock............
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 01:40:27 PM

I am sure you didn't mean what it appeared you said.  I heard you say that the angle of the plane of the ellipse has nothing to do with the amount of radiation received transiting the VAB. Did I state your position correctly?
The angle of the plane of the ellipse to...what? Without a referrant, it's just a geometric plane. By definition, geometric planes don't have angles.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 01:41:39 PM
When viewed from the top (looking down at the poles) in a 2d drawing the VAB would look something like this drawing.  The spatially challenged, for some reason beyond my grasp, insist on displaying the VAB from a side view while displaying the elliptical orbits from a top view.  I'm just saying....

Did you forget that you have been shown a top down path OF THE Apollo?


That may be my problem.  I see that as a side view of the earth and the VAB and you see it as a top view.  Can you please explain why the VAB in that depiction does not circle the earth like a donut?
Is the scale in that video log or linear?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 01:47:07 PM


It's a side view. Even a stopped clock............
Yes, BK simply linked the wrong video. Here is top-down in all it's animated glory...

Tim has been handed it multiple times.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 01:51:44 PM
When viewed from the top (looking down at the poles) in a 2d drawing the VAB would look something like this drawing.  The spatially challenged, for some reason beyond my grasp, insist on displaying the VAB from a side view while displaying the elliptical orbits from a top view.  I'm just saying....

Did you forget that you have been shown a top down path OF THE Apollo?


That may be my problem.  I see that as a side view of the earth and the VAB and you see it as a top view.  Can you please explain why the VAB in that depiction does not circle the earth like a donut?
Your lack of 3-D understanding is noted.  But I will admit that this is a side view of both the VARB and the trajectory.  That being said, if one views the top views you would not get the realization of missing the areas of denser radiation.  All you would see is a curved line representing the trajectory leaving the VARB at 210 minutes into the TL phase, not how far above the zones it was.
Regardless at 210 minutes the CSM were 11246 miles from earth and virtually out of the VARB completely (it was still in the >7 MEV electron flux and < 100 Protons/Cm^2-sec.

ETA The inclination is 52 degrees not the 30 degrees of the LEO.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 01:55:25 PM
There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension.  It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 01:56:51 PM


It's a side view. Even a stopped clock............
Yes, BK simply linked the wrong video. Here is top-down in all it's animated glory...

Tim has been handed it multiple times.

Yes I did link the wrong one, but as you said tim has been shown this before, but will not accept the facts and man-up to his being wrong as gillianren  has suggested many times.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 01:59:25 PM

Your lack of 3-D understanding is noted.  But I will admit that this is a side view of both the VARB and the trajectory.  That being said, if one views the top views you would not get the realization of missing the areas of denser radiation.  All you would see is a curved line representing the trajectory leaving the VARB at 210 minutes into the TL phase, not how far above the zones it was.
Regardless at 210 minutes the CSM were 11246 miles from earth and virtually out of the VARB completely (it was still in the >7 MEV electron flux and < 100 Protons/Cm^2-sec.
Regarding the top-down view I posted. Maybe TF hasn't figured out the contour lines are the VAB contours of a conical plane through the VAB on the Apollo eliptical orbit. I guess conic sections gets added to the TF list.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 02:00:46 PM
When viewed from a 2d top view looking down on the north pole the VAB appears as a ring completely surrounding the earth starting at about 600 miles out.  Any and all elliptical orbits greater than a 600 mile radius must pass through this ring.  It would be obvious to the casual observer, that is if that observer is capable of spatially interpreting a two dimensional drawing.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 02:03:13 PM
There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension.  It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.
Apollo happened in 3 dimensions. Not our problem that you are incapable of figuring that out.

Have you tried that ring donut test yet? You know, where your claims mean it is physically impossible to thrust a digit through one?

That is how idiotic your claims have become.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 02:04:09 PM
There is a distinct inability in this group of ME to shift my their perspectives from a to a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension.  It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.

FTFY.

And yes it is difficult to deal with the spatially challenged, which you have shown on many post to be the case.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 02:05:14 PM
When viewed from a 2d top view looking down on the north pole the VAB appears as a ring completely surrounding the earth starting at about 600 miles out.  Any and all elliptical orbits greater than a 600 mile radius must pass through this ring.  It would be obvious to the casual observer, that is if that observer is capable of spatially interpreting a two dimensional drawing.
No, once again the contour lines in the animation are for a conic section through a torus. Why is this incomprehensible to you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 02:06:08 PM
It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for.  Does that seem fair to everybody?  Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 02:07:24 PM
When viewed from a 2d top view looking down on the north pole the VAB appears as a ring completely surrounding the earth starting at about 600 miles out.  Any and all elliptical orbits greater than a 600 mile radius must pass through this ring.  It would be obvious to the casual observer, that is if that observer is capable of spatially interpreting a two dimensional drawing.

With exception being that the trajectory in a 3-D world as Abaddon indicates the spacecraft are at the upper boundaries of the torus, NOT the middle of it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 02:08:33 PM
It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for.  Does that seem fair to everybody?  Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?

That is for LO to decide not the members.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 02:11:20 PM
When viewed from a 2d top view looking down on the north pole the VAB appears as a ring completely surrounding the earth starting at about 600 miles out.  Any and all elliptical orbits greater than a 600 mile radius must pass through this ring.  It would be obvious to the casual observer, that is if that observer is capable of spatially interpreting a two dimensional drawing.
So your claim actually is that it is physically impossible to put your finger through a ring donut. And somehow, you think this makes you look clever. On the internet. In public.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 02:14:09 PM
There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension.  It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.

Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 02:15:52 PM
It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for.  Does that seem fair to everybody?  Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?

Quit bleating. Your trolling was also part of the deal.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 02:21:15 PM
It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for.  Does that seem fair to everybody?  Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?
Yay, rules lawyering as a substitute for an actual argument. How novel.

Just for the record. LunarOrbit is the sole owner, operator and moderator of this site. He allows whatever he wishes. Nobody else. Certainly not you.

Second, this site has been completely rebuilt from it's previous incarnation with the result that everyone's post count got reset. You are unaware that many of us have been here for years and clocked up thousands of posts. We have heavily invested in earning respect and credibility and in many cases have actually identified our professional credentials and the means to indepently verify same for anyone so interested to do so.

Third, "respect" is not a thing one demands, it is something one earns.

Fourth. Credibility is not a boomerang. If you fling it away, it is not coming back.

Soo how about you knock that off and give us all your understanding of conic sections of toroids. Because it seems to me that you don't have one to share.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 02:36:26 PM
It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for.  Does that seem fair to everybody?  Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?

That is for LO to decide not the members.
The question remains unanswered by your response.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 02:38:49 PM
There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension.  It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.

Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.
You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB.  Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 02:40:09 PM
It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for.  Does that seem fair to everybody?  Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?

That is for LO to decide not the members.
The question remains unanswered by your response.
I answered it. You seem to be utterly flummoxed by actual answers and unable to answer basic questions. Why?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 02:40:30 PM
It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for.  Does that seem fair to everybody?  Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?

Quit bleating. Your trolling was also part of the deal.
So having and independent thought is trolling. Is that from the urban dictionary?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 02:42:06 PM
It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for.  Does that seem fair to everybody?  Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?

That is for LO to decide not the members.
The question remains unanswered by your response.

I guess you need it in crayon to understand.  You need to take that up with LO in a PM, not bring it to the membership in the forum.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 02:44:37 PM
There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension.  It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.

Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.
You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB.  Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.
I laughed so hard the neighbours turned up to see if I was OK.

So, hahahahaha, you think, hahahaha, that a top view, hahahaha, and a side view hahahaha should match exactly. Bwahahahahahahahahaha.

Jesus wept.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 02:46:03 PM
It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for.  Does that seem fair to everybody?  Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?

Quit bleating. Your trolling was also part of the deal.
So having and independent thought is trolling. Is that from the urban dictionary?
No, trolling at least requires some intelligence on the part of the practitioner.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 02:52:03 PM
It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for.  Does that seem fair to everybody?  Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?

Quit bleating. Your trolling was also part of the deal.
So having and independent thought is trolling. Is that from the urban dictionary?
Independent thought is good, what you have demonstrated is a complete lack of understanding of:
1. Direct comparison of different flux levels across solar cycles, without the ability to understand that implication.
2. Primary math skills
3. Primary graphing understanding
4. 2-D rendering of 3-D objects.
5. Orbital mechanics
6. Radiation shielding of various layers of the Apollo command module.

Because of these lack of understandings your position on radiation received during the Apollo flights is flawed and incorrect.

Step in anyone with some points I may have missed.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 03:02:42 PM
OK just for shiggles I plotted a route from Flight Club, NYc to the NYC transit museum.

Then I grabbed the results in top down and side on views.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 21, 2018, 03:08:55 PM
There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension.  It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.
I'm inclined (pun intended) to think you're just trolling now.  This is entirely a 3D matter, and while 2D representations can help, you need to consider multiple 2D views of the situation.

Hence :

When viewed from a 2d top view looking down on the north pole the VAB appears as a ring completely surrounding the earth starting at about 600 miles out.  Any and all elliptical orbits greater than a 600 mile radius must pass through this ring.  It would be obvious to the casual observer, that is if that observer is capable of spatially interpreting a two dimensional drawing.
Again, a lack of rigour, or understanding...

Looking down from the north geomagnetic pole the VAB appears as a ring.  A plane at right angles to the polar axis intersects the belt region with symmetrical contours of radiation levels.

When viewed from the physical pole the ring is distorted, and a perpendicular plane intersects varying regions of activity.

Add to that the inclination of the Apollo 11 orbit, which you've been shown on Bob Braeunig's page, and you have a complex 3D system of volumes and trajectories which you cannot represent in a trivial 2D diagram.

Apparently 3D animations, and even physical 3D models aren't helping you to visualise this at all  ::)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 03:37:23 PM
There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension.  It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.

Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.
You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB.  Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.

I gave you a view perpendicular to the 30 degree inclination. Your confusion is either you trolling or you are even more ignorant than you appear to be.

(https://i.imgur.com/7aI1S9U.jpg)

The Apollo speed takes it into the VAB at the same elevation but not the same place. It's called 3D ::)
To further add to this nonsense, the Apollo TLI burns specifically fired to accentuate the position of the magnetic pole on the opposite side of the Earth, to achieve even more elevation(relative to the belts). I have no reason to suppose that Orion did that or any reason for doing so.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 03:43:44 PM
Oh we are into a strange far country where dimensions do not exist, a far silver shore and then all turns to silvered glass. And then you see it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 03:49:52 PM
Oh we are into a strange far country where dimensions do not exist, a far silver shore and then all turns to silvered glass. And then you see it.
Shall we introduce the time like dimension now, or shall we save for later? We could begin writing the trajectory in Einstein notation using geocentric basis vectors with a transformation matrix for the geomagnetic vectors.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 03:54:30 PM
Oh we are into a strange far country where dimensions do not exist, a far silver shore and then all turns to silvered glass. And then you see it.
Shall we introduce the time like dimension now, or shall we save for later? We could begin writing the trajectory in Einstein notation using geocentric basis vectors with a transformation matrix for the geomagnetic vectors.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk


Iluvatar says no.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 03:56:01 PM
...
I'm inclined (pun intended) to think you're just trolling now.  This is entirely a 3D matter, and while 2D representations can help, you need to consider multiple 2D views of the situation.

Hence :

When viewed from a 2d top view looking down on the north pole the VAB appears as a ring completely surrounding the earth starting at about 600 miles out.  Any and all elliptical orbits greater than a 600 mile radius must pass through this ring.  It would be obvious to the casual observer, that is if that observer is capable of spatially interpreting a two dimensional drawing.
Again, a lack of rigour, or understanding...

Looking down from the north geomagnetic pole the VAB appears as a ring.  A plane at right angles to the polar axis intersects the belt region with symmetrical contours of radiation levels.

When viewed from the physical pole the ring is distorted, and a perpendicular plane intersects varying regions of activity.

Add to that the inclination of the Apollo 11 orbit, which you've been shown on Bob Braeunig's page, and you have a complex 3D system of volumes and trajectories which you cannot represent in a trivial 2D diagram.

Apparently 3D animation s, and even physical 3D models aren't helping you to visualise this at all  ::)
Excellent summation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 04:03:28 PM
How do you like this rendition?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 04:07:21 PM
How do you like this rendition?

Don't evade the points made. Your picture shows two elliptical orbits, they are different to each other. How in any way does that support your untenable claim?

BTW - Your userid is no longer suspended at CQ, I suggest you answer the questions there if you start up. I am 100% certain your antics here will be known about over there and will not be tolerated.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 04:07:49 PM
Shall we introduce the time like dimension now, or shall we save for later? We could begin writing the trajectory in Einstein notation using geocentric basis vectors with a transformation matrix for the geomagnetic vectors.

To post a more serious answer...No? If as seems evident TF literally finds the search for a method of determining his way out of the proverbial papery container, any discussion of SR or GR or QM seems sort of moot. Geometry is demonstrably outside his understanding. If it is, as seems demonstraed, beyond TF's ability to understand a mere three dimensions then it is no use chucking a forth fifth and subsequent dimensions into the mix. String theory supports 26.

I retract that. It would actually be hilarious to see that happen.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 04:09:23 PM
How do you like this rendition?

What is your point?  From this perspective the amount of vertical distance above the VARB is not shown.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 04:09:43 PM
It can clearly be seen that both elliptical orbits pass through the inner ring.  A side view reals that each plane of the ellipticals are identical.  As a consequence the passage through the High radiation inner ring should have similar profiles.  This being the case then the Orion EFT's data set can be extrapolated out to the apollo.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 04:10:15 PM
How do you like this rendition?
Personally, I like it a lot as it illustrates how wrong you really are.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 04:13:20 PM
It can clearly be seen that both elliptical orbits pass through the inner ring.  A side view reals that each plane of the ellipticals are identical.  As a consequence the passage through the High radiation inner ring should have similar profiles.  This being the case then the Orion EFT's data set can be extrapolated out to the apollo.
Oooo, new image ahead.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 04:13:32 PM
How do you like this rendition?

Don't evade the points made. Your picture shows two elliptical orbits, they are different to each other. How in any way does that support your untenable claim?

BTW - Your userid is no longer suspended at CQ, I suggest you answer the questions there if you start up. I am 100% certain your antics here will be known about over there and will not be tolerated.
I remind you that they not only suspended me, they closed the thread to prevent anyone else from speculating along the lines of inquiry I had introduced.  Cosmoquest is not interested in any version but their own.  It is a waste of my time.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 04:20:39 PM
How do you like this rendition?

Don't evade the points made. Your picture shows two elliptical orbits, they are different to each other. How in any way does that support your untenable claim?

BTW - Your userid is no longer suspended at CQ, I suggest you answer the questions there if you start up. I am 100% certain your antics here will be known about over there and will not be tolerated.
I remind you that they not only suspended me, they closed the thread to prevent anyone else from speculating aloong the lines of inquiry I had introduced.  Cosmoquest is not interested in any version but their own.  It is a waste of my time.

Do you ever get anything right? The thread says PM a moderator to get it opened again. Of course you will steer clear of CQ, you can't jerk around over there!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 04:30:22 PM
Looking at the Orion EFT data it can be seen that the Orion's total mission dose for the round trip transit was approximately 15 mgy,  I found this very interesting.  It is much lower than I expected.  It is proof that the VAB can be transited without killing the astronauts.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 04:31:40 PM
How do you like this rendition?

Don't evade the points made. Your picture shows two elliptical orbits, they are different to each other. How in any way does that support your untenable claim?

BTW - Your userid is no longer suspended at CQ, I suggest you answer the questions there if you start up. I am 100% certain your antics here will be known about over there and will not be tolerated.
I remind you that they not only suspended me, they closed the thread to prevent anyone else from speculating aloong the lines of inquiry I had introduced.  Cosmoquest is not interested in any version but their own.  It is a waste of my time.

Do you ever get anything right? The thread says PM a moderator to get it opened again. Of course you will steer clear of CQ, you can't jerk around over there!
Why would they not let the dialogue continue during my absence?  They never closed the thread here after they suspended me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 04:34:59 PM
CosmoQuest is heavily moderated. They do not tolerate side conversations, off-topic speculation, incomplete answers, or delaying tactics.

I stopped hanging out there myself (I miss the BAUT).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 04:40:26 PM
How do you like this rendition?

Don't evade the points made. Your picture shows two elliptical orbits, they are different to each other. How in any way does that support your untenable claim?

BTW - Your userid is no longer suspended at CQ, I suggest you answer the questions there if you start up. I am 100% certain your antics here will be known about over there and will not be tolerated.
I remind you that they not only suspended me, they closed the thread to prevent anyone else from speculating along the lines of inquiry I had introduced.  Cosmoquest is not interested in any version but their own.  It is a waste of my time.
No, again you lie. I cited the exact post in this very thread. Right now, I am cranking up my photoshop, illustrator, Indesign, et al to demonstrate that you have no clue about imagery. In fairness to LO, who bears the cost of hosting this site. I will place said images on a hosting site independantly. While you wait, you can simply foxtrot right oscar. It is my mission du jour to demonstrate that you have not a clue. Allow me the time to do so, because you know I will. Regardless of your claims.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 04:40:32 PM
Quote
An unspeakable horror seized me. There was a darkness; then a dizzy, sickening sensation of sight that was not like seeing; I saw a Line that was no Line; Space that was not Space: I was myself, and not myself. When I could find voice, I shrieked loud in agony, "Either this is madness or it is Hell." "It is neither," calmly replied the voice of the Sphere, "it is Knowledge; it is Three Dimensions: open your eye once again and try to look steadily."
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 04:42:17 PM
How do you like this rendition?

Don't evade the points made. Your picture shows two elliptical orbits, they are different to each other. How in any way does that support your untenable claim?

BTW - Your userid is no longer suspended at CQ, I suggest you answer the questions there if you start up. I am 100% certain your antics here will be known about over there and will not be tolerated.
I remind you that they not only suspended me, they closed the thread to prevent anyone else from speculating aloong the lines of inquiry I had introduced.  Cosmoquest is not interested in any version but their own.  It is a waste of my time.

Do you ever get anything right? The thread says PM a moderator to get it opened again. Of course you will steer clear of CQ, you can't jerk around over there!
Why would they not let the dialogue continue during my absence?  They never closed the thread here after they suspended me.
Another lie, you are not currently suspended on CQ, nor are you banned. You can't help yourself.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 04:46:35 PM
It can clearly be seen that both elliptical orbits pass through the inner ring.  A side view reals that each plane of the ellipticals are identical.  As a consequence the passage through the High radiation inner ring should have similar profiles.  This being the case then the Orion EFT's data set can be extrapolated out to the apollo.

Among other aspects you fail to grasp, once the TLI burn began Apollo was not in the same inclination as it had been in during LEO, so NO the ellipticals will not be the same, as Apollo was changing to more northerly path avoiding the worst of the VARB.  Oh I forgot you don't understand orbital mechanics.  Orion continued on the same inclination but at a higher apogee, so the data can not be extrapolated TO Apollo.  Mary Bennett of Aulis makes the same mistake, perhaps you borrowed the incorrect conclusion from her?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 04:51:03 PM
Here is the thing.  If it is safe to assume the radiation profiles of Apollo 11 and the Orion are similar for the first 3600 miles then it is interesting to note that the 15 mgy spread over a 8.33 day mission would result in a daily exposure rate of 1.8 mgy/day.  Which is strange because the Apollo has a fraction of the Orion's shielding and it only received .22 mgy/day.  Can someone help me through this maze of confusion?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 04:51:15 PM


As a consequence the passage through the High radiation inner ring should have similar profiles.  This being the case then the Orion EFT's data set can be extrapolated out to the apollo.

So you've moved your position from same profiles to similar profiles. I thought your straight line rendition implied identical paths.

You still don't get it. The eccentricity of the Apollo orbit enabled the spacecraft to avoid the inner VAB's high energy protons. The video link shows a projection of flux as contours on the orbital plane temporally and spatially. You don't understand that a plane through a torus at an angle to the vertical axis of the torus will produce contours that are related to the topology mapped by the torus, but we are working with contours of flux defined by a coordinate transformation between space like coordinates and magnetic field coordinates. Bob used this transformation in his calculation. We provided you with a link to the calculations. You hand waved it away. Please critique the math presented that deals with the orbital parameters versus the geomagnetic parameters, and the integrated flux as a spacelike and timelike function. Check that working rather than persisting with 2 dimensional arguments.



Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 04:54:27 PM
It can clearly be seen that both elliptical orbits pass through the inner ring.  A side view reals that each plane of the ellipticals are identical.  As a consequence the passage through the High radiation inner ring should have similar profiles.  This being the case then the Orion EFT's data set can be extrapolated out to the apollo.

Among other aspects you fail to grasp, once the TLI burn began Apollo was not in the same inclination as it had been in during LEO, so NO the ellipticals will not be the same, as Apollo was changing to more northerly path avoiding the worst of the VARB.  Oh I forgot you don't understand orbital mechanics.  Orion continued on the same inclination but at a higher apogee, so the data can not be extrapolated TO Apollo.  Mary Bennett of Aulis makes the same mistake, perhaps you borrowed the incorrect conclusion from her?
Feel free to use the Apollo 11 log or any other reference to show where and when these imagined course corrections occured.  I think you are fabricating things to support your version of events but I will wait patiently while you perform the necessary gymnastics.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 04:55:45 PM


As a consequence the passage through the High radiation inner ring should have similar profiles.  This being the case then the Orion EFT's data set can be extrapolated out to the apollo.

So you've moved your position from same profiles to similar profiles. I thought your straight line rendition implied identical paths.

You still don't get it. The eccentricity of the Apollo orbit enabled the spacecraft to avoid the inner VAB's high energy protons. The video link shows a projection of flux as contours on the orbital plane temporally and spatially. You don't understand that a plane through a torus at an angle to the vertical axis of the torus will produce contours that are related to the topology mapped by the torus, but we are working with contours of flux defined by a coordinate transformation between space like coordinates and magnetic field coordinates. Bob used this transformation in his calculation. We provided you with a link to the calculations. You hand waved it away. Please critique the math presented that deals with the orbital parameters versus the geomagnetic parameters, and the integrated flux as a spacelike and timelike function. Check that working rather than persisting with 2 dimensional arguments.



Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
Feel free to use the Apollo 11 log or any other reference to show where and when these imagined course corrections occured.  I think you are fabricating things to support your version of events but I will wait patiently while you perform the necessary gymnastics.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 04:57:14 PM
9:32 a.m. EDT- On schedule to within less than a second, Apollo 11 blasts off from Launch Pad 39A at Cape Kennedy, Florida to start what is looked upon as the greatest single step in human history-a trip to the Moon, a manned landing and return to Earth.

Watching is a world-wide television audience and an estimated million eyewitnesses. Standing three and one-half miles away on the sandflats or seated in grandstands are half the members of the United States Congress and more than 3,000 newsmen from 56 countries.

Strapped to their couches in the command module atop the 363-foot, 7.6-million-pound thrust space vehicle are three astronauts, each born in 1930, each weighing 165 pounds, all within an inch of the same height-five feet, 11 inches. They are Commander Neil A. Armstrong, civilian and ex-test pilot; Command Module Pilot Michael Collins, and Lunar Module Pilot Edwin E. (Buzz) Aldrin, Jr., the latter two, officers of the U. S. Air Force.

The launch comes after a 28-hour countdown. It takes place in highly suitable weather, with winds 10 knots from the southeast, temperature in the mid-80's, and clouds at 15,000 feet.

At 4:15 a.m., the astronauts had been awakened. After a breakfast of orange juice, steak, scrambled eggs, toast and coffee, they began suiting up at 5:35 a.m. At 6:27 a.m., they left in an air-conditioned van for the launch pad eight miles away. At 6:54 a.m., Armstrong entered the command module and took position on the left. He was followed five minutes later by Collins, on the right, and Aldrin, in the center.
 
Two minor problems that developed in the ground equipment, a leaky valve and a faulty signal light were corrected while the astronauts were en route to the pad.
 
The Apollo access arm retracted at 9:27 a.m. Eight and nine-tenths seconds before launch time, the first of the Saturn V's first stage engines ignited. From the viewing stands, the flame appeared as a bright yellow-orange star on the horizon. Soon the other four engines fired and the light of the first engine became a huge fireball that lit the scene like a rising Sun. No sound was heard. For two seconds the vehicle built up thrust. The hold down clamps were released and the space vehicle began moving slowly upward from the pad, as near 9:32 a.m. as human effort could make it.
 
As it reached the top of the service tower, the hard-edged clattering thunder of the firing engines [3] rolled over the scrubby Florida landscape and engulfed the viewers like a tidal wave. They witnessed the beginning of the fifth manned Apollo flight, the third to the vicinity of the Moon and the first lunar landing mission.
 
From Launch Control the last words were: "Good luck and Godspeed." Commander Armstrong replied, "Thank you very much. We know this will be a good flight."
9:35 a.m.- The spacecraft is 37 nautical miles high, downrange 61 nautical miles and traveling at 9,300 feet per second or about 6,340 miles per hour. Armstrong confirms the engine skirt and launch escape tower separations.

9:44 a.m.- With the three Saturn stages fired one after another and the first two jettisoned, Apollo 11 enters a 103 nautical mile-high Earth orbit, during which the vehicle is carefully checked by the astronauts and by the ground control crew.

12:22 p.m.- Another firing of the third-stage engine, still attached to the command service module, boosts Apollo 11 out of orbit midway in its second trip around the Earth and onto its lunar trajectory at an initial speed of 24,200 miles an hour.

12:49 p.m.- While the spacecraft moves farther and farther from Earth, the lunar landing craft, code-named Eagle is unpacked from its compartment atop the launch rockets. The astronauts first fire some explosive bolts. These cause the main spaceship, given the name Columbia, to separate from the adapter and blow apart the four panels that make up its sides, exposing the lunar module (LM) tucked inside. They stop the spacecraft about 100 feet away -34 feet farther than they were supposed to-turn the ship around, facing the landing craft, and dock head-to-head with it. The docking complete, the LM's connections with the adapter are blown loose and the mated command/service and lunar modules separate from the rocket and continue alone toward the Moon.

2:38 p.m.- By dumping its leftover fuel the third rocket stage is fired into a long solar orbit to remove it from Apollo 11's path.

2:43 p.m.- With the flight on schedule and proceeding satisfactorily, the first scheduled midcourse correction is considered unnecessary.

2:54 p.m.- The spacecraft is reported 22,000 nautical miles from Earth and traveling at 12,914 feet per second. Crew members keep busy with housekeeping duties.

8:52 p.m.- Mission Control at Houston, Texas, says good night to the crew as they prepare to go to sleep two hours early.

10:59 p.m.- Because of the pull of Earth's gravity, the spacecraft has slowed to 7,279 feet per second at a distance of 63,880 nautical miles from Earth.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 04:59:51 PM
I thought we all agreed after rigorous debate that Orion mirrored the apollo's path into the VAB.  Did something happen while I was hospitalized?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 05:04:37 PM
Here is the thing.  If it is safe to assume the radiation profiles of Apollo 11 and the Orion are similar for the first 3600 miles then it is interesting to note that the 15 mgy spread over a 8.33 day mission would result in a daily exposure rate of 1.8 mgy/day.  Which is strange because the Apollo has a fraction of the Orion's shielding and it only received .22 mgy/day.  Can someone help me through this maze of confusion?

No they aren't,  the inclination of Apollo at 3600 miles was over 40 degrees and climbing, toward the less intense portions of the VARB, while Orion was plowing through the middle.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 05:05:51 PM
I thought we all agreed after rigorous debate that Orion mirrored the apollo's path into the VAB.  Did something happen while I was hospitalized?

No "we" didn't conclude anything of the sorts.  Only you in your vain attempt to throw mud at the wall and see if any sticks. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 05:09:00 PM
I thought we all agreed after rigorous debate that Orion mirrored the apollo's path into the VAB.  Did something happen while I was hospitalized?

You are full of it! I for one am sick to death of your pathetic trolling. It is a physical impossibility for two space craft taking identical inclinations to follow the same orbital paths, when they have some 7000mph differences in initial velocity!

Nobody has agreed your straw man claim and you have steadfastly ignored where your bizarre claims have been proven wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 05:09:31 PM
There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension.  It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.

Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.
You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB.  Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.

I gave you a view perpendicular to the 30 degree inclination. Your confusion is either you trolling or you are even more ignorant than you appear to be.

(https://i.imgur.com/7aI1S9U.jpg)

The Apollo speed takes it into the VAB at the same elevation but not the same place. It's called 3D ::)
To further add to this nonsense, the Apollo TLI burns specifically fired to accentuate the position of the magnetic pole on the opposite side of the Earth, to achieve even more elevation(relative to the belts). I have no reason to suppose that Orion did that or any reason for doing so.

Read it and respond.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 05:09:39 PM
Here is the thing.  If it is safe to assume the radiation profiles of Apollo 11 and the Orion are similar for the first 3600 miles then it is interesting to note that the 15 mgy spread over a 8.33 day mission would result in a daily exposure rate of 1.8 mgy/day.  Which is strange because the Apollo has a fraction of the Orion's shielding and it only received .22 mgy/day.  Can someone help me through this maze of confusion?

No they aren't,  the inclination of Apollo at 3600 miles was over 40 degrees and climbing, toward the less intense portions of the VARB, while Orion was plowing through the middle.
I am confused.  if they had identical inclinations into the VAB and there were no rockets fired to alter course then what lets you believe the plane of either is different?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 21, 2018, 05:11:41 PM
The view after TLI.

(https://i.imgur.com/NBDXVyv.jpg)

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 05:12:32 PM
There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension.  It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.

Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.
You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB.  Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.

I gave you a view perpendicular to the 30 degree inclination. Your confusion is either you trolling or you are even more ignorant than you appear to be.

(https://i.imgur.com/7aI1S9U.jpg)

The Apollo speed takes it into the VAB at the same elevation but not the same place. It's called 3D ::)
To further add to this nonsense, the Apollo TLI burns specifically fired to accentuate the position of the magnetic pole on the opposite side of the Earth, to achieve even more elevation(relative to the belts). I have no reason to suppose that Orion did that or any reason for doing so.

Read it and respond.
It matters not at what radial point you enter the VAB.  The incident inclination determines the path through the regions.  pick any point along the circle and it is the same as any other point as long as the plane of travel through the VAB is the same.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 05:13:12 PM
The view after TLI.

(https://i.imgur.com/NBDXVyv.jpg)
I have had views like that while on acid.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 05:18:18 PM
Here is the thing.  If it is safe to assume the radiation profiles of Apollo 11 and the Orion are similar for the first 3600 miles then it is interesting to note that the 15 mgy spread over a 8.33 day mission would result in a daily exposure rate of 1.8 mgy/day.  Which is strange because the Apollo has a fraction of the Orion's shielding and it only received .22 mgy/day.  Can someone help me through this maze of confusion?

No they aren't,  the inclination of Apollo at 3600 miles was over 40 degrees and climbing, toward the less intense portions of the VARB, while Orion was plowing through the middle.
I am confused.

Quote
if they had identical inclinations into the VAB and there were no rockets fired to alter course then what lets you believe the plane of either is different?
The two had similar inclinations at the time of ignition for the TLI, after that Apollo gained inclination, you did read my post?. 

You are willfully ignorant.  Learn some facts concerning 3-D, math, physics, graphing.  Buy Kerbal and see if your illiterate vision is upheld or upset.  Should you continue this behavior I can only define your actions as trollish, nothing else.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 05:18:30 PM
I will concede that the wider the elliptical the longer the transit is through the region.  As far as overall radiation it would make more sense to go through the highest region on a straight line path reducing the overall time through the region.  Realizing from the moment the engines turn off the craft starts to slow down.It seems to me and NASA that a straight line approach would have the least radiation .
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 05:19:58 PM
Here is the thing.  If it is safe to assume the radiation profiles of Apollo 11 and the Orion are similar for the first 3600 miles then it is interesting to note that the 15 mgy spread over a 8.33 day mission would result in a daily exposure rate of 1.8 mgy/day.  Which is strange because the Apollo has a fraction of the Orion's shielding and it only received .22 mgy/day.  Can someone help me through this maze of confusion?

No they aren't,  the inclination of Apollo at 3600 miles was over 40 degrees and climbing, toward the less intense portions of the VARB, while Orion was plowing through the middle.
I am confused.

Quote
if they had identical inclinations into the VAB and there were no rockets fired to alter course then what lets you believe the plane of either is different?
The two had similar inclinations at the time of ignition for the TLI, after that Apollo gained inclination, you did read my post?. 

You are willfully ignorant.  Learn some facts concerning 3-D, math, physics, graphing.  Buy Kerbal and see if your illiterate vision is upheld or upset.  Should you continue this behavior I can only define your actions as trollish, nothing else.
Did you read mine?  Show me where there was an adjustment to the plane of travel.  Convinced me TLI is not along the lunar plane.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 05:23:29 PM
I am getting lost in the back and forth.  Are we all in agreement that there is commonality in the first 3600 miles of travel for both the Orion and Apollo mission or not?  If not, how do they differ in plane of travel or in any metric that would reduce radiation profiles of either.  I need to get my ducks in a row.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 05:25:13 PM


It matters not at what radial point you enter the VAB.  The incident inclination determines the path through the regions.  pick any point along the circle and it is the same as any other point as long as the plane of travel through the VAB is the same.

Do you actually understand the elements needed to define an orbit and how they are changed and relate to the orbit?

Do you understand eccentricity?



Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 05:27:54 PM
...
Did you read mine?  Show me where there was an adjustment to the plane of travel.  Convinced me TLI is not along the lunar plane.

Spoon feeding time is past, look it up for yourself.  The data is on NASA's site or Marshall 's, maybe JPL.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 05:28:09 PM
Here is the thing.  If it is safe to assume the radiation profiles of Apollo 11 and the Orion are similar for the first 3600 miles then it is interesting to note that the 15 mgy spread over a 8.33 day mission would result in a daily exposure rate of 1.8 mgy/day.  Which is strange because the Apollo has a fraction of the Orion's shielding and it only received .22 mgy/day.  Can someone help me through this maze of confusion?

More inappropriate averaging.

If I'm in a King Tiger tank and a platoon of infantry attack with a single PIAT among them, does that mean on average each Lee Enfield achieves 1/30th of a kill? If my friend is in the lighter Panzer III does that mean it only takes six riflemen and no PIAT to kill him?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 05:29:29 PM
I am getting lost in the back and forth.  Are we all in agreement that there is commonality in the first 3600 miles of travel for both the Orion and Apollo mission or not?  If not, how do they differ in plane of travel or in any metric that would reduce radiation profiles of either.  I need to get my ducks in a row.

I already answered that question there was no commonality between Orion and Apollo, get off the wagon it won't move.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 05:33:59 PM
I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked.  What is up with that?  This vacillation is confusing my simple mind.  Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 05:35:13 PM
Isn't this still true?  Is it rejected by anyone?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 05:36:46 PM
It can clearly be seen that both elliptical orbits pass through the inner ring.  A side view reals that each plane of the ellipticals are identical.  As a consequence the passage through the High radiation inner ring should have similar profiles.  This being the case then the Orion EFT's data set can be extrapolated out to the apollo.

Among other aspects you fail to grasp, once the TLI burn began Apollo was not in the same inclination as it had been in during LEO, so NO the ellipticals will not be the same, as Apollo was changing to more northerly path avoiding the worst of the VARB.  Oh I forgot you don't understand orbital mechanics.  Orion continued on the same inclination but at a higher apogee, so the data can not be extrapolated TO Apollo.  Mary Bennett of Aulis makes the same mistake, perhaps you borrowed the incorrect conclusion from her?
Feel free to use the Apollo 11 log or any other reference to show where and when these imagined course corrections occured.  I think you are fabricating things to support your version of events but I will wait patiently while you perform the necessary gymnastics.
No, no tim, you don't get off the hook so easy. If as you claim and posted that this is the actual top down view....
(https://i.imgur.com/espgseF.jpg)
Inevitably you must also accept that this is the side-on view...

(https://i.imgur.com/RF52cgq.jpg)

Somehow, in the TFverse this is impossible. As is inserting a finger in a ring donut. And be aware, now that you have woken my inner technology beast, and the crankery meter is up to the max and you browned me enough to deploy the big guns, it is now time for you to take careful thought. Do you really want to be seen in public as a moron?

If that is your intention I have no issue facilitating that. To date, I did exactly what I stated I would do. I cranked up my software, posted the resulting images to an independant site to save LO some bandwidth, linked said images here for your lurkey pleasure. Great.  now we know that I am a man of my word. What do we know about you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 05:37:44 PM
Isn't this still true?  Is it rejected by anyone?

I asked you before and you ignored me, where did you get this piece of misinformation?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 21, 2018, 05:39:09 PM
Feel free to use the Apollo 11 log or any other reference to show where and when these imagined course corrections occured.  I think you are fabricating things to support your version of events but I will wait patiently while you perform the necessary gymnastics.
From your own "wall-o-text" posting :
...

12:22 p.m.- Another firing of the third-stage engine, still attached to the command service module, boosts Apollo 11 out of orbit midway in its second trip around the Earth and onto its lunar trajectory at an initial speed of 24,200 miles an hour.

...
Have you looked at the parameters of this burn?  Do you understand that the pitch and yaw of a spacecraft when the engine is fired has an effect on the trajectory?

Or are you still thinking only in 2 dimensions, and assuming that once they entered orbit, they were unable to change course outside of that orbit's plane?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 05:39:23 PM
I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked.  What is up with that?  This vacillation is is confusing my simple mind.  Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?
No, you were told that two identical inclinations will follow different paths through the VABs if the eccentricity is different. Jason showed you with his model. We were getting past your 2 dimensional line misconception and highlighting Apollo and Orion have different 3 dimensional trajectories.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 05:41:36 PM
I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked.  What is up with that?  This vacillation is confusing my simple mind.  Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?

Whether "plane" was contested, it remained contested by everyone who understands what an ellipse is that merely sharing a similar plane is insufficient similarity.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 21, 2018, 05:41:53 PM
I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked.  What is up with that?  This vacillation is confusing my simple mind.  Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?
You were "assured" of this?  My reading of the thread is certainly not in agreement with this claim, so perhaps you can quote the posts in which these "assurances" were given...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 05:42:18 PM
I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked.  What is up with that?  This vacillation is is confusing my simple mind.  Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?
The ecliptic, the magnetic plane and the TLI plane are all different planes. How many times must you be shown?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 05:43:41 PM
Isn't this still true?  Is it rejected by anyone?

I asked you before and you ignored me, where did you get this piece of misinformation?
It is a compilation of data from various sites.  I posted the NASA flight profile data used to create the illustration a few pages back in the thread when I originally posted this.  This is an illustration I created for informative purposes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 21, 2018, 05:45:20 PM
Step away from this thread for a week and abandon all hope of catching up.

I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page (http://crater.sr.unh.edu/instrument.shtml) and read up on the instrument's description:

Quote
CRaTER consists of six silicon detectors in thin/thick pairs separated by sections of Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP). The Tissue Equivalent Plastic (such as A-150 manufactured by Standard Imaging) simulates soft body tissue (muscle) and has been used for both ground-based as well as space-based (i.e. Space Station) experiments.

The thin detectors (140 μm) are optimized for high energy deposits and the thick detectors (1000 μm) are optimized for low energy deposits, in particular, for protons. In nominal operating mode, an event is triggered when the energy deposit in any single detector rises above its threshold energy. A measurement is then made of the energy deposit in all six detectors. Directional information can be inferred for events that deposit energy into more than one detector (detection coincidences). Endcaps shield the detectors from protons with less than ~13MeV. Extra mass placed around the edges of the detectors provides additional shielding from some particles which may be able to penetrate through the sides of the instrument.

Go to the web page for a proper diagram of the instrument, but here's some quick-n-dirty ASCII art:


============ --- Deep Space (Zenith) Shield
|||||||||||| --- D1 (148 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D2 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (54 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D3 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D4 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (27 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D5 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D6 (1 mm)
============ --- Lunar Surface (Nadir) Shield


So, several things that are obvious right off the bat:

  • This is why you have combined readings for D1 & D2, D3 & D4, D5 & D6.  Each pair is at the same depth of "tissue", each sensor of the pair is optimized for different energies.
  • This is why you don't sum up readings from all 6 detectors, because each pair is measuring energies at different "tissue" depths.  D1 & D2 give the "skin" dose, D5 & D6 give the "deep tissue" dose.
  • As per the description, an event is recorded when the energy deposited in a single detector rises above its threshold energy.  Raw events are measured in keV/μm. Obviously, during analysis, these measurements are fed into a mathematical model that spits results out in cGy/day.

One particularly amusing aspect of Tim's confusion (=coughtrollerycough=) is the idea that, because the measurements are reported in cGy/day, that you must sum all the measurements taken on the same day to get the proper cGy/day amount. 

cGy/day is a rate, not a total.  It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next.  It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph.
I love planting a seed and watching it sprout.  You now understand the data reflects multiple snapshots taken during the day and to provide a truly comprehensive picture one must collate those snapshots into a single daily dose .  Good!  the force is flowing through you Luke (JFB).  Let it flow.  You are on the right track.

=sigh=

I knw you’re pretending to be this dense (because otherwise there’s no way you could walk out the door without gravely injuring yourself), but even so this is getting tiresome.  No, you do not need to “collate” anything.  There’s no need to add readings together.  cGy/day is a rate at a given instant.  It could be cGy/hr, mGy/fortnight, kGy/sec, whatever.

Just do everyone a favor, take your bow, and piss off.
what is the daily reading if the 24 snapshots are different?

IT’S NOT A DAILY READING.  cGy/day is the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken.  That rate can vary from one measurement to the next.

It’s not a total of Gy in a 24 hour period.  There’s no need to add up measurements. 

Going back to my mileage analogy, if I’m driving down the highway and I check my speed every few minutes, I get 60 mph, 45 mph, 70 mph, 25 mph (hey, it’s MoPac), that doesn’t mean I’ve traveled 200 miles in an hour. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 05:46:13 PM
I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked.  What is up with that?  This vacillation is confusing my simple mind.  Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?
You were "assured" of this?  My reading of the thread is certainly not in agreement with this claim, so perhaps you can quote the posts in which these "assurances" were given...
Ah TF simply makes stuff up out of whole cloth. once one works that out it becomes easy to see how he gets everything comprehensively wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 05:54:15 PM
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/JSC_OrionEFT-1_PressKit_accessible.pdf
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 05:56:02 PM
There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension.  It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.

Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.
You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB.  Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.

I gave you a view perpendicular to the 30 degree inclination. Your confusion is either you trolling or you are even more ignorant than you appear to be.

(https://i.imgur.com/7aI1S9U.jpg)

The Apollo speed takes it into the VAB at the same elevation but not the same place. It's called 3D ::)
To further add to this nonsense, the Apollo TLI burns specifically fired to accentuate the position of the magnetic pole on the opposite side of the Earth, to achieve even more elevation(relative to the belts). I have no reason to suppose that Orion did that or any reason for doing so.

Read it and respond.
It matters not at what radial point you enter the VAB.  The incident inclination determines the path through the regions.  pick any point along the circle and it is the same as any other point as long as the plane of travel through the VAB is the same.

So what, nobody has denied that. You are deliberately avoiding the big elephant sitting on your lap!

See the bit where Orion circles back through the centre of the belts? See the Apollo TLI does not.

You are wrong. You are absolutely hopeless on this subject.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 21, 2018, 05:57:32 PM
Tim.  If you need to "get your ducks in a row," is it not a higher probability that you are wrong than that Apollo was faked?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 05:59:19 PM
Isn't this still true?  Is it rejected by anyone?

I asked you before and you ignored me, where did you get this piece of misinformation?
It is a compilation of data from various sites.  I posted the NASA flight profile data used to create the illustration a few pages back in the thread when I originally posted this.  This is an illustration I created for informative purposes.

You created it?  Then that explains why the trajectory is incorrect, thanks for the information.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 06:03:33 PM
I am getting lost in the back and forth.  Are we all in agreement that there is commonality in the first 3600 miles of travel for both the Orion and Apollo mission or not?  If not, how do they differ in plane of travel or in any metric that would reduce radiation profiles of either.  I need to get my ducks in a row.

The Orion starts circling back almost as soon as it enters the belt. It takes it into the more  energetic central area. Apollo trajectory does not.

Which part of that painfully obvious proven point aren't you getting?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 06:03:41 PM
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/JSC_OrionEFT-1_PressKit_accessible.pdf
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection
And just because you are too clueless to figure it out does not mean nobody can.

Now the simple fact is that I stepped up and did exactly what I said I would do. You did nothing.

I am aware that you have me on ignore, but realistically, that makes your claims even worse. Everyone sees my posts but you. I suddenly have an uncontested field of play. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 06:07:47 PM
So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.

No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 06:14:06 PM
Ok, you guys are wearing me down (just out of the hospital and all)  If you reject this illustration as being erroneous then correct it and we can move on to more fertile grounds.  Your inability to do so is in it's own way a validation of the accuracy of the depictions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 06:16:33 PM
So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.

No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.
I think Jason was referring to the diagram you presented with the straight line. The inclinations in that diagram are the same, no one disputed rhat, but the paths through the VABs are different because of different orbital eccentricities.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 21, 2018, 06:17:21 PM
So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.

No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.

The orbital inclinations are the same. The post burn inclinations are different. But once again we are in straw man territory.

The two paths are radically different for reasons that a child could understand. Even if the two craft arrived at the VAB at identical points, which is impossible, their apogee paths are completely different.

No wonder you don't want to go back to CQ, this chain jerking charade would not be allowed.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 06:21:51 PM


If you reject this illustration as being erroneous then correct it and we can move on to more fertile grounds.  Your inability to do so is in it's own way a validation of the accuracy of the depictions.

The conclusion you make is erroneous. Do you understand eccentricity?


Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 06:22:08 PM
I think Jason was referring to the diagram you presented with the straight line. The inclinations in that diagram are the same, no one disputed rhat, but the paths through the VABs are different because of different orbital eccentricities.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
[/quote]
Let's talk about these differences.  Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall?  Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 06:24:16 PM
I am getting lost in the back and forth.  Are we all in agreement that there is commonality in the first 3600 miles of travel for both the Orion and Apollo mission or not?  If not, how do they differ in plane of travel or in any metric that would reduce radiation profiles of either.  I need to get my ducks in a row.

The Orion starts circling back almost as soon as it enters the belt. It takes it into the more  energetic central area. Apollo trajectory does not.

Which part of that painfully obvious proven point aren't you getting?
I would ask at this point about apogee and perigee, but it is clear that at this point Tim's answer would be sausage.

I frankly have an objection to anyone claiming that an individual is an idiot or ineducable. Possibly because of my time as an educator. Nevertheless, decades of grim experience informs me that I am indeed correct, but there exists a subset thaT actually actively resist education. Or Knowledge. Or science. After all. It;s just a "theory". Where all of this goes wahoonie shaped is when they are oddly unable to grok that were it not for science there would not be an internet to moan on. It is amusing to observe cranks implode when they find out that the very internet they use came from CERN.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 06:27:15 PM


Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall?  Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?

You are asking this question, while simultaneously suggesting passage through the VABs was not possible? Is this a question for your clarification or one where you'll argue with the answer from a position of pedantry?





Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 06:27:44 PM


If you reject this illustration as being erroneous then correct it and we can move on to more fertile grounds.  Your inability to do so is in it's own way a validation of the accuracy of the depictions.

The conclusion you make is erroneous. Do you understand eccentricity?


Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk


The answer appears that yes.  TF fully understands the meaning of eccentricity. Just not the way the rest of ud do.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 06:28:13 PM


Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall?  Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?

You are asking this question, while simultaneously suggesting passage through the VABs was not possible? Is this a question for your clarification or one where you'll argue with the answer from a position of pedantry?





Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
Why can't you simply answer the question?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 06:31:08 PM
I think Jason was referring to the diagram you presented with the straight line. The inclinations in that diagram are the same, no one disputed rhat, but the paths through the VABs are different because of different orbital eccentricities.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
Lie.
Let's talk about these differences.  Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall?  Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?
[/quote]Lie.

ETA: Knock it off with the intentionally borked quotes. It isn't clever.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 06:31:54 PM
If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter.  The only relevant factor would be inclination. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 06:35:15 PM
If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter.  The only relevant factor would be inclination. 
Super. except that it isn't.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 06:35:29 PM
If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter.  The only relevant factor would inclination.
Do you think the radiation is uniform? Yes or no. I appeal to LO that Tim answers this question. I want to ascertain his understanding of the VABs which I have asked about several times.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 06:42:23 PM
The Orion spent roughly two hours in the high radiation of the inner belt and supposedly the apollo spent a total of about 4 hours.  It matters not the speed when you really think about it.  The defining factors are time and radiation levels.  We know that The Apollo 11 mission occurred during solar max and we know the electron belt expands during solar maximum.  We also know that the Orion has had significant upgrades to it's shielding.  Usings Orion's mission dose as a base line for the Apollo 11's mission wold be extremely conservative.  Orion's mission dose is 15 mgy wich is 8 times higher than Apollo's
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 06:43:33 PM
If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter.  The only relevant factor would inclination.
Do you think the radiation is uniform? Yes or no. I appeal to LO that Tim answers this question. I want to ascertain his understanding of the VABs which I have asked about several times.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
did you answer my question?  You first.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 06:48:36 PM
This side view indicates that radially the radiation would be uniform  at any given radii.  That is to say as long as you were measuring from the same distance from earth then it matters not what azimuth you choose.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 06:49:01 PM
If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter.  The only relevant factor would inclination.
Do you think the radiation is uniform? Yes or no. I appeal to LO that Tim answers this question. I want to ascertain his understanding of the VABs which I have asked about several times.
did you answer my question?  You first.
What do you think? Tell me what you know, is the radiation uniform?

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 06:54:00 PM
If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter.  The only relevant factor would inclination.
Do you think the radiation is uniform? Yes or no. I appeal to LO that Tim answers this question. I want to ascertain his understanding of the VABs which I have asked about several times.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

did you answer my question?  You first.
What do you think? Tell me what you know, is the radiation uniform?

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
Do you not read my post?  I told you it is for a given radii.  Do you need a translator?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 06:56:23 PM
It is like walking through quicksand....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 06:58:23 PM
Break time.  BBL.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 21, 2018, 06:59:11 PM
Let's talk about these differences.  Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall?  Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?
In a very basic and simplistic view, yes, the VAB encompasses 360 degrees around Earth.  Although that leaves out a lot of detail and makes a lot of assumptions.

In a more realistic, and relevant view, it is not uniform, and it has a specific, approximately toroidal shape, aka a doughnut (donut for you folks on the west of the Atlantic) aligned closely with the Earth's geomagnetic axis - not the physical axis, ecliptic, or the Moon's orbital plane.

This torus is a three-dimensional shape, and the extent above and below the "geomagnetic equator" is well mapped.  It is relatively straightforward to calculate an orbit which travels above and below the doughnut, or which only intersects particular parts of it.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that all orbits must be aligned to the same plane as the VAB, and must necessarily pass through the centre...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 06:59:34 PM
If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter.  The only relevant factor would inclination.
Do you think the radiation is uniform? Yes or no. I appeal to LO that Tim answers this question. I want to ascertain his understanding of the VABs which I have asked about several times.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

did you answer my question?  You first.
What do you think? Tell me what you know, is the radiation uniform?

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
Do you not read my post?  I told you it is for a given radii.  Do you need a translator?
For a given radii? You tell me. Are we working in three dimensions or two?

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 21, 2018, 07:04:52 PM
The Orion spent roughly two hours in the high radiation of the inner belt and supposedly the apollo spent a total of about 4 hours.
Straight question - do you believe the Apollo trajectories took them through the same high-radiation regions as Orion?  Supplementary point - if so, have you calculated the time spent in this region for Apollo, given the difference in velocities?

Quote
It matters not the speed when you really think about it.
Except that it does, very obviously, from even the most basic understanding of maths...

Quote
The defining factors are time and radiation levels.  We know that The Apollo 11 mission occurred during solar max and we know the electron belt expands during solar maximum.  We also know that the Orion has had significant upgrades to it's shielding.  Usings Orion's mission dose as a base line for the Apollo 11's mission wold be extremely conservative.  Orion's mission dose is 15 mgy wich is 8 times higher than Apollo's
The Orion mission had very different objectives to Apollo, and took a very different approach to achieving said objectives.  You're comparing apples to kumquats!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 21, 2018, 07:21:02 PM

Since you keep reposting the same links :

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/JSC_OrionEFT-1_PressKit_accessible.pdf
A press kit (do you even understand what that means) describing the planned mission, which clearly explains that it is a test flight, intended to provide information on how the spacecraft's systems perform in conditions which can't easily be replicated on Earth.  This flight wasn't intended to be a typical profile for manned missions, and nowhere in any material I've seen on Orion has any such statement been made.

Quote
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
And?  What do these numbers tell you?  Have you made any effort to plot the orbits in three dimensions to get a better picture of them?

More importantly, how does this relate to the orbits of each mission after the TLI burns?

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection
Since you're so keen on mapping everything into 2D sketches, maybe you can ponder the rather nice diagram at the top right of this page, which clearly shows that the post-TLI flight path wasn't on the equatorial plane.  Perhaps it would be instructive to plot a similar diagram showing the relationship to the geomagnetic equator, and VAB...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 21, 2018, 07:37:26 PM
If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter.  The only relevant factor would inclination.
Do you think the radiation is uniform? Yes or no. I appeal to LO that Tim answers this question. I want to ascertain his understanding of the VABs which I have asked about several times.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

did you answer my question?  You first.
What do you think? Tell me what you know, is the radiation uniform?

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
Do you not read my post?  I told you it is for a given radii.  Do you need a translator?
Even in the diagram one you 'brought clarity to' (a claim, by the way, which was absolute crock as shown by myself and others) Does that look uniform for a given radius outward to you? Because I would get your  eyes checked after your break if so.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1444.0;attach=721;image
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 08:07:37 PM
Well since tim is unable to grasp honesty, I shall attempt to bridge that gap. This very day I said I would post images with links and I did exactly that very thing.Tin ignored that as is usual. But in that effort I promised to  wheel out the photoshop, post and link said images on independant sites and then post links here. I did my part and tim did not.

Now In the middle of that, other things happened. My lappy died, for example. I know why that happened and it is comically stupid and I will happily fess up to it. The real problem is that TF is unable to understand what he does or does not know. Or how to tell the difference.

And for the terminally interested, I did the whole malarkey of plugging everything in and out before discovering that the wall socket was off.  Is that moronic? yes. There are a few points to be had right there.

Did I do something stupid? Sure. Turn the socket on you self evident twit.

Step up and own your errors. I seem to have also done that, I cocked that up. Mea ciupa.

Have self awareness. There is something fundamentally wrong with anyone who thinks they are perpetually right. Mostly those turn out to be the perpetual god botherers who terminally cannot figure out that other opinions exist
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 08:07:55 PM
Quote
It matters not the speed when you really think about it.
Except that it does, very obviously, from even the most basic understanding of maths...

I've been following on Tapatalk and replying on my mobile tonight, so it has been tricky to keep up. You beat me to this. Of course it depends on speed. But then I don't think Tim understands how this changes eccentricity and flight through 3D space, nor can he link speed to exposure. Speed through the belts is key for two reasons, but of course the primary reason for the speed is to provide an orbit for TLI. This is another reason to doubt his understanding if he can't make these connections. Will he acknowledge this error?

Quote
We know that The Apollo 11 mission occurred during solar max and we know the electron belt expands during solar maximum.

I never knew this. I understand the VAB changes if the solar wind increases speed, is this correct?

One of the most interesting phenomenon of the belts are the whistler waves (https://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/131) that accelerate the electrons.

So yes, the belts are actually non-uniform in space, flux, composition and particle energy.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 08:11:22 PM
If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter.  The only relevant factor would inclination.
Do you think the radiation is uniform? Yes or no. I appeal to LO that Tim answers this question. I want to ascertain his understanding of the VABs which I have asked about several times.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

did you answer my question?  You first.
What do you think? Tell me what you know, is the radiation uniform?

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
Do you not read my post?  I told you it is for a given radii.  Do you need a translator?
Even in the diagram one you 'brought clarity to' (a claim, by the way, which was absolute crock as shown by myself and others) Does that look uniform for a given radius outward to you? Because I would get your  eyes checked after your break if so.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1444.0;attach=721;image
Meh. Now that I have Adobe cranked up, mercy will be in short supply. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 08:28:22 PM
Do you not read my post?  I told you it is for a given radii.

Your first post was a question, your second was a statement in reply to my question. I misread as I did not have my reading glasses on. I've been using Tapatalk and my mobile to answer tonight. I'm now at home on my PC. I apologise, you did answer my question.

You are telling us the radiation in the VAB is uniform at a given radius. Except it is not.

1) What makes you think the radiation is uniform at a given radius?

2) I assume you are making this assumption with respect to comparing Apollo and Orion? If so, why?

Quote
Do you need a translator?

No just my reading glasses.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 21, 2018, 08:31:35 PM
Break time.  BBL.
Sorry Tim but "BBL" does not cut the evidential mustard.

I made a series of claims. I claimed I would bork you in photoshop. Did that. I claimed I would mount said images on an independant site, did that. I claimed that I would then link those images right here. I did that . In fact, everything I claimed I would do, I did do. All you have is empty claims and doing SFA.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 21, 2018, 09:17:25 PM
It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for.  Does that seem fair to everybody?  Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?

You were banned for trolling and insults. The "mentally challenged" insult was just one example and the last straw.

Abaddon did insult you, and it does need to stop. But I also take into consideration the years of valuable contributions he has made to this forum. One insult isn't going to get him banned. You, on the other hand, have been here for a month and have been a troll the entire time. That puts you on thinner ice than Abaddon. History matters.

I saw the moderator report you sent me about this last night, but since I can't reply to them I will just tell you now that yes, I have given Abaddon a free pass this time. But since he made that comment last night, I figure I've given you multiple free passes for comments you've made since then. For example:

You have insulted members of the forum and made unfounded accusations against them...

Bob Braeunig is a government shill.

I am starting to believe that either you are actively in opposition of the truth because you really couldn't be this dumb.

You lie like a cheap rug.

Where is the intellectual integrity in this group

You are spatially challenged and find it difficult to transition between perspectives.  I understand and you have my sympathies.  I cannot fix that which is terminally broken.  I will just move on without you and hope you find success with your impairment.

You have evaded important questions that have been repeatedly asked of you...

I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?

1.  Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.

2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.

4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.

5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?

These are indeed all good questions but most distract from the focus of the original inquiry.

And you have ignored our reponses that ought to resolve your questions, only to repeat those same questions as if we hadn't responded. You've even pretended we had previously agreed with you in cases where we had not. That is dishonest and I consider it trolling.

I thought we all agreed after rigorous debate that Orion mirrored the apollo's path into the VAB.  Did something happen while I was hospitalized?

So you're right, Abaddon did get away with an insult. But you've gotten away with many things that you shouldn't have. Consider yourself lucky and move on.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 09:20:13 PM
Let's talk about these differences.  Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall?  Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?
In a very basic and simplistic view, yes, the VAB encompasses 360 degrees around Earth.  Although that leaves out a lot of detail and makes a lot of assumptions.

In a more realistic, and relevant view, it is not uniform, and it has a specific, approximately toroidal shape, aka a doughnut (donut for you folks on the west of the Atlantic) aligned closely with the Earth's geomagnetic axis - not the physical axis, ecliptic, or the Moon's orbital plane.

This torus is a three-dimensional shape, and the extent above and below the "geomagnetic equator" is well mapped.  It is relatively straightforward to calculate an orbit which travels above and below the doughnut, or which only intersects particular parts of it.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that all orbits must be aligned to the same plane as the VAB, and must necessarily pass through the centre...
If you were smarter than the average three year old you would realize that a side view 2d representation is repeated over 360 degrees.  What it is telling you that any point is identical at any other point around the circumference of the vab.   Is is so difficult dealing with the spatially challenged.  It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.  If it is the same inclination then the radiation is the same.  If you were any denser you would sink into lead.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 09:25:50 PM
It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for.  Does that seem fair to everybody?  Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?

You were banned for trolling and insults. The "mentally challenged" insult was just one example and the last straw.

Abaddon did insult you, and it does need to stop. But I also take into consideration the years of valuable contributions he has made to this forum. One insult isn't going to get him banned. You, on the other hand, have been here for a month and have been a troll the entire time. That puts you on thinner ice than Abaddon. History matters.

I saw the moderator report you sent me about this last night, but since I can't reply to them I will just tell you now that yes, I have given Abaddon a free pass this time. But since he made that comment last night, I figure I've given you multiple free passes for comments you've made since then. For example:

You have insulted members of the forum and made unfounded accusations against them...

Bob Braeunig is a government shill.

I am starting to believe that either you are actively in opposition of the truth because you really couldn't be this dumb.

You lie like a cheap rug.

Where is the intellectual integrity in this group

You are spatially challenged and find it difficult to transition between perspectives.  I understand and you have my sympathies.  I cannot fix that which is terminally broken.  I will just move on without you and hope you find success with your impairment.

You have evaded important questions that have been repeatedly asked of you...

I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?

1.  Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.

2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.

4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.

5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?

These are indeed all good questions but most distract from the focus of the original inquiry.

And you have ignored our reponses that ought to resolve your questions, only to repeat those same questions as if we hadn't responded. You've even pretended we had previously agreed with you in cases where we had not. That is dishonest and I consider it trolling.

I thought we all agreed after rigorous debate that Orion mirrored the apollo's path into the VAB.  Did something happen while I was hospitalized?

So you're right, Abaddon did get away with an insult. But you've gotten away with many things that you shouldn't have. Consider yourself lucky and move on.
is Robert Brauenig a member of this group?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 21, 2018, 09:27:41 PM
is Robert Brauenig a member of this group?

Yes, although he hasn't been active in over a year.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 09:27:59 PM
It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.

Are you aware that inclination is one orbital parameter that defines the orbital plane. If the spacecraft enters that plane at a higher speed, you map out an ellipse with a completely different eccentricity. The path is different through the van Allen belts.

The radiation in the VABs depends on radius, azimuth and polar angle, so does the ellipse on the orbital plane. It follows that the exposure of Apollo and Orion are different.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 09:34:56 PM
Let's talk about these differences.  Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall?  Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?
In a very basic and simplistic view, yes, the VAB encompasses 360 degrees around Earth.  Although that leaves out a lot of detail and makes a lot of assumptions.

In a more realistic, and relevant view, it is not uniform, and it has a specific, approximately toroidal shape, aka a doughnut (donut for you folks on the west of the Atlantic) aligned closely with the Earth's geomagnetic axis - not the physical axis, ecliptic, or the Moon's orbital plane.

This torus is a three-dimensional shape, and the extent above and below the "geomagnetic equator" is well mapped.  It is relatively straightforward to calculate an orbit which travels above and below the doughnut, or which only intersects particular parts of it.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that all orbits must be aligned to the same plane as the VAB, and must necessarily pass through the centre...
You are simply incapable of understanding the obvious.  the elliptical inclination of orbit should be referenced to the magnetic equator if you are to ascertain the interaction of the VAB.  Try to stay focused and on point.  I grow frustrated with your opaqueness.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 09:35:36 PM
Let's talk about these differences.  Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall?  Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?
In a very basic and simplistic view, yes, the VAB encompasses 360 degrees around Earth.  Although that leaves out a lot of detail and makes a lot of assumptions.

In a more realistic, and relevant view, it is not uniform, and it has a specific, approximately toroidal shape, aka a doughnut (donut for you folks on the west of the Atlantic) aligned closely with the Earth's geomagnetic axis - not the physical axis, ecliptic, or the Moon's orbital plane.

This torus is a three-dimensional shape, and the extent above and below the "geomagnetic equator" is well mapped.  It is relatively straightforward to calculate an orbit which travels above and below the doughnut, or which only intersects particular parts of it.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that all orbits must be aligned to the same plane as the VAB, and must necessarily pass through the centre...
If you were smarter than the average three year old you would realize that a side view 2d representation is repeated over 360 degrees.  What it is telling you that any point is identical at any other point around the circumference of the vab.   Is is so difficult dealing with the spatially challenged.  It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.  If it is the same inclination then the radiation is the same.  If you were any denser you would sink into lead.

You are the only one who thinks there's some argument about an angle in the plane of the major radius. Everyone else is working with a solid torus.

(Actually, though, if you wanted to be accurate, the VARB is deformed by the solar wind. But we haven't been discussing that.)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 09:36:38 PM
If you were smarter than the average three year old you would realize that a side view 2d representation is repeated over 360 degrees.  What it is telling you that any point is identical at any other point around the circumference of the vab.

It's not though, the orbital plane is defined geocentrically with repsect to the ecliptic plane, the geomagnetic plane is not. The torus axis is inclined to the normal of the orbital plane. This has been explained to you several times now.

Your assumption would only apply if orbital plane, geomagnetic plane and ecliptic plane are all co-planar.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 09:38:43 PM
Let's talk about these differences.  Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall?  Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?
In a very basic and simplistic view, yes, the VAB encompasses 360 degrees around Earth.  Although that leaves out a lot of detail and makes a lot of assumptions.

In a more realistic, and relevant view, it is not uniform, and it has a specific, approximately toroidal shape, aka a doughnut (donut for you folks on the west of the Atlantic) aligned closely with the Earth's geomagnetic axis - not the physical axis, ecliptic, or the Moon's orbital plane.

This torus is a three-dimensional shape, and the extent above and below the "geomagnetic equator" is well mapped.  It is relatively straightforward to calculate an orbit which travels above and below the doughnut, or which only intersects particular parts of it.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that all orbits must be aligned to the same plane as the VAB, and must necessarily pass through the centre...
You are simply incapable of understanding the obvious.  the elliptical inclination of orbit should be referenced to the magnetic equator if you are to ascertain the interaction of the VAB.  Try to stay focused and on point.  I grow frustrated with your opaqueness.

Tim...I can't speak for LO -- his forum his rules -- but learn how to debate without this kind of insult.

If other people don't seem to understand your point, DON'T assume they are stupid. Assume it is one of two things; you aren't explaining very well, or, you are wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 09:40:52 PM
It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.

Are you aware that inclination is one orbital parameter that defines the orbital plane. If the spacecraft enters that plane at a higher speed, you map out an ellipse with a completely different eccentricity. The path is different through the van Allen belts.

The radiation in the VABs depends on radius, azimuth and polar angle, so does the ellipse on the orbital plane. It follows that the exposure of Apollo and Orion are different.
Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  Speed is only important because of the component of time.  The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received.The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone.  A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone.  Can't you see that?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 09:41:51 PM
Let's talk about these differences.  Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall?  Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?
In a very basic and simplistic view, yes, the VAB encompasses 360 degrees around Earth.  Although that leaves out a lot of detail and makes a lot of assumptions.

In a more realistic, and relevant view, it is not uniform, and it has a specific, approximately toroidal shape, aka a doughnut (donut for you folks on the west of the Atlantic) aligned closely with the Earth's geomagnetic axis - not the physical axis, ecliptic, or the Moon's orbital plane.

This torus is a three-dimensional shape, and the extent above and below the "geomagnetic equator" is well mapped.  It is relatively straightforward to calculate an orbit which travels above and below the doughnut, or which only intersects particular parts of it.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that all orbits must be aligned to the same plane as the VAB, and must necessarily pass through the centre...
You are simply incapable of understanding the obvious.  the elliptical inclination of orbit should be referenced to the magnetic equator if you are to ascertain the interaction of the VAB.  Try to stay focused and on point.  I grow frustrated with your opaqueness.

Tim...I can't speak for LO -- his forum his rules -- but learn how to debate without this kind of insult.

If other people don't seem to understand your point, DON'T assume they are stupid. Assume it is one of two things; you aren't explaining very well, or, you are wrong.
Point taken.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 09:44:38 PM
If you were smarter than the average three year old you would realize that a side view 2d representation is repeated over 360 degrees.  What it is telling you that any point is identical at any other point around the circumference of the vab.

It's not though, the orbital plane is defined geocentrically with repsect to the ecliptic plane, the geomagnetic plane is not. The torus axis is inclined to the normal of the orbital plane. This has been explained to you several times now.

Your assumption would only apply if orbital plane, geomagnetic plane and ecliptic plane are all co-planar.
The torus you speak of is the VAB and it is centered on the geomagnetic equator which is 11.5 degrees above the equator.  Try to remember that.  it is useful knowledge.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 09:45:37 PM
It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.

Are you aware that inclination is one orbital parameter that defines the orbital plane. If the spacecraft enters that plane at a higher speed, you map out an ellipse with a completely different eccentricity. The path is different through the van Allen belts.

The radiation in the VABs depends on radius, azimuth and polar angle, so does the ellipse on the orbital plane. It follows that the exposure of Apollo and Orion are different.
Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  Speed is only important because of the component of time.  The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received.The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone.  A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone.  Can't you see that?

No. Eccentricity matters.

And eccentricity is intimately tied to velocity.

Grab a copy of KSP and play around a little. Orbital mechanics are non-intuitive. Heck, I haven't make safe landing on the Mún yet! But getting your feet wet with a simulator helps.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 09:48:22 PM
Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry.

The distribution of radiation is not uniform. Please define what you mean by uniform with appropriate metrics.

Quote
Speed is only important because of the component of time.  The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received. The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone.

No, push a ball with more speed up a hill it goes further up the hill. Apollo had a much greater speed on the orbital plane so went further up the hill on a greater eccentricity. Apollo took a trajoectry into the parts of the belt that are mainly electrons and avoided the high energy proton region.

Quote
A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone.  Can't you see that?

... there are no straight lines in elliptical orbits. The craft follows an ellipse on a plane. Look at Jason's model again. Really, do this, it shows you just how wrong you actually are.

Less time in each zone does not mean less dose. It depends on the type of radiation in the zone.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 09:50:19 PM
It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.

Are you aware that inclination is one orbital parameter that defines the orbital plane. If the spacecraft enters that plane at a higher speed, you map out an ellipse with a completely different eccentricity. The path is different through the van Allen belts.

The radiation in the VABs depends on radius, azimuth and polar angle, so does the ellipse on the orbital plane. It follows that the exposure of Apollo and Orion are different.
Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  Speed is only important because of the component of time.  The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received.The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone.  A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone.  Can't you see that?

No. Eccentricity matters.

And eccentricity is intimately tied to velocity.

Grab a copy of KSP and play around a little. Orbital mechanics are non-intuitive. Heck, I haven't make safe landing on the Mún yet! But getting your feet wet with a simulator helps.
It matters in that it moves the transit from a straight line to a curved line and thereby increasing the time to transit across a zone.  it does not matter in respect to the zone that is encountered as only inclination determines that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 09:53:19 PM
At the risk of adding confusion instead of clearing it; Tim's unwillingness to work in 3D deprives him of the language necessary to define whether anyone (himself included) means to imply changes in composition of the VARB at an angle relative to the axis of revolution, or relative to the radius of the major circle.

I have to use these terms...definitions of parts of a solid torus...because of this lack of any agreed standard between Tim and everyone else on how to describe the geometry of the environment around Earth.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 09:55:11 PM
Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry.

The distribution of radiation is not uniform. Please define what you mean by uniform with appropriate metrics.

Quote
Speed is only important because of the component of time.  The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received. The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone.

No, push a ball with more speed up a hill it goes further up the hill. Apollo had a much greater speed on the orbital plane so went further up the hill on a greater eccentricity. Apollo took a trajoectry into the parts of the belt that are mainly electrons and avoided the high energy proton region.

Quote
A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone.  Can't you see that?

... there are no straight lines in elliptical orbits. The craft follows an ellipse on a plane. Look at Jason's model again. Really, do this, it shows you just how wrong you actually are.

Least time in each zone does not mean less dose. It depends on the type of radiation in the zone.
Once again we are confronted with spatial impairment.  Think of a side view as a millimeter slice and then add these slices until a full 360 degrees has been completed.  You can see then any point on the 2d representation is repeated over and over again.  Any point is uniform around the circle.  if it is 10 at azimuth of zero it is also 10 at azimuth 180.  Work with me.  This is basic.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 09:58:09 PM
It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.

Are you aware that inclination is one orbital parameter that defines the orbital plane. If the spacecraft enters that plane at a higher speed, you map out an ellipse with a completely different eccentricity. The path is different through the van Allen belts.

The radiation in the VABs depends on radius, azimuth and polar angle, so does the ellipse on the orbital plane. It follows that the exposure of Apollo and Orion are different.
Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  Speed is only important because of the component of time.  The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received.The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone.  A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone.  Can't you see that?

No. Eccentricity matters.

And eccentricity is intimately tied to velocity.

Grab a copy of KSP and play around a little. Orbital mechanics are non-intuitive. Heck, I haven't make safe landing on the Mún yet! But getting your feet wet with a simulator helps.
It matters in that it moves the transit from a straight line to a curved line and thereby increasing the time to transit across a zone.  it does not matter in respect to the zone that is encountered as only inclination determines that.

You don't move from a straight line. There are no straight lines.

Okay, I'm going to join everyone else here in trying out an analogy. Imagine a hula hoop and a basketball. Hold them up some distance from you (so perspective is unimportant) and aligned. If you turn the hula hoop so it is almost edge-on then that section of the ring can be hidden behind the ball. Turn it so the opening faces you and it doesn't visually touch the ball.

So far, we are in agreement. Well, here is where the analogy is tougher. Squish the hula hoop, bringing two sides together. Now it can share the same PLANE it was on, but be hidden behind the ball again. The shape matters, not just the plane.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 09:58:45 PM
At the risk of adding confusion instead of clearing it; Tim's unwillingness to work in 3D deprives him of the language necessary to define whether anyone (himself included) means to imply changes in composition of the VARB at an angle relative to the axis of revolution, or relative to the radius of the major circle.

I have to use these terms...definitions of parts of a solid torus...because of this lack of any agreed standard between Tim and everyone else on how to describe the geometry of the environment around Earth.
For the same reason architectural drawings are presented in multiple views so is space.  It is difficult to grasp conceptually some things in 3d that are obvious in 2d.  It requires an innate ability to shift one's perspective that is sorely missing from this group.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 09:59:03 PM
late for work....need to check in later.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 10:01:49 PM
It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.

Are you aware that inclination is one orbital parameter that defines the orbital plane. If the spacecraft enters that plane at a higher speed, you map out an ellipse with a completely different eccentricity. The path is different through the van Allen belts.

The radiation in the VABs depends on radius, azimuth and polar angle, so does the ellipse on the orbital plane. It follows that the exposure of Apollo and Orion are different.
Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  Speed is only important because of the component of time.  The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received.The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone.  A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone.  Can't you see that?

No. Eccentricity matters.

And eccentricity is intimately tied to velocity.

Grab a copy of KSP and play around a little. Orbital mechanics are non-intuitive. Heck, I haven't make safe landing on the Mún yet! But getting your feet wet with a simulator helps.
It matters in that it moves the transit from a straight line to a curved line and thereby increasing the time to transit across a zone.  it does not matter in respect to the zone that is encountered as only inclination determines that.

You don't move from a straight line. There are no straight lines.

Okay, I'm going to join everyone else here in trying out an analogy. Imagine a hula hoop and a basketball. Hold them up some distance from you (so perspective is unimportant) and aligned. If you turn the hula hoop so it is almost edge-on then that section of the ring can be hidden behind the ball. Turn it so the opening faces you and it doesn't visually touch the ball.

So far, we are in agreement. Well, here is where the analogy is tougher. Squish the hula hoop, bringing two sides together. Now it can share the same PLANE it was on, but be hidden behind the ball again. The shape matters, not just the plane.
everything is a straight line in 2d.  Perspectively challenged?  It is not natural to think in anything but 3d and it simply may beyond you pay grade.  I'm sorry.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 21, 2018, 10:02:00 PM
At the risk of adding confusion instead of clearing it; Tim's unwillingness to work in 3D deprives him of the language necessary to define whether anyone (himself included) means to imply changes in composition of the VARB at an angle relative to the axis of revolution, or relative to the radius of the major circle.

I have to use these terms...definitions of parts of a solid torus...because of this lack of any agreed standard between Tim and everyone else on how to describe the geometry of the environment around Earth.
For the same reason architectural drawings are presented in multiple views so is space.  It is difficult to grasp conceptually some things in 3d that are obvious in 2d.  It requires an innate ability to shift one's perspective that is sorely missing from this group.

Tim, I build scenery. Full-stage sets, from plans of various types. I also work in CAD, and have created complex assemblages of moving parts and electronics that had to be visualized in 3d using 2D tools. Shifting between different sets of cartesian coordinates is second nature for me. I can't do the math in my head, but I understand 3D space.

And I am probably the LEAST qualified in this forum of engineers and designers.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 10:02:10 PM
Once again we are confronted with spatial impairment.  Think of a side view as a millimeter slice and then add these slices until a full 360 degrees has been completed.  You can see then any point on the 2d representation is repeated over and over again.  Any point is uniform around the circle.  if it is 10 at azimuth of zero it is also 10 at azimuth 180.  Work with me.  This is basic.

But the radiation does not vary with azimuth alone. It's defined by a space mapped out by a toroid, and that can be described in spherical coordinate according to a radial component, azimuthal component and polar component. Consider any small volume element in that toroid. Explain why the radiation is uniform.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 10:07:07 PM
At the risk of adding confusion instead of clearing it; Tim's unwillingness to work in 3D deprives him of the language necessary to define whether anyone (himself included) means to imply changes in composition of the VARB at an angle relative to the axis of revolution, or relative to the radius of the major circle.

I have to use these terms...definitions of parts of a solid torus...because of this lack of any agreed standard between Tim and everyone else on how to describe the geometry of the environment around Earth.
For the same reason architectural drawings are presented in multiple views so is space.  It is difficult to grasp conceptually some things in 3d that are obvious in 2d.  It requires an innate ability to shift one's perspective that is sorely missing from this group.

Tim, I build scenery. Full-stage sets, from plans of various types. I also work in CAD, and have created complex assemblages of moving parts and electronics that had to be visualized in 3d using 2D tools. Shifting between different sets of cartesian coordinates is second nature for me. I can't do the math in my head, but I understand 3D space.

And I am probably the LEAST qualified in this forum of engineers and designers.
3d assembly has nothing to do with 2d visualization.  It is all information that if not properly processed is useless.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 10:09:20 PM
It is interesting to note that science cannot prove that our existence is not a 2d existence.  It may very well be that 3d is a learned perception and our reality may actually be a 2d reality.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 10:10:50 PM
All the information in the universe can be represented in 2d without a loss of accuracy.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 10:11:40 PM
It is interesting to note that science cannot prove that our existence is not a 2d existence.  It may very well be that 3d is a learned perception and our reality may actually be a 2d reality.

If you want to wax metaphysical, M-theory predicts that our existence is 11 dimensional, but we cannot observe the other 7 dimensions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 10:12:35 PM
All the information in the universe can be represented in 2d without a loss of accuracy.

You've just violated several laws of physics with that statement.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 10:15:15 PM
I am sure you have heard about the theory that reality is a hologram.  What that implies is a 2d existence.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 10:17:08 PM
As far as I am concerned, if it cannot be perceived then it does not exist.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 10:19:30 PM
I am sure you have heard about the theory that reality is a hologram.  What that implies is a 2d existence.

I'll add holograms, information theory and quantum loop gravity to the things you don't understand.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 10:20:24 PM
So much of our existence is learned and not real.  The color blue did not exist until about 4 hundred years ago.  the sky used to be clear until the color blue was invented and learned.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 10:20:55 PM
I am sure you have heard about the theory that reality is a hologram.  What that implies is a 2d existence.

I'll add holograms, information theory and quantum loop gravity to the things you don't understand.
Whatever dude...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 10:22:48 PM
Back to subject matter at hand.  Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 21, 2018, 10:42:27 PM
I don't know if this helps or not, but I picture the trajectory sort of like tossing a ball over a fence...

When viewed from above the path of the ball appears to be a straight line. How could you throw the ball through the fence?

(http://apollohoax.net/images/timfinch/timfinch-2.png)

But when viewed from the side you see that the path of the ball is not straight at all. It arcs over the wall.

(http://apollohoax.net/images/timfinch/timfinch-1.png)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 10:45:52 PM
I don't know if this helps or not, but I picture the trajectory sort of like tossing a ball over a fence...

When viewed from above the path of the ball appears to be a straight line. How could you throw the ball through the fence?

(http://apollohoax.net/images/timfinch/timfinch-2.png)

But when viewed from the side you see that the path of the ball is not straight at all. It arcs over the wall.

(http://apollohoax.net/images/timfinch/timfinch-1.png)

I like it!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 21, 2018, 10:48:19 PM
So much of our existence is learned and not real.  The color blue did not exist until about 4 hundred years ago.  the sky used to be clear until the color blue was invented and learned.
Thank you, sir. I needed a laugh. I do think you're currently trying to get banned now, so you can  add another notch to your belt for all your little buddies. "Yep, they banned me from Apollohoax too. Just couldn't take my smarts and all."
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 21, 2018, 10:50:58 PM
I like it!

Ok, so now apply it to the Apollo trajectory and you'll understand how they skirted the edge of the VAB. Not by plowing through the densest portion of it in a straight line, but by travelling around it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 11:04:55 PM
So much of our existence is learned and not real.  The color blue did not exist until about 4 hundred years ago.  the sky used to be clear until the color blue was invented and learned.
Thank you, sir. I needed a laugh. I do think you're currently trying to get banned now, so you can  add another notch to your belt for all your little buddies. "Yep, they banned me from Apollohoax too. Just couldn't take my smarts and all."
In truth I do not want to get banned.  I await the cream that must rise to the top.  My world is lonely and I crave a kindred spirit.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 11:06:30 PM
I like it!

Ok, so now apply it to the Apollo trajectory and you'll understand how they skirted the edge of the VAB. Not by plowing through the densest portion of it in a straight line, but by travelling around it.
you are propagating a fantasy.  it never happened.  It doesn't exist.  It is a unicorn.  That is what I have been preaching all along.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 21, 2018, 11:10:12 PM
everything is a straight line in 2d.

Even a curve on a log graph?  ::)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 11:11:19 PM
For all of you that believe the Apollo craft followed some obscure path to avoid the highest radiation area I extend a challenge to you.  Show the data.  Show the course change and provide the corroborating tracking data.  If not the settle in and accept the same path the Orion EFT took for I can provide the data and the corroboration.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 11:12:20 PM
everything is a straight line in 2d.

Even a curve on a log graph?  ::)
Perspective is king.  Look at it from it's side view.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 11:15:42 PM
Back to subject matter at hand.  Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?

No they don't mirror one another.  That statement is incorrect and will be challenged every time you attempt it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 11:20:36 PM
Back to subject matter at hand.  Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?

No they don't mirror one another.  That statement is incorrect and will be challenged every time you attempt it.
Do they share inclinations?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 11:20:52 PM
For all of you that believe the Apollo craft folled some obscure path to avoid the highest radiation area I extend a challenge to you.  Show the data.  Show the course change and provide the corroborating tracking data.  If not the settle in and accept the same path the Orion EFT took for I can provide the data and the corroboration.

You have repeatedly shown the path that Apollo took and hand waved it away, you were linked both the TLI and radiation work that Bob B did and stated they were wrong and he was a NASA shill.  But you carefully avoided showing any other work that refuted Bob's or was in agreement with yours.  Why is that?  Could it be that you are the one that is incorrect in both your radiation assumption along with your assumption of the trajectory that Apollo generally took through the VARB?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 21, 2018, 11:22:18 PM
Back to subject matter at hand.  Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?

No they don't mirror one another.  That statement is incorrect and will be challenged every time you attempt it.
Do they share inclinations?
I have stated to you that they have similar inclinations in LEO, but at the time of ignition of the SIV-B that similarity ends.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 11:25:41 PM
For all of you that believe the Apollo craft folled some obscure path to avoid the highest radiation area I extend a challenge to you.  Show the data.  Show the course change and provide the corroborating tracking data.  If not the settle in and accept the same path the Orion EFT took for I can provide the data and the corroboration.

You have repeatedly shown the path that Apollo took and hand waved it away, you were linked both the TLI and radiation work that Bob B did and stated they were wrong and he was a NASA shill.  But you carefully avoided showing any other work that refuted Bob's or was in agreement with yours.  Why is that?  Could it be that you are the one that is incorrect in both your radiation assumption along with your assumption of the trajectory that Apollo generally took through the VARB?
Here is my work.  What part of it confuses you  or provides you with reason to doubt it?  It is simple, succinct and irrefutable.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 11:31:48 PM
Back to subject matter at hand.  Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?

No they don't mirror one another.  That statement is incorrect and will be challenged every time you attempt it.
Do they share inclinations?
I have stated to you that they have similar inclinations in LEO, but at the time of ignition of the SIV-B that similarity ends.
so you contend they changed inclinations when that rocket fired?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 11:48:12 PM
I would love if anyone of you could explain why NASA's test of the orion was on an identical inclination of the apollo trajectories and why it required greater shielding for future lunar missions if the apollo shielding was so effective in transiting the VAB and lunar operations.  Why fix that which is not broken?  How does that work in your mind.  Apollo ventured out in solar maximum and received a piddling of an exposure.  What was not to love about that?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 21, 2018, 11:51:14 PM
I am on facebook.  If any of you would like a one on one without the incessant and annoying chatter of Abaddon then send me a friend request and we can explore the depths of this subject sans the peanut gallery.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 22, 2018, 12:30:38 AM
I would love if anyone of you could explain why NASA's test of the orion was on an identical inclination of the apollo trajectories and why it required greater shielding for future lunar missions if the apollo shielding was so effective in transiting the VAB and lunar operations.  Why fix that which is not broken?  How does that work in your mind.  Apollo ventured out in solar maximum and received a piddling of an exposure.  What was not to love about that?

Because Orions mission is NOT a short hop to the moon and back. It is designed to go further and longer than ever before. Therefore it will encounter a greater accumulated dosis of radiation and therefore it needs to be tested in a hostile radiation environment. To ensure the electronics will keep working and not fail.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 22, 2018, 12:37:06 AM
From what I've read, modern electronics are also more susceptible to radiation damage in comparison to Apollo's hardware. If I am wrong on this, I, of course, welcome any correction.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 22, 2018, 12:43:29 AM
Much more vulnerable. The logic gates have a size of a few nanometers - where the Apollo era equipment used logic gates around (IIRC) a few tenths of milimeters. A charged particle hitting those old gates wasn't very likely to do any damage. Modern gates might even be flipped to another state by such an event. Or perhaps even disabled.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 12:46:00 AM
I would love if anyone of you could explain why NASA's test of the orion was on an identical inclination of the apollo trajectories and why it required greater shielding for future lunar missions if the apollo shielding was so effective in transiting the VAB and lunar operations.  Why fix that which is not broken?  How does that work in your mind.  Apollo ventured out in solar maximum and received a piddling of an exposure.  What was not to love about that?

Because Orions mission is NOT a short hop to the moon and back. It is designed to go further and longer than ever before. Therefore it will encounter a greater accumulated dosis of radiation and therefore it needs to be tested in a hostile radiation environment. To ensure the electronics will keep working and not fail.
It would seem that Apollo proved the VAB was not even a consideration realizing the transit and lunar mission was conducted at less than .24 mgy/day.  The only obstacle to deep space exploration should be long term GCR exposure and SPE's.  Both requiring hydrogenous shielding or new age technologies.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 22, 2018, 12:51:33 AM
Aaaaaannnnd we're back to your initial statement - the misread graph.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 12:52:10 AM
On the surface it would seem if the environment the equipment was in was safe for people then the equipment itself would be safe from radiation.  I can't imagine radiation that could harm equipment is safe for people.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 22, 2018, 12:54:06 AM
People heal. Electronics don't.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 12:55:38 AM
Aaaaaannnnd we're back to your initial statement - the misread graph.
Why do you insist I misread the graph.  What did you read that I missed?  If you were to check, I actually came up with .24 not from a graph but from a statement in a NASA article.  The Crater graph has a median value of .23 mgy/day.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on April 22, 2018, 01:03:44 AM
If you were to check, I actually came up with .24 not from a graph but from a statement in a NASA article.

Apologies but could you give me a link to that reference? The NASA statement, that is.

Thank you!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 01:17:04 AM
If you were to check, I actually came up with .24 not from a graph but from a statement in a NASA article.

Apologies but could you give me a link to that reference? The NASA statement, that is.

Thank you!
Give me a few minutes to track it down.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 01:25:14 AM
If you were to check, I actually came up with .24 not from a graph but from a statement in a NASA article.

Apologies but could you give me a link to that reference? The NASA statement, that is.

Thank you!

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on April 22, 2018, 01:43:24 AM
Many thanks.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on April 22, 2018, 01:55:25 AM
Sorry but I can't find any reference to .24 mgy/day in the text... I must have missed it. Can you tell me which page / para it is on? Thanks!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 01:57:58 AM

3d assembly has nothing to do with 2d visualization.  It is all information that if not properly processed is useless.

What does this even mean. It sounds like you just have to say something to look smart, even if it doesn't make any sense.

And why are you trumping 2D visualization? It is a great tool...for making charts. It is a lossy process. Like the elegant art of, say, subway maps, it highlights certain information of interest by removing other data from the presentation.

Building something from a perspective or even orthogonal view is a fool's game. You need ALL the data. You need at least three views. Your Flatland view returns only circles when you should be seeing spheres.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 02:01:05 AM
So much of our existence is learned and not real.  The color blue did not exist until about 4 hundred years ago.  the sky used to be clear until the color blue was invented and learned.

Where did you learn physics. Yowtch!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 02:02:04 AM

3d assembly has nothing to do with 2d visualization.  It is all information that if not properly processed is useless.

What does this even mean. It sounds like you just have to say something to look smart, even if it doesn't make any sense.

And why are you trumping 2D visualization? It is a great tool...for making charts. It is a lossy process. Like the elegant art of, say, subway maps, it highlights certain information of interest by removing other data from the presentation.

Building something from a perspective or even orthogonal view is a fool's game. You need ALL the data. You need at least three views. Your Flatland view returns only circles when you should be seeing spheres.

Read this and then we will talk.   http://www.iflscience.com/physics/2d-people-looking-out-3d-world/
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 02:04:18 AM
Read Flatland. A Square says it better than I could.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 22, 2018, 02:05:33 AM
Sorry but I can't find any reference to .24 mgy/day in the text... I must have missed it. Can you tell me which page / para it is on? Thanks!

He's adding up the millirad per hour value into a daily rate and converting to milligrays.

He's pretending that it is specific to the Apollo 11 mission, when it is no such thing, and is not bothering to find out the source of the original value.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 02:05:47 AM
Wow.  Two paragraphs in and the article you quoted disagrees with you. When you google this stuff, do you even bother to read it first?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 02:08:05 AM
Here's a simple one.....a Hologram presents an illusion of depth, that is, a 3D world. If as you claim this is in innate quality of 2D, WHY DON'T ALL PICTURES DO IT? Why are Holograms rare?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 22, 2018, 02:15:40 AM
So much of our existence is learned and not real.  The color blue did not exist until about 4 hundred years ago.  the sky used to be clear until the color blue was invented and learned.

Where did you learn physics. Yowtch!
I commented on that one earlier. If he really believes that. . . wow . . . that's such a brain hurting comment I don't know where to begin. :o
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 02:19:51 AM
Sorry but I can't find any reference to .24 mgy/day in the text... I must have missed it. Can you tell me which page / para it is on? Thanks!

He's adding up the millirad per hour value into a daily rate and converting to milligrays.

He's pretending that it is specific to the Apollo 11 mission, when it is no such thing, and is not bothering to find out the source of the original value.
The article states it is applicable to the apollo missions.  It was written in 1973.  What else can I tell you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 02:21:52 AM
Do you reject NASA's evaluation of GCR levels?  Have you any references that are more reputable and have a different value. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 02:24:05 AM
So much of our existence is learned and not real.  The color blue did not exist until about 4 hundred years ago.  the sky used to be clear until the color blue was invented and learned.

Where did you learn physics. Yowtch!
I commented on that one earlier. If he really believes that. . . wow . . . that's such a brain hurting comment I don't know where to begin. :o

I'll give him benefit of doubt and assume this is a riff off one of those pop psychology memes, made confusing by poor word choice.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 02:24:10 AM
I will use any value you can defend.  Have you anything or are you being petulant?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 02:25:51 AM
Raven, this Bud is for you:  http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 02:26:16 AM
Raven, how do you like me now?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on April 22, 2018, 02:28:14 AM
I'm sorry but you said:

Quote
If you were to check, I actually came up with .24 not from a graph but from a statement in a NASA article.

But I can find no reference to the value you quoted. There was nothing in the text that said that value. How did you come up with this figure?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 02:29:58 AM
1 mrem/hr = .24 mgy/day
1 mrem =.01 mgy
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 02:31:38 AM
Sorry but I can't find any reference to .24 mgy/day in the text... I must have missed it. Can you tell me which page / para it is on? Thanks!

He's adding up the millirad per hour value into a daily rate and converting to milligrays.

He's pretending that it is specific to the Apollo 11 mission, when it is no such thing, and is not bothering to find out the source of the original value.

Yeah, I see it.

I see we have to add significant figures to the list of things Tim needs to learn about.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 02:33:54 AM
So realizing that NASA itself claims a baseline GCR level (.24 mgy/day) greater than the daily mission dose of Apollo 11 (.22 mgy/day) you can see the source of my consternation can't you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 02:35:40 AM
Sorry but I can't find any reference to .24 mgy/day in the text... I must have missed it. Can you tell me which page / para it is on? Thanks!

He's adding up the millirad per hour value into a daily rate and converting to milligrays.

He's pretending that it is specific to the Apollo 11 mission, when it is no such thing, and is not bothering to find out the source of the original value.

Yeah, I see it.

I see we have to add significant figures to the list of things Tim needs to learn about.
What now?  You don't like this number or is it the source of this number?  Why are you unhappy, It is written in black and white?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 02:38:19 AM
Even if Apollo 11 did not transit the VAB it's mission dose is to low to have traveled cislunar space.  That simply means it never left LEO and the Moon hoax is demonstratively proven.  Do you guys need my autograph?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 22, 2018, 02:38:37 AM
Raven, how do you like me now?
Showing your ignorance yet again. Nothing there says we saw it as clear or that blue was 'invented'. If the sky had been clear, we'd just see the sky as . . . black, which we'd never have identified with a hypothetical clear glaze that somehow later became called blue. Plus, you said 400 years, and even the article says the first mention of blue in a language was from 4,500 years.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 02:40:14 AM
Raven, this Bud is for you:  http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/

MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on April 22, 2018, 02:42:37 AM
1 mrem/hr = .24 mgy/day
1 mrem =.01 mgy

And the quoted figure to which you applied those calculations?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 02:43:10 AM

Yeah, I see it.

I see we have to add significant figures to the list of things Tim needs to learn about.

What now?  You don't like this number or is it the source of this number?  Why are you unhappy, It is written in black and white?

Sometimes the timing is just perfect:

So realizing that NASA itself claims a baseline GCR level (.24 mgy/day) greater than the daily mission dose of Apollo 11 (.22 mgy/day) you can see the source of my consternation can't you?

Yes, I can certainly see a sense of consternation. Someone paid those teachers and instructors. Someone actually graduated you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 02:44:16 AM
Raven, how do you like me now?
Showing your ignorance yet again. Nothing there says we saw it as clear or that blue was 'invented'. If the sky had been clear, we'd just see the sky as . . . black, which we'd never have identified with a hypothetical clear glaze that somehow later became called blue. Plus, you said 400 years, and even the article says the first mention of blue in a language was from 4,500 years.
That is just one of many articles on the subject.  I slipped a decimal point.  It happens.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 02:46:21 AM
NOMUSE,  do you accept that GCR for apollo 11 was .24 mgy/day or do you have a different number that you think is more appropriate?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 02:46:58 AM
Now, if you had said "humans didn't perceive it as a specific color" we might have sighed and moved on. Saying it was CLEAR is wrong. The tree is still falling and making a sound, regardless of whether there are ears to record it, much less the word, "Timber!!"
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 02:51:16 AM
Now, if you had said "humans didn't perceive it as a specific color" we might have sighed and moved on. Saying it was CLEAR is wrong. The tree is still falling and making a sound, regardless of whether there are ears to record it, much less the word, "Timber!!"
The whole point is lost on you isn't it?  You are one of those kids that find the box the toy came in more interesting than the toy aren't you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 02:51:44 AM
Tim, last year one of our engineers asked me to lathe a part to 120.00 millimeters. I went back to him to clarify the drawing. Do you understand why that conversation needed to take place?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 02:52:44 AM
Tim, last year one of our engineers asked me to lathe a part to 120.00 millimeters. I went back to him to clarify the drawing. Do you understand why that conversation needed to take place?
You are a bit dense?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 22, 2018, 02:52:49 AM
Raven, this Bud is for you:  http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/

MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.
Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 22, 2018, 02:53:10 AM
NASA does not claim a baseline of 0.24. A NASA report quotes a value from a research paper. There is no indication of how that value is derived and how it relates to dosimeters worn against a constant wear garment under other clothes and inside a vehicle. All values cited are very broad scattergun ones. In order to work out what is actually going in you need to look at the fine detail.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 02:53:25 AM
Now, if you had said "humans didn't perceive it as a specific color" we might have sighed and moved on. Saying it was CLEAR is wrong. The tree is still falling and making a sound, regardless of whether there are ears to record it, much less the word, "Timber!!"
The whole point is lost on you isn't it?  You are one of those kids that find the box the toy came in more interesting than the toy aren't you?

What's the toy in this box? I don't think I was ever clear on what point you were trying to make.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 02:57:12 AM
NASA does not claim a baseline of 0.24. A NASA report quotes a value from a research paper. There is no indication of how that value is derived and how it relates to dosimeters worn against a constant wear garment under other clothes and inside a vehicle. All values cited are very broad scattergun ones. In order to work out what is actually going in you need to look at the fine detail.
Looking under NASA's dress are we?  So because NASA did not outline the source of it's research in the article you discount it as fictitious.  In the absence of any conflicting data what choice have you but to accept it at its face value?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 02:57:47 AM
Raven, this Bud is for you:  http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/

MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.
Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.


And boy, does lapis lazuli get around in ancient texts (I swear, if I have to read one more person described as having hair of lapis lazuli.......!)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 02:58:37 AM
Raven, this Bud is for you:  http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/

MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.
Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.
Did you forget what got you to this point?  I claimed color is learned, right?  Did I not prove  that?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 03:00:45 AM
Tell me,  is it difficult to go through life with little or no intellectual integrity?  If I were like you guys I would have rope burns on my neck.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 03:01:04 AM
NASA does not claim a baseline of 0.24. A NASA report quotes a value from a research paper. There is no indication of how that value is derived and how it relates to dosimeters worn against a constant wear garment under other clothes and inside a vehicle. All values cited are very broad scattergun ones. In order to work out what is actually going in you need to look at the fine detail.

I did a quick search for the paper referenced but it isn't showing up on anything I have access to.

Ain't I nice, though? I'm letting a straight-line conversion from REM to Gray go without comment.

I think if Tim actually read the paper he's linking...well, here they are commenting that the luminous paint (well, tip inserts) on some of the toggle switches are in the same rank of radiological hazard as GCR. That, and they bring up the secondary neutron activation in lunar soil and dismiss it in about the same paragraph.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 03:02:47 AM
No counter data whatsoever?  Just going to run with your gut feel.  Screw what NASA says...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 03:04:05 AM
I'm intrigued.  What do you think the level of GCR was back in 1969?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 03:05:19 AM
They also touch on one of my personal sanity checks. Starfish Prime vastly increased the trapped electrons in the VARB. That's one nuke. Spread over a volume that's several times the whole Earth. We've set off, what, some five hundred nukes within the thin envelop of air of one Earth and the effects on the majority of humanity were negligible. That doesn't make the VARB particularly impressive.

(Yeah, I know...electrons, low energy electrons at that...but the idea is there.)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 03:06:15 AM
They also touch on one of my personal sanity checks. Starfish Prime vastly increased the trapped electrons in the VARB. That's one nuke. Spread over a volume that's several times the whole Earth. We've set off, what, some five hundred nukes within the thin envelop of air of one Earth and the effects on the majority of humanity were negligible. That doesn't make the VARB particularly impressive.

(Yeah, I know...electrons, low energy electrons at that...but the idea is there.)

GCR?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 22, 2018, 03:07:11 AM
Raven, this Bud is for you:  http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/

MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.
Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.
Did you forget what got you to this point?  I claimed color is learned, right?  Did I not prove  that?
Colour prescription is partly a learned phenomena, for example, cultures that do not have words for  certain colours do have a harder time distinguishing them with similar colours they do have words for, but that's a far, far cry from saying we just saw it as 'clear' as you claimed, and your timing was off for what even the article claimed was the first recorded use of a word for blue in a language.
 By over a whole flipping order of magnitude!
You might try and back-pedal and  move the goalposts, but you're still wrong, dude.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 03:08:37 AM
Raven, this Bud is for you:  http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/

MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.
Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.
Did you forget what got you to this point?  I claimed color is learned, right?  Did I not prove  that?
Colour prescription is partly a learned phenomena, for example, cultures that do not have words for  certain colours do have a harder time distinguishing them with similar colours they do have words for, but that's a far, far cry from saying we just saw it as 'clear' as you claimed, and your timing was off for what even the article claimed was the first recorded use of a word for blue in a language.
 By over a whole flipping order of magnitude!
You might try and back-pedal and  move the goalposts, but you're still wrong, dude.
I admit it.  I am wrong.  Can I go now?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 03:09:41 AM
What's this? A spark of integrity?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 03:09:47 AM
Is everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 03:12:45 AM
Is everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?

How do you mean?

Just for an argument, allow the two numbers you are playing with now. Still doesn't work. Your math is wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 03:14:24 AM
Is everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?

How do you mean?

Just for an argument, allow the two numbers you are playing with now. Still doesn't work. Your math is wrong.
You have my undivided attention.  Explain how the numbers are wrong
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: VQ on April 22, 2018, 03:16:33 AM
They also touch on one of my personal sanity checks. Starfish Prime vastly increased the trapped electrons in the VARB. That's one nuke. Spread over a volume that's several times the whole Earth. We've set off, what, some five hundred nukes within the thin envelop of air of one Earth and the effects on the majority of humanity were negligible. That doesn't make the VARB particularly impressive.

(Yeah, I know...electrons, low energy electrons at that...but the idea is there.)

GCR?

Gish gallop. You've been obsessing over VAB for 100+ pages of discussion.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 03:17:00 AM
Is everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?

How do you mean?

Just for an argument, allow the two numbers you are playing with now. Still doesn't work. Your math is wrong.
You have my undivided attention.  Explain how the numbers are wrong

Naw. My attention is back in the Ancient World. I'm gonna go with Socratic Method (modified).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 03:17:30 AM
They also touch on one of my personal sanity checks. Starfish Prime vastly increased the trapped electrons in the VARB. That's one nuke. Spread over a volume that's several times the whole Earth. We've set off, what, some five hundred nukes within the thin envelop of air of one Earth and the effects on the majority of humanity were negligible. That doesn't make the VARB particularly impressive.

(Yeah, I know...electrons, low energy electrons at that...but the idea is there.)


GCR?

Gish gallop. You've been obsessing over VAB for 100+ pages of discussion.

My audience is a bit slow but I am patient.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 03:19:56 AM
Intellectual cowardice is such an ugly thing and it is hard to witness.  I'm off to bed where I don't have to see the spectacle of it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 22, 2018, 03:27:26 AM
Back to subject matter at hand.  Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?

No, because it didn't. You return to this repeatedly. It matters not a whit how often you return to this. It remains wrong. Perhaps if I embiggen it.

ORION-EFT ORBIT IS NOT THE SAME AS APOLLO.

Somehow, in the finchiverse. only one orbit is possible for anything, ever. Thus satellite TV does not exist and stuff like KO-1 cannot possibly exist. Those in the antipodes are doomed to be bereft of satellite TV, although that might be a side benefit for them.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 22, 2018, 03:45:33 AM
I admit it.  I am wrong.  Can I go now?

Yes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 22, 2018, 03:50:06 AM
Intellectual cowardice is such an ugly thing and it is hard to witness.  I'm off to bed where I don't have to see the spectacle of it.
Sure. Those of us who have been, or currently are, educators hate that. But we do not collectively throw our hands in the air.  Well, perhaps in your case. Allow me to show you a photograph of my children in my home.
(https://i.imgur.com/XoWNj1E.jpg)
Sure, we were dorking about with exposure time and all of that educational stuff, and that was a 5 minute exposure done for no reason other than a random practical exercise in photography.  I look at the image and see and know that there is no photoshop involved, just my kids hiding in the damn door to the right which is plainly visible. I know exactly where they were throughout, I know they posed for minute three out of a five minute exposure. I know all of these facts because I was the twonk behind the damn camera. The objective was to demonstrate.

And somehow, you see ghosts, and evidence of ghosts. That is what you see.

 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 22, 2018, 04:00:21 AM
There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension.  It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.

Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.
You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB.  Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.

I gave you a view perpendicular to the 30 degree inclination. Your confusion is either you trolling or you are even more ignorant than you appear to be.

(https://i.imgur.com/7aI1S9U.jpg)

The Apollo speed takes it into the VAB at the same elevation but not the same place. It's called 3D ::)
To further add to this nonsense, the Apollo TLI burns specifically fired to accentuate the position of the magnetic pole on the opposite side of the Earth, to achieve even more elevation(relative to the belts). I have no reason to suppose that Orion did that or any reason for doing so.

Read it and respond.
It matters not at what radial point you enter the VAB.  The incident inclination determines the path through the regions.  pick any point along the circle and it is the same as any other point as long as the plane of travel through the VAB is the same.

So what, nobody has denied that. You are deliberately avoiding the big elephant sitting on your lap!

See the bit where Orion circles back through the centre of the belts? See the Apollo TLI does not.

You are wrong. You are absolutely hopeless on this subject.

I have bolded the point that you keep bringing up, but avoided this concerning it.

Are the two trajectories the same, yes or no?
Does Orion go through the dense region of the stronger belt, yes or no?

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 22, 2018, 04:08:08 AM
Back to subject matter at hand.  Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?

No they don't mirror one another.  That statement is incorrect and will be challenged every time you attempt it.
Do they share inclinations?

Yes, whilst they were in LEO. Once they initiated their burns to create eccentric orbits, there their paths changed.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 22, 2018, 04:11:01 AM
For all of you that believe the Apollo craft folled some obscure path to avoid the highest radiation area I extend a challenge to you.  Show the data.  Show the course change and provide the corroborating tracking data.  If not the settle in and accept the same path the Orion EFT took for I can provide the data and the corroboration.

You have repeatedly shown the path that Apollo took and hand waved it away, you were linked both the TLI and radiation work that Bob B did and stated they were wrong and he was a NASA shill.  But you carefully avoided showing any other work that refuted Bob's or was in agreement with yours.  Why is that?  Could it be that you are the one that is incorrect in both your radiation assumption along with your assumption of the trajectory that Apollo generally took through the VARB?
Here is my work.  What part of it confuses you  or provides you with reason to doubt it?  It is simple, succinct and irrefutable.

Which part of the response bolded above confuses you? The TLI burn was made at a point where the point where they intersected the belts had the magnetic pole on the opposite side of the Earth. Add the 11.5, not subtract it.

There, that wasn't too painful was it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 22, 2018, 04:18:52 AM
I would love if anyone of you could explain why NASA's test of the orion was on an identical inclination of the apollo trajectories

Identical in LEO.

Quote
and why it required greater shielding for future lunar missions if the apollo shielding was so effective in transiting the VAB and lunar operations.  Why fix that which is not broken?  How does that work in your mind.

Many reasons apply. The electronics are much more susceptible to damage from charged particles. Modern safety standards are also much more stringent than the early days of space travel. The mission remit is for longer time in space and more frequent launches for populating lunar outposts. This affects the launch windows available to arrive at the correct lunar co-ordinates. The bottom line is that the elevation to arrive at the Moon will have to be variable and will require passage, at times, through more central regions. 

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 22, 2018, 04:28:55 AM
Is everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?
Nope, everyone understands that you simply do not grok it and we are unwilling to expend further effort on your intractable ignorance.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 22, 2018, 04:36:39 AM
Stopping in for a quick check this morning, and I see the debate still continued overnight (UK night).  And I see we're returning to the issue of GCR and various "interpretations" of data.

However, picking up on a couple of points from a few pages back, relating to the VAB misunderstandings :
The torus you speak of is the VAB and it is centered on the geomagnetic equator which is 11.5 degrees above the equator.  Try to remember that.  it is useful knowledge.
Perhaps here is an indication of one of your misunderstandings Tim - "which is 11.5 degrees above the equator".  No, the VAB (and geomagnetic equator) isn't aligned with latitude 11.5 degrees north, it's inclined, i.e. tilted, at an angle of 11.5 degrees relative to the equator.  Which means that half of it is south of the equator, so a TLI trajectory which heads north of the equator in that southerly section of the VAB can easily avoid the higher radiation zones.

everything is a straight line in 2d.  Perspectively challenged?  It is not natural to think in anything but 3d and it simply may beyond you pay grade.  I'm sorry.
"everything is a straight line in 2d"??  :o  How can anyone come out with nonsense like this?  Even one of your own links (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection) shows the orbits, equator etc. as curves in the helpful diagram at the top right.

Visualisation, and understanding graphical transformations, is certainly not above my pay grade.  I may currently be working on spacecraft data handling systems, but I spent well over half my career in computer graphics, firstly in simulation (trains, boats, planes etc.), then in the games industry.  From my perspective (!) it seems to be yourself that is lacking in the ability to comprehend the various 2D and 3D representations of the environment and trajectories...


[ BTW - it's better to take all the pop-sci articles, e.g. about colour perception, holographic universes etc. with a large pinch of salt.  They tend to over-simplify, omit important details, and very often get things hilariously wrong. ]
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 22, 2018, 04:54:35 AM
The torus you speak of is the VAB and it is centered on the geomagnetic equator which is 11.5 degrees above the equator.  Try to remember that.  it is useful knowledge.
Perhaps here is an indication of one of your misunderstandings Tim - "which is 11.5 degrees above the equator".  No, the VAB (and geomagnetic equator) isn't aligned with latitude 11.5 degrees north, it's inclined, i.e. tilted, at an angle of 11.5 degrees relative to the equator.  Which means that half of it is south of the equator, so a TLI trajectory which heads north of the equator in that southerly section of the VAB can easily avoid the higher radiation zones.

Tim's text was in response to me when I tried as others tried, and explained that the geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane and ecliptic plane are at angles to each other. I ignored this knowing that clarifying it would be adding a third component into the problem when we were still dealing with different eccentricities on an single orbital plane.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 22, 2018, 05:06:58 AM
The torus you speak of is the VAB and it is centered on the geomagnetic equator which is 11.5 degrees above the equator.  Try to remember that.  it is useful knowledge.
Perhaps here is an indication of one of your misunderstandings Tim - "which is 11.5 degrees above the equator".  No, the VAB (and geomagnetic equator) isn't aligned with latitude 11.5 degrees north, it's inclined, i.e. tilted, at an angle of 11.5 degrees relative to the equator.  Which means that half of it is south of the equator, so a TLI trajectory which heads north of the equator in that southerly section of the VAB can easily avoid the higher radiation zones.

Tim's text was in response to me when I tried as others tried, and explained that the geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane and ecliptic plane are at angles to each other. I ignored this knowing that clarifying it would be adding a third component into the problem when we were still dealing with different eccentricities on an single orbital plane.
Indeed, there seems to be a great deal of confusion in his mind about the relationship between these different axes / planes, and trying to explain it is proving difficult.

If I had the time (unfortunately I don't at the mo') I dare say I could produce an interactive 3D model of the Earth, VAB, orbits etc.  I expect the discussion will have galloped on to pastures new by the time I'd get it done.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 22, 2018, 05:21:13 AM
Is everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?

No. What everyone realises, that seems to escape you is how they actually arrived at the figure you referred to in the Radiation Report.

So before we continue, let me ask you directly:

Where do you think they got the human dosage figure from to arrive at 1mr hr?

I would also like to pose another question which begs the question as to how dumb NASA are in the event of what you claim. To all intents and purposes you are claiming they faked every mission to the Moon. I don't think you have the slightest idea as to how complex and difficult that would be, to the degree of accuracy recorded from every aspect of the evidence. There is an attention to detail that is astonishing, which includes cloud patterns matching pictures taken, amongst other things, the LROC images show exact correlation with launch film of the disturbances on the Moon. There are literally thousands of such consistencies.

Now, to my question. Given the sheer level of detail proven to exist, what stopped NASA from simply:

a) Fabricating the doses higher.
b) Not releasing the dosage data

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 22, 2018, 05:22:06 AM
The torus you speak of is the VAB and it is centered on the geomagnetic equator which is 11.5 degrees above the equator.  Try to remember that.  it is useful knowledge.
Perhaps here is an indication of one of your misunderstandings Tim - "which is 11.5 degrees above the equator".  No, the VAB (and geomagnetic equator) isn't aligned with latitude 11.5 degrees north, it's inclined, i.e. tilted, at an angle of 11.5 degrees relative to the equator.  Which means that half of it is south of the equator, so a TLI trajectory which heads north of the equator in that southerly section of the VAB can easily avoid the higher radiation zones.

Tim's text was in response to me when I tried as others tried, and explained that the geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane and ecliptic plane are at angles to each other. I ignored this knowing that clarifying it would be adding a third component into the problem when we were still dealing with different eccentricities on an single orbital plane.
Indeed, there seems to be a great deal of confusion in his mind about the relationship between these different axes / planes, and trying to explain it is proving difficult.

If I had the time (unfortunately I don't at the mo') I dare say I could produce an interactive 3D model of the Earth, VAB, orbits etc.  I expect the discussion will have galloped on to pastures new by the time I'd get it done.
You would be wasting you time. Tim has flat out stated that 3D is a scam and must be rejected. Scroll back up a few pages. He actually made that claim.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 22, 2018, 05:22:25 AM
If I had the time (unfortunately I don't at the mo') I dare say I could produce an interactive 3D model of the Earth, VAB, orbits etc.  I expect the discussion will have galloped on to pastures new by the time I'd get it done.

No, I guess living in a radioactive wasteland takes its toll. In seriousness, I don't think I would be inclined either (pun intended) as he would just quibble about 2D being the best representation as everything in 2D is a straight line.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 22, 2018, 07:05:09 AM
Once again we are confronted with spatial impairment.  Think of a side view as a millimeter slice and then add these slices until a full 360 degrees has been completed.  You can see then any point on the 2d representation is repeated over and over again.  Any point is uniform around the circle.  if it is 10 at azimuth of zero it is also 10 at azimuth 180.  Work with me.  This is basic.

But the radiation does not vary with azimuth alone. It's defined by a space mapped out by a toroid, and that can be described in spherical coordinates according to a radial component, azimuthal component and polar component. Consider any small volume element in that toroid. Explain why the radiation is uniform?

My bold represents another question that has not been answered which links to my previous questions, which have still not been answered.

2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.

4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.

5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?


Further, the geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane at TLI are inclined to each other.

How does this effect the distribution of radiation relative to the orbital plane?

Tim: Please answer all my questions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 22, 2018, 07:51:17 AM
Looking under NASA's dress are we?  So because NASA did not outline the source of it's research in the article you discount it as fictitious.  In the absence of any conflicting data what choice have you but to accept it at its face value?

Tim, no-one is discounting it as fictitious. The point you are (I assume at this stage deliberately) refusing to grasp is that the 0.24mGy/day is stated to be an average, and without any information regarding what it is an average of, you cannot simply call it a minimum, a rate for the year, or whatever you want it to be. It is an average taken over the period of Apollo, with no accompanying data as to the range recorded to derive that average from. It is not a minimum. You are the only one calling it that. Ever.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 22, 2018, 08:17:07 AM
For all of you that believe the Apollo craft folled some obscure path to avoid the highest radiation area I extend a challenge to you.  Show the data.  Show the course change and provide the corroborating tracking data.  If not the settle in and accept the same path the Orion EFT took for I can provide the data and the corroboration.

You have repeatedly shown the path that Apollo took and hand waved it away, you were linked both the TLI and radiation work that Bob B did and stated they were wrong and he was a NASA shill.  But you carefully avoided showing any other work that refuted Bob's or was in agreement with yours.  Why is that?  Could it be that you are the one that is incorrect in both your radiation assumption along with your assumption of the trajectory that Apollo generally took through the VARB?
Here is my work.  What part of it confuses you  or provides you with reason to doubt it?  It is simple, succinct and irrefutable and wrong.

FTFY
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 22, 2018, 08:22:06 AM
Back to subject matter at hand.  Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?

No they don't mirror one another.  That statement is incorrect and will be challenged every time you attempt it.
Do they share inclinations?
I have stated to you that they have similar inclinations in LEO, but at the time of ignition of the SIV-B that similarity ends.
so you contend they changed inclinations when that rocket fired?

No contention, just a fact
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 22, 2018, 08:35:23 AM
I would love if anyone of you could explain why NASA's test of the orion was on an identical inclination of the apollo trajectories and why it required greater shielding for future lunar missions if the apollo shielding was so effective in transiting the VAB and lunar operations.  Why fix that which is not broken?  How does that work in your mind.  Apollo ventured out in solar maximum and received a piddling of an exposure.  What was not to love about that?

You are trolling.  Many people here have attempted to explain why the trajectories of Orion and Apollo were different and this is the last time I will attempt.
Orion has been built with at least two generations of electronics advanced as those of Apollo.  The trajectory of Orion was to test the whether shielding would protect the electronics in the worst environment the engineers could think of the dense proton radiation (if that is the correct term) while Apollo engineers wished to avoid as much of the VARB as they could.  It is simple to understand once you get over your ignorance of orbital mechanics.  I suggested getting a copy of Kerbal Space Program and one other member suggested it also.  Further I suggest you discontinue posting until you have had a little experience with it.  You are wrong on so many levels concerning Apollo.
In your next post you requested members join you on Facebook to chat without Abaddon's thoughts, well he may come across a little rough, but he is right on in his ideas.  Perhaps he is weary of dealing with likes of HB's.  I get a chuckle out of his comments that needle you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 22, 2018, 08:56:35 AM
Looking under NASA's dress are we?  So because NASA did not outline the source of it's research in the article you discount it as fictitious.  In the absence of any conflicting data what choice have you but to accept it at its face value?

Tim, no-one is discounting it as fictitious. The point you are (I assume at this stage deliberately) refusing to grasp is that the 0.24mGy/day is stated to be an average, and without any information regarding what it is an average of, you cannot simply call it a minimum, a rate for the year, or whatever you want it to be. It is an average taken over the period of Apollo, with no accompanying data as to the range recorded to derive that average from. It is not a minimum. You are the only one calling it that. Ever.

Jason, thank you for restating that.  It has amazed me that averages still have tim over the edge.  Averages mean some values are higher and some are lower.  I know you know this but this fact has been missed by tim.  Perhaps a basic math course would help?  Just saying.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 22, 2018, 09:02:58 AM
I am on facebook.  If any of you would like a one on one without the incessant and annoying chatter of Abaddon then send me a friend request and we can explore the depths of this subject sans the peanut gallery.
No. You want to adjourn to a venue where YOU can control any discussion. This is a transparent tactic to try to dodge the hard questions you are unable to handle RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.

If, as has been demonstrated, you cannot handle those questions right here, what are the chances that you will fare better in a venue where you have editorial control? None.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 22, 2018, 09:34:32 AM
I am on facebook.  If any of you would like a one on one without the incessant and annoying chatter of Abaddon then send me a friend request and we can explore the depths of this subject sans the peanut gallery.
No. You want to adjourn to a venue where YOU can control any discussion. This is a transparent tactic to try to dodge the hard questions you are unable to handle RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.

If, as has been demonstrated, you cannot handle those questions right here, what are the chances that you will fare better in a venue where you have editorial control? None.

it also becomes clear that he can dish it out, but can't take it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 22, 2018, 09:56:45 AM
My bold represents another question that has not been answered which links to my previous questions, which have still not been answered.

2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.

4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.

5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?


Further, the geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane at TLI are inclined to each other.

How does this effect the distribution of radiation relative to the orbital plane?

Tim: Please answer all my questions.

Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?

Timfinch,

I have placed you under moderation until you answer all of Luke's and Jason's questions above to their satisfaction. Until you have done so your posts will require my approval before they can appear in the forum.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 22, 2018, 09:59:25 AM
So realizing that NASA itself claims a baseline GCR level (.24 mgy/day)

No, they do not claim that is a baseline level, they claim that is an average level during the period of Apollo. Which bit of that is confusing for you?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 22, 2018, 10:02:28 AM
On the surface it would seem if the environment the equipment was in was safe for people then the equipment itself would be safe from radiation.  I can't imagine radiation that could harm equipment is safe for people.

Your failure of imagination is not our concern. The more minaturised and sensitive our electronics become, the more they are vulnerable to radiaiton, whether that be in terms of damage or spurious readings. I worked for years on a very sensitive charge detector that would randomly spike way off the normal scale even when nothing was actually generating charge to be detcted. Why? Best hypothesis was muons from cosminc rays hitting the detector.

Furthermore, electronic systems are not self healing. Humans suffer radiation damage when the damage exceeds the natural ability of the repair mechanisms to correct it. Electronic have no repair mechaniss, so damage is permanent and cumulative.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 22, 2018, 10:03:15 AM
The Crater graph has a median value of .23 mgy/day.

And many ten-day periods significantly lower than that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 22, 2018, 10:05:57 AM
For all of you that believe the Apollo craft followed some obscure path to avoid the highest radiation area I extend a challenge to you.  Show the data.

Why? You've been given it. You won't accept it anyway. You've been shown data about several things and you are discounting it. You've been shown a model of two coplanar ellipses interacting differently with an inclined torus and called it a 'spatial reasoning fail'.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 22, 2018, 10:07:07 AM
Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 22, 2018, 10:13:06 AM
Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?

I've been discussing this with another forum member in private, just to clarify my thinking. Since Tim is moderated, can you explain where you are going with the line of question. I think it marries with mine. It would be appreciated for the sake of doing some actual learning.

I really did like the cardboard model.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 22, 2018, 10:18:05 AM
Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?


Thanks, Jason, I'll add it to the list.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 22, 2018, 10:21:07 AM
[thread drift]
I'd love to see Timfinch trying get his head around the lunar resonant orbit that the recently launched TESS planet hunter will employ. I predict that his noodle would be baked in about 10 seconds flat!

https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5333

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-explorer-mission-chooses-the-just-right-orbit
(https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/tess-orbit.jpg)

[/thread drift]
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 22, 2018, 10:26:50 AM
Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?

I've been discussing this with another forum member in private, just to clarify my thinking. Since Tim is moderated, can you explain where you are going with the line of question. I think it marries with mine. It would be appreciated for the sake of doing some actual learning.

I really did like the cardboard model.

I'm glad you liked the model. The reason for my question is that, since the belts and the orbits are inclined with respect to each other, it is quite possible from the same orbit to either fire yourself into an 'up and over' path or a 'diving straight into it' path, depending on where you start.

Of course, the model I made showed you can do either of those even if you do happen to fire your engines at the same point. All depends on the relative positions of everything.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 22, 2018, 10:29:38 AM
Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?

I've been discussing this with another forum member in private, just to clarify my thinking. Since Tim is moderated, can you explain where you are going with the line of question. I think it marries with mine. It would be appreciated for the sake of doing some actual learning.

I really did like the cardboard model.

I'm glad you liked the model. The reason for my question is that, since the belts and the orbits are inclined with respect to each other, it is quite possible from the same orbit to either fire yourself into an 'up and over' path or a 'diving straight into it' path, depending on where you start.

Of course, the model I made showed you can do either of those even if you do happen to fire your engines at the same point. All depends on the relative positions of everything.

And which way the engine is pointing with reference to the current trajectory of the engine.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 22, 2018, 10:33:18 AM
I'm glad you liked the model. The reason for my question is that, since the belts and the orbits are inclined with respect to each other, it is quite possible from the same orbit to either fire yourself into an 'up and over' path or a 'diving straight into it' path, depending on where you start.

I discussed exactly this point with molesworth by PM.

I asked the question in a more cryptic manner (I think). Where TLI burn takes place can drive you straight into the proton region or up and over - so to speak.

Quote
Further, the geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane at TLI are inclined to each other.

How does this effect the distribution of radiation relative to the orbital plane?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 22, 2018, 10:34:52 AM
And which way the engine is pointing with reference to the current trajectory of the engine.

... and thanks for all your fine links you sent me. I really need to buy KSP after this.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 22, 2018, 10:50:08 AM
Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?

I've been discussing this with another forum member in private, just to clarify my thinking. Since Tim is moderated, can you explain where you are going with the line of question. I think it marries with mine. It would be appreciated for the sake of doing some actual learning.

I really did like the cardboard model.

I'm glad you liked the model. The reason for my question is that, since the belts and the orbits are inclined with respect to each other, it is quite possible from the same orbit to either fire yourself into an 'up and over' path or a 'diving straight into it' path, depending on where you start.

Of course, the model I made showed you can do either of those even if you do happen to fire your engines at the same point. All depends on the relative positions of everything.

And which way the engine is pointing with reference to the current trajectory of the engine.

This document should help:

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm

Most of the inclinations are different to Orion, however the flight path angle is what makes the big difference.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 22, 2018, 10:52:00 AM
And which way the engine is pointing with reference to the current trajectory of the engine.

... and thanks for all your fine links you sent me. I really need to buy KSP after this.
I love KSP. On the surface it looks like a silly game but I've learned a lot from it. It really helps me visualize orbits etc.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 22, 2018, 10:52:14 AM
I'd love to see Timfinch trying get his head around the lunar resonant orbit that the recently launched TESS planet hunter will employ. I predict that his noodle would be baked in about 10 seconds flat!

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 22, 2018, 10:56:10 AM
I love KSP. On the surface it looks like a silly game but I've learned a lot from it. It really helps me visualize orbits etc.

I've played, but don't own. Orbital mechanics can be very counter intuitive, but then so can most of the real world. Trying to explain it with common sense doesn't cut the Coleman's (mustard). I have to admit, I find the 3D visualisation very difficult, but that's what is needed to understand the problem of orbits. Playing with KSP has helped.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 22, 2018, 10:56:42 AM
Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?

I've been discussing this with another forum member in private, just to clarify my thinking. Since Tim is moderated, can you explain where you are going with the line of question. I think it marries with mine. It would be appreciated for the sake of doing some actual learning.

I really did like the cardboard model.

I'm glad you liked the model. The reason for my question is that, since the belts and the orbits are inclined with respect to each other, it is quite possible from the same orbit to either fire yourself into an 'up and over' path or a 'diving straight into it' path, depending on where you start.

Of course, the model I made showed you can do either of those even if you do happen to fire your engines at the same point. All depends on the relative positions of everything.

And which way the engine is pointing with reference to the current trajectory of the engine.

This document should help:

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm

Most of the inclinations are different to Orion, however the flight path angle is what makes the big difference.
Yes the 7 degree starts immediately and the distances are significant after the 347 sec burn!  Of course that distance continues to get larger as time increases.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 22, 2018, 11:03:40 AM
I'd love to see Timfinch trying get his head around the lunar resonant orbit that the recently launched TESS planet hunter will employ. I predict that his noodle would be baked in about 10 seconds flat!



I do like Scott's videos and have him subscribed on YT.  And look tim the orbit inclination/plane CHANGED as the spacecraft obtained a gravity boost from the Moon!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 01:16:15 PM
There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension.  It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.

Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.
You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB.  Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.

I gave you a view perpendicular to the 30 degree inclination. Your confusion is either you trolling or you are even more ignorant than you appear to be.

(https://i.imgur.com/7aI1S9U.jpg)

The Apollo speed takes it into the VAB at the same elevation but not the same place. It's called 3D ::)
To further add to this nonsense, the Apollo TLI burns specifically fired to accentuate the position of the magnetic pole on the opposite side of the Earth, to achieve even more elevation(relative to the belts). I have no reason to suppose that Orion did that or any reason for doing so.

Read it and respond.
It matters not at what radial point you enter the VAB.  The incident inclination determines the path through the regions.  pick any point along the circle and it is the same as any other point as long as the plane of travel through the VAB is the same.

So what, nobody has denied that. You are deliberately avoiding the big elephant sitting on your lap!

See the bit where Orion circles back through the centre of the belts? See the Apollo TLI does not.

You are wrong. You are absolutely hopeless on this subject.

I have bolded the point that you keep bringing up, but avoided this concerning it.

Are the two trajectories the same, yes or no?
Does Orion go through the dense region of the stronger belt, yes or no?
Let's try to be technically correct in our illustrations.  remember that It is not the ellipses that are identical rather it it the plane of the ellipses that are identical.  You struggle with the spatial awareness to properly evaluate the data before.  I wish I could help.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 01:26:40 PM
The Dude will not abide!  Remove the moderation now or I am out.  I will leave you with your delusions.  I have no motive beyond the truth but it is obvious you have no stomach for it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 22, 2018, 01:38:44 PM
So much of our existence is learned and not real.  The color blue did not exist until about 4 hundred years ago.  the sky used to be clear until the color blue was invented and learned.

Where did you learn physics. Yowtch!
I commented on that one earlier. If he really believes that. . . wow . . . that's such a brain hurting comment I don't know where to begin. :o

I'll give him benefit of doubt and assume this is a riff off one of those pop psychology memes, made confusing by poor word choice.

Worse.  Ramtha.  This is one of the points raised in What the Bleep Do We Know? by local (to me) charlatan J. Z. Knight, whose understanding of quantum physics is what you'd expect of someone claiming to channel a 35,000-year-old Lemurian warrior.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 22, 2018, 02:12:56 PM
...
I'll give him benefit of doubt and assume this is a riff off one of those pop psychology memes, made confusing by poor word choice.

Worse.  Ramtha.  This is one of the points raised in What the Bleep Do We Know? by local (to me) charlatan J. Z. Knight, whose understanding of quantum physics is what you'd expect of someone claiming to channel a 35,000-year-old Lemurian warrior.

I had to look that one up, new to me
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 22, 2018, 02:38:25 PM
Worse.  Ramtha.  This is one of the points raised in What the Bleep Do We Know? by local (to me) charlatan J. Z. Knight, whose understanding of quantum physics is what you'd expect of someone claiming to channel a 35,000-year-old Lemurian warrior.
Conan the Barbarian??  ;D
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 02:39:29 PM
I always liked the Lemurians. First, because out of the big three (Atlantis, Mu, Lemuria) that one had a better than most reason to invent a giant continent in the first place.

Second is because I can't help of thinking something like the Furlings that SG1's Jack O'Neil was always terrified they'd meet some day...little furry creatures with big eyes and long tails, adorable in their Roman togas holding their Kirby-esque crystal magic staffs in their clawed digits.

Past that, though, don't get me started. It goes far too quickly into some very ugly corners.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 22, 2018, 02:42:44 PM
Past that, though, don't get me started. It goes far too quickly into some very ugly corners.

Yeah, I could tell a ton of Ramtha stories.  Though the one that always makes me laugh is that the compound has this beautiful wall with copper bands every so many feet to "keep out negative vibrations."  Which apparently only come in through the front, because the rest of the property is surrounded by ordinary chain link.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 02:56:23 PM
And while I'm at it, I'm going to own up that the .22/.24 isn't quite the slam dunk I made it out to be. The original figure Tim was cribbing was "1.0 or 0.6" (one in flight, one lunar surface). Tim multiplied the former to get his fabulous ".24 mgy/day." It LOOKS like a spurious assumption of more accuracy than the source allows, but it is still within the same number of digits as the source.

Thing is, that "1.0" could have been rounded from "0.95" or "1.04" -- after multiplying he would get a range from .228 to .250 . I feel safe in assuming the significant digits of his source for the total A11 reading is similar.

The number of digits in his source are insufficient to support his assumption that the ".02 mgy/day" difference between the numbers he arrived at has any significance.

And that's before you bring in such little quibbling bits as the problem doing a straight-line conversion from REM to Gray, which makes the error bars even larger.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 03:04:04 PM
And while I'm at it, I'm going to own up that the .22/.24 isn't quite the slam dunk I made it out to be. The original figure Tim was cribbing was "1.0 or 0.6" (one in flight, one lunar surface). Tim multiplied the former to get his fabulous ".24 mgy/day." It LOOKS like a spurious assumption of more accuracy than the source allows, but it is still within the same number of digits as the source.

Thing is, that "1.0" could have been rounded from "0.95" or "1.04" -- after multiplying he would get a range from .228 to .250 . I feel safe in assuming the significant digits of his source for the total A11 reading is similar.

The number of digits in his source are insufficient to support his assumption that the ".02 mgy/day" difference between the numbers he arrived at has any significance.

And that's before you bring in such little quibbling bits as the problem doing a straight-line conversion from REM to Gray, which makes the error bars even larger.
It matters not.  Choose the low end or the high end.  Either is definitive proof of a hoax.  There is no room to add the exposure from the VAB transit or for the time spent in lunar orbit and on the lunar surface.  Unless you contend the apollo received no radiation from either then you have no basis for believing the mission dose is indicative of anything but a LEO mission.  Show some intellectual integrity and own up to the deceit.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 03:10:13 PM
My example from last night would have been better if I'd used the request we sometimes get of a part that's "2.54mm" long. Unit conversions, so much fun.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 22, 2018, 03:15:02 PM
I am not your research boy or your pupil.  I have no obligation to demonstrate anything to you.  I have presented evidence of my position and all you can do is question my understanding of said evidence.  You refuse to accept the evidence or provide contradictory evidence to invalidate it.  All your time is spent in futile attempts to deflect or in obsequios displays to your fellow sycophants.  There is not a single one of you deserving of my time.  Think of me when your falsehoods can no longer be sustained by your diversion and your deceit.  You know I will be smiling.  Tim out!  Losers....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 22, 2018, 03:34:05 PM
I am not your research boy or your pupil.  I have no obligation to demonstrate anything to you.  I have presented evidence of my position and all you can do is question my understanding of said evidence.  You refuse to accept the evidence or provide contradictory evidence to invalidate it.  All your time is spent in futile attempts to deflect or in obsequios displays to your fellow sycophants.  There is not a single one of you deserving of my time.  Think of me when your falsehoods can no longer be sustained by your diversion and your deceit.  You know I will be smiling.  Tim out!  Losers....

Let the record show that Timfinch has decided to tuck tail and run rather than answer questions. Although to be more accurate, he said he is leaving, but he also created a new user account (which I have rejected). What was that you were saying about "intellectual honesty", Tim?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 22, 2018, 03:56:04 PM
Methinks tim fails on both parts of intellectual and honesty.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 22, 2018, 04:04:49 PM
I am not your research boy or your pupil. I have no obligation to demonstrate anything to you.

except, you kind of are if going to make a claim. Produce the evidence to support your claim, or do one. Seems you chose the latter.

Quote
I have presented evidence of my position and all you can do is question my understanding of said evidence.

Because you either misrepresented the evidence or misunderstood it. Sometimes both.

Quote
  You refuse to accept the evidence or provide contradictory evidence to invalidate it. 

The evidence was accepted, it was your interpretation of it that was rejected and contradictory evidence was supplied to you repeatedly.

Quote
All your time is spent in futile attempts to deflect or in obsequios displays to your fellow sycophants. 

The only futility was in trying to educate a troll, and teach it how to spell.

Quote
There is not a single one of you deserving of my time. 

Excellent news.

Quote
Think of me when your falsehoods can no longer be sustained by your diversion and your deceit.  You know I will be smiling.  Tim out!  Losers....

Gutless coward it is then.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 22, 2018, 04:08:26 PM
I am not your research boy or your pupil.  I have no obligation to demonstrate anything to you.  I have presented evidence of my position and all you can do is question my understanding of said evidence.  You refuse to accept the evidence or provide contradictory evidence to invalidate it.  All your time is spent in futile attempts to deflect or in obsequios displays to your fellow sycophants.  There is not a single one of you deserving of my time.  Think of me when your falsehoods can no longer be sustained by your diversion and your deceit.  You know I will be smiling.  Tim out!  Losers....


(http://archive.cr3ation.co.uk/jpg/flunce.jpg)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on April 22, 2018, 04:37:56 PM
Does tim hold the record for most flounces in a single thread?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 22, 2018, 04:46:17 PM
I am not your research boy or your pupil.

Translation: no I won't go and look for anyhting you suggest because I lack the courage and integrity to admit I am wrong.

Quote
I have no obligation to demonstrate anything to you.

Wrong. If you make a claim you carry an obligation to show you have understood it and its implications. Despite page after page of waffle you failed to meet this obligation.

Quote
I have presented evidence of my position and all you can do is question my understanding of said evidence.

Yeah, that tends to happen when you can't tell the difference between an average and a minimum.

Quote
You refuse to accept the evidence

Wrong: we refuse to accept your interpretation of the evidence. See the 'average/minimum/ confusion coment above for on of the many reasons for this.

Quote
or provide contradictory evidence to invalidate it.

Wrong. Evidence has been provided, you simply refuse to accept it.

Quote
All your time is spent in futile attempts to deflect or in obsequios displays to your fellow sycophants.

There is no deflection when, for example, making a simple card model to show that coplanar ellipses do not have 'similar' flight paths, especially when it comes to interations with an inclined concentric torus.

Quote
There is not a single one of you deserving of my time.

Strange that you only come to this conclusion when given the simple demand to answer some questions which are inherently relevant to your claim, despite several days of literally hour after hour of positing and commenting. I conclude that you simply cannot answer the questions posed, therefore your conclusions are not supported by evidence of your own understanding of the issues.

Quote
Think of me when your falsehoods can no longer be sustained by your diversion and your deceit.  You know I will be smiling.

Your smiles are irrelvant, since they are the smiles of a man who is unable to conceive that he might not be a world expert on a subject and cannot bear to be shown up by others who are.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 22, 2018, 04:47:23 PM
Does tim hold the record for most flounces in a single thread?

♪I could have flounced all night, I could have flounced all night, and still have flounced some more~
I could have spread my wings, claimed a thousand things, that were all claimed before♫
With apologies to the makers of My Fair Lady
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 22, 2018, 04:50:53 PM
I'll be honest, I bluffed my way through parts of that discussion on orbital mechanics. You can ask molesworth and bknight. I had to send a few PMs out to clarify a few issues. Thanks again for the model Jason, that was most intuitive.

Mag40's link:  https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm

This has kept me busy today reading through the medical kits, the mass of the astronauts before and after, the illnesses and ailments they suffered (7 blocked Eustachian tubes and some rhinitis). I was most intrigued that the bio med report suggests that the temperature on Apollo 13 was lower than that recorded by sensors.

Just so much to be gotten again.

Did anyone notice that Jay flounced too? My reckoning is that he got lost on log graphs and gave in.  ;D
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 22, 2018, 05:01:13 PM
Does tim hold the record for most flounces in a single thread?

In all seriousness, the running away to Google and finding new evidence in response to our answers was the most irritating aspect. Consider the move from CRaTER data to the NASA report. That was evident of him moving the goalposts following the whole discussion around his misinterpretation of the graph, the data and solar cycle issue. Rather than put his hand up and say I was wrong, he had to make up some story about log graphs while finding fresh data.

The real time discussions showed he could not answer the questions, and members here were not going to let him off the hook.

The whole 3D-2D thing toward the end needed closing down. It was getting seriously childish on his part. I felt he was simply getting his jollies after making such a hash of the CRaTER issue and the SAA polar orbit debacle, and it was his only way of saving face.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 22, 2018, 05:04:09 PM
(Actually, though, if you wanted to be accurate, the VARB is deformed by the solar wind. But we haven't been discussing that.)

Thanks for saying that.  I have been absent for a few days, and am trying to catch up.  When I read timfinch's question, I was shouting at my screen, and finally came upon your reply.  (sarcasm mode on) Obviously someone who knows so much more than all the accredited experts in the world should have already known that.  (mode off)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 22, 2018, 05:11:33 PM
(Actually, though, if you wanted to be accurate, the VARB is deformed by the solar wind. But we haven't been discussing that.)

Thanks for saying that.  I have been absent for a few days, and am trying to catch up.  When I read timfinch's question, I was shouting at my screen, and finally came upon your reply.  (sarcasm mode on) Obviously someone who knows so much more than all the accredited experts in the world should have already known that.  (mode off)

I did make reference to the misshapen magnetosphere a while ago, but forgot pick up on it again when Tim was insisting the radiation was uniform with radius.

The Earth's magnetosphere has influence on the radiation environment on the far side of the Moon and beyond.

Tim's reply:

I just read that scientist originally thought the tail of earth's magnetosphere should partially shield the moon from GCR flux but it turns out it provides no shielding to the high energy flux of GCR whatsoever and this is born out by the CraTer data.  Cislunar space is deep space.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 22, 2018, 05:38:27 PM
Raven, this Bud is for you:  http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/

MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.
Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.

I cannot (or am actually too lazy to) verify the statement, but I found it interesting to read the one comment listed in tim's reference, and makes me wonder if he bothered to check it out.  That's a rhetorical question.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 22, 2018, 05:43:41 PM
I'll be honest, I bluffed my way through parts of that discussion on orbital mechanics. You can ask molesworth and bknight. I had to send a few PMs out to clarify a few issues. Thanks again for the model Jason, that was most intuitive.

Mag40's link:  https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm

This has kept me busy today reading through the medical kits, the mass of the astronauts before and after, the illnesses and ailments they suffered (7 blocked Eustachian tubes and some rhinitis). I was most intrigued that the bio med report suggests that the temperature on Apollo 13 was lower than that recorded by sensors.

Just so much to be gotten again.

Did anyone notice that Jay flounced too? My reckoning is that he got lost on log graphs and gave in.  ;D

I believe that Jay observed him being a troll and discontinued the madness long before any of us.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 22, 2018, 05:45:21 PM
I believe that Jay observed him being a troll and discontinued the madness long before any of us.

Hence my  ;D face. Jay did indeed make that sentiment known.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 22, 2018, 05:47:34 PM
NOMUSE,  do you accept that GCR for apollo 11 was .24 mgy/day or do you have a different number that you think is more appropriate?

No.  Your quoted level was for an AVERAGE of 1.0 mR/hr, and the accuracy of most (without knowing the specific type, it is impossible to ascertain exactly) radiac meters at the time was approximately plus or minus 20%.  An additional note is they said levels could double during solar minimum; whereas, we have since learned that they are more likely to quadruple, or even be higher.  That's what better instruments and more data can do for you.
Title: Read this Tim
Post by: Mag40 on April 22, 2018, 06:24:23 PM
I want to summarise a few replies I have made, that clearly Tim has no intention of acknowledging properly:

a) You assessed the GCR levels in cis-lunar space by multiplying the quoted NASA hourly figure by 24. With you so far.
b) You then converted this to Greys. The conversion is not as accurate as it appears, but whatever.
c) What you fail to realise is that the figure quoted in the Radiation Report from NASA is extrapolated from the accumulation of the missions from Apollo 8/10/11/12/13/14/15 total hours in cis-lunar space and in and around the Moon. This figure is then applied to the total doses of the astronauts.
d) The actual figure of 1 mr/h that you use as your yardstick is taken from the very doses that you claim as faked.

If you cannot see the inherent problem here, then nothing can possibly get through to you.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 22, 2018, 06:39:50 PM
Let's try to be technically correct in our illustrations.  remember that It is not the ellipses that are identical rather it it the plane of the ellipses that are identical.  You struggle with the spatial awareness to properly evaluate the data before.  I wish I could help.

Tim, you are only moderated, so you can still answer questions and if you answer them, directly and honestly I believe LO will release your posts.

Orbits represented as 2D ellipses, overlaid over pictures of the VAB regions do not show the full picture. In reality, when observed from the 3D space in which we reside, you actually have a spaceship travelling along the surface of an ellipsoid and the VAB as a torus intersecting the volume of space described by the ellipsoid. You need to work out where the path (line integral) through the ellipsoid has common coordinates with the torus volume.

The orbital plane of TLI is inclined to the VAB torus. This means if I look down from above the orbital path, the path could appear to pass through the high energy proton region. If I look at the same orbit from a side view it could appear to pass over the top.

Drawing a 3D orbit as an ellipse is problematic as all you are really doing is taking a section through the ellipsoid volume on which the space craft moves. You can obtain an infinite number of ellipses (in theory). This is where your idea of 2D space being adequate to describe 3D space falls over.

When you look down on an orbit represented as an ellipse, you need to understand that progression along in the x-y plane is accompanied with a z change (there is a case mathematically where that does not happen).

In the case of the Apollo ellipse, the initial part of the outward bound ellipse would be where the Apollo craft also moves out of the page (your monitor), and takes the spacecraft over the top of the VAB.

Take it to the extreme, imagine an an orbit that is inclined such that the space craft goes straight through the hole of the torus, over the top of the VAB, underneath the VAB and back through the hole on the other side. As Abaddon keeps explaining you can put your finger through a hole doughnut. Looking from the side view the craft orbits the doughnut, but from the top view it looks like it passes through the dough. The overhead perspective means we lose  information. Just as much as a side view does not tell us how far into or out of our monitor the spacecraft appears.

Do you see this point now?

Title: Re: Read this Tim
Post by: MBDK on April 22, 2018, 06:43:41 PM
I want to summarise a few replies I have made, that clearly Tim has no intention of acknowledging properly:

a) You assessed the GCR levels in cis-lunar space by multiplying the quoted NASA hourly figure by 24. With you so far.
b) You then converted this to Greys. The conversion is not as accurate as it appears, but whatever.
c) What you fail to realise is that the figure quoted in the Radiation Report from NASA is extrapolated from the accumulation of the missions from Apollo 8/10/11/12/13/14/15 total hours in cis-lunar space and in and around the Moon. This figure is then applied to the total doses of the astronauts.
d) The actual figure of 1 mr/h that you use as your yardstick is taken from the very doses that you claim as faked.

If you cannot see the inherent problem here, then nothing can possibly get through to you.
IMHO, c and d = game, set and match. 

Makes me legitimately wonder if timfinch didn't accidentally stumble upon that and decide to make his churlish exit before someone pointed that out, as you just did.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 22, 2018, 07:11:52 PM
I believe that Jay observed him being a troll and discontinued the madness long before any of us.

Hence my  ;D face. Jay did indeed make that sentiment known.

But of course. 8)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 22, 2018, 07:20:01 PM
(Actually, though, if you wanted to be accurate, the VARB is deformed by the solar wind. But we haven't been discussing that.)

Thanks for saying that.  I have been absent for a few days, and am trying to catch up.  When I read timfinch's question, I was shouting at my screen, and finally came upon your reply.  (sarcasm mode on) Obviously someone who knows so much more than all the accredited experts in the world should have already known that.  (mode off)

I wonder whether the solar wind shrinks the "height" of the VARB, looking at a side view.  I had never seen anything on this, and until this thread I hadn't considered this possibility.  If that were the case and I'm speculating here, then the trajectory of Apollo would have left the VARB earlier than Bob B's calculation.

My two cents, Tim no one on this board doubted the data you presented.  However, everyone questioned your understanding and manipulation of the data and therefore any conclusions that you drew rfom your mistakes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 22, 2018, 07:42:21 PM
And while I'm at it, I'm going to own up that the .22/.24 isn't quite the slam dunk I made it out to be. The original figure Tim was cribbing was "1.0 or 0.6" (one in flight, one lunar surface). Tim multiplied the former to get his fabulous ".24 mgy/day." It LOOKS like a spurious assumption of more accuracy than the source allows, but it is still within the same number of digits as the source.

Thing is, that "1.0" could have been rounded from "0.95" or "1.04" -- after multiplying he would get a range from .228 to .250 . I feel safe in assuming the significant digits of his source for the total A11 reading is similar.

The number of digits in his source are insufficient to support his assumption that the ".02 mgy/day" difference between the numbers he arrived at has any significance.

And that's before you bring in such little quibbling bits as the problem doing a straight-line conversion from REM to Gray, which makes the error bars even larger.
It matters not.  Choose the low end or the high end.  Either is definitive proof of a hoax.  There is no room to add the exposure from the VAB transit or for the time spent in lunar orbit and on the lunar surface.  Unless you contend the apollo received no radiation from either then you have no basis for believing the mission dose is indicative of anything but a LEO mission.  Show some intellectual integrity and own up to the deceit.

First, goalpost shift.

Originally Tim presented this single comparison as being suspicious all by itself.

Second, when he shifted to using the CRATER data, even though he crowed about leaving out CREEP neutrons et al, he also left out all shielding effects of the spacecraft.

He's trying to present this in his over-the-shoulder post-flounce post as the question already being in doubt and all the new evidence that might be admitted is all on the same side. It isn't. The number of things he hasn't considered that have a negative impact on the final dosimetry reading is just as great.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 22, 2018, 08:17:09 PM
I wonder whether the solar wind shrinks the "height" of the VARB, looking at a side view.  I had never seen anything on this, and until this thread I hadn't considered this possibility.  If that were the case and I'm speculating here, then the trajectory of Apollo would have left the VARB earlier than Bob B's calculation.

As you know, Bob used the AE8 and AP8 model, which is exactly what it says on the tin, it is a model. It has its drawbacks, but has been constructed over many years based on improvements to data. I'm sure the engineers here will discuss its use in more detail.

Tim has a very simplistic view of the VABs. I'm really no expert, but I know the VABs are misshapen by solar activity, but thought it was more to do with interactions between the sun and Earth's magnetic field, rather than the solar wind buffeting the particles in the VAB (so to speak). Although an increase in the solar wind is linked to the sun undergoing magnetic changes.

In view of your speculation, its swings and roundabouts as the VABs are very dynamic. Another example of VAB dynamics are whistler waves. The VABs are essentially a plasma, and the interactions with solar particles and the magnetic field of the sun is complex. An increase in the solar wind can inject extra particles into the VAB. This can cause separation in the plasma and whistlers waves. In this case the proportion of higher energy electrons might increase as the electrons 'surf' along the wave. Therefore, the time in the VAB might become a little shorter, but the number of high energy particles at the horns might also increase, but these higher electrons will be localised along 'channels' in the plasma.

Going back to the line of questioning: The VAB is not a simple volume of space. There are many processes that occur to change the radiation in the VAB. So to make hand waving arguments about radiation uniformity is grossly incorrect. To correlate scientific data and actual dosimeter readings is beyond the boundaries of acceptable analysis, for all the reasons discussed (i.e. detector differences, improvements in detection, detector type, detector location, different solar cycles, taking averages... etc).

The main property of the outer belts, which Apollo skirted with TLI,  is that it's a region of electrons. The flux of the higher energy electrons drops very quickly; and the lower energy electrons are readily shielded.

I think you are correct though, and your speculation is applicable in context of this thread. Tim was fallacious in strictly adhering to the results of scientific data and applying his extrapolations to actual events almost 50 years ago. He does not understand the limitations of the models and the caveats associated with the scientific literature. To apply them in such a manner to dismiss Apollo is the same old HB tactic that has failed time and time again, namely to cherry pick and quote mine in order to prove a case based on a fallacy of equivalence. Your whataboutery is indeed valid to this discussion, if only to highlight the complexity of the problem and how hand waving simplifications do not deserve merit.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 22, 2018, 08:35:01 PM
I knew that Bob had used the AE8 and AP8 model, as his web site indicated so.  He even indicated that integration of the data would be more precise, but his small body calculations were accurate enough and the conclusion of 0.16 rads from both in and out bound travels in minor in the overall average dosimeter reading of A11.
Thanks for the description
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 22, 2018, 10:19:42 PM
Tim has a very simplistic view of the VABs.

Tim has a very simplistic view of everything.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 22, 2018, 10:56:53 PM
Wahey. Things move fast. AIUI tim has already attempted a sock. I hope that LO does not ban tim, because it is a service to humanity to illustrate how utterly bovine these claims really are. Tim is likely not so dim as his claims or internet persona claims to be.  It is, to some extent, a responsibility on everyone here to make plain to casual readers exactly how wrong the nonsense claims are. I want to live in a world where truth has more value than lies, where science has more value than superstition, where facts carry more weight than baloney.

That world will never exist unless honest people step up and fight for it. So I do.

Oh, hi, ben, any opinion? No?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 22, 2018, 11:38:09 PM
I am not your research boy or your pupil.  I have no obligation to demonstrate anything to you.  I have presented evidence of my position and all you can do is question my understanding of said evidence.  You refuse to accept the evidence or provide contradictory evidence to invalidate it.  All your time is spent in futile attempts to deflect or in obsequios displays to your fellow sycophants.  There is not a single one of you deserving of my time.  Think of me when your falsehoods can no longer be sustained by your diversion and your deceit.  You know I will be smiling.  Tim out!  Losers....

I must say, that I am ashamed of myself (somewhat).  For a troll, who is sustained by feeding off the frustration of others, has just choked on his own.  I must admit I felt more than some satisfaction in that realization, and I really don't like to think of myself that way (but it is what it is).  Instead, I prefer to keep my emotions in a lower energy field, and wish I would have started with the more subdued sentiment that currently prevails:  In the immortal words of Mr. T, "I pity the fool!"
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 23, 2018, 01:57:25 AM
Wahey. Things move fast. AIUI tim has already attempted a sock. I hope that LO does not ban tim, because it is a service to humanity to illustrate how utterly bovine these claims really are. Tim is likely not so dim as his claims or internet persona claims to be.  It is, to some extent, a responsibility on everyone here to make plain to casual readers exactly how wrong the nonsense claims are. I want to live in a world where truth has more value than lies, where science has more value than superstition, where facts carry more weight than baloney.

That world will never exist unless honest people step up and fight for it. So I do.

Oh, hi, ben, any opinion? No?

I have no opinion abiddon. If Tim has decided to go that's fine by me. Overdue in my opinion. I have already blocked him of fb.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 23, 2018, 02:47:55 AM
benparry, Hi.  I just wanted to say that from my limited involvement, it appears that any assumption directed at you and your relationship (or ex-relationship, as it seems to now stand) with timfinch are circumstantial, at best.  I like to see fairly solid evidence, before I claim a conclusion.  There is allowance for conjecture prior to that, but it must be emphasized that conjecture is purely brainstorming until evidence provides direction.  However, as a friendly nudge, I would also like to point out that the purposeful misspelling of someone's name (as in abiddon, rather than Abbadon) can be considered rude and derogatory.  I believe this was unintentional on your part, as I am notoriously bad at spelling myself (thank goodness for spellcheck).

Regardless, I hope you continue to try to learn and do the right thing(s).  That's MY own plan, anyway.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 23, 2018, 03:21:30 AM
benparry, Hi.  I just wanted to say that from my limited involvement, it appears that any assumption directed at you and your relationship (or ex-relationship, as it seems to now stand) with timfinch are circumstantial, at best.  I like to see fairly solid evidence, before I claim a conclusion.  There is allowance for conjecture prior to that, but it must be emphasized that conjecture is purely brainstorming until evidence provides direction.  However, as a friendly nudge, I would also like to point out that the purposeful misspelling of someone's name (as in abiddon, rather than Abbadon) can be considered rude and derogatory.  I believe this was unintentional on your part, as I am notoriously bad at spelling myself (thank goodness for spellcheck).

Regardless, I hope you continue to try to learn and do the right thing(s).  That's MY own plan, anyway.  Cheers!

Hi MBDK

yes i have been shown a few times my spelling is poor and i have spelt Abbadon's name wrong twice now lol

my interest in apollo go's way past the radiation issue and i have learnt a lot both from this thread and others here and other websites.

as i said the only reason i originally asked here is because i was unable to completley refute Tim's claims on my own. this was mainly because of lack of understanding of the material.

many thanks also to you for any answers you may have provided.

Ben
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 23, 2018, 06:39:30 AM
He will no doubt go back into his FB or YT claiming his voice of reason was shuttered and his beliefs were not disproved.  Therefore Apollo astronauts never left LEO  and the moon landings were faked.

ETA of course I have seen this with our friend Baker and the rest of you guys have probably seen more than that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on April 23, 2018, 07:22:57 AM
He will no doubt go back into his FB or YT claiming his voice of reason was shuttered and his beliefs were not disproved.  Therefore Apollo astronauts never left LEO  and the moon landings were faked.

ETA of course I have seen this with our friend Baker and the rest of you guys have probably seen more than that.

In Baker's case, IIRC, he was mentally ill. Criminally mentally ill (https://www.independent.com/news/2013/dec/12/former-ucsb-employee-neil-baker-sentenced-probatio/) too.

Timfinch is more of your common-or-garden intellectual coward. he's too wedded to the idea of his intellectual prowess to ever consider that he may be incorrect. Ally that to a massive ego with an unhealthy does of sneering, then you have the recipe for someone that would rather run away than to admit an error.

Facebook of YouTube provides a "safe space" where these cowards can control the conversation and delete any comments that get a bit to close to the bone for them. They can only get an audience in an echo-chamber. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 23, 2018, 11:19:14 AM
His final comments were clearly aimed at getting a ban so he could carry on the same whining about not being allowed to speak freely.

We've had other members try that garbage Tim, you failed as badly at getting banned as you did winning your argument.

No-one here will lose any sleep over you finding out how wrong you are.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 23, 2018, 12:58:57 PM
And as for being Facebook friends with him, that implies having the slightest interest in interacting with him in day-to-day life.  I'd just end up blocking him on Facebook for being rude and tiresome.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 23, 2018, 01:14:05 PM
And as for being Facebook friends with him, that implies having the slightest interest in interacting with him in day-to-day life.  I'd just end up blocking him on Facebook for being rude and tiresome.

Luckily I was only a messenger friend not actually Facebook
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 23, 2018, 01:20:55 PM
And as for being Facebook friends with him, that implies having the slightest interest in interacting with him in day-to-day life.  I'd just end up blocking him on Facebook for being rude and tiresome.
Indeed!  I have a very eclectic collection of friends on Facebook, from my various hobbies and interests, but I doubt I would have anything in common with Tim.  He doesn't seem amenable to discussion and debate, let alone light-hearted chit-chat  :)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 23, 2018, 02:31:54 PM
A little something to remember me by.  Deal with it.  And yes that is what an actual Logarithmic graph looks like.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 23, 2018, 02:39:09 PM
Indeed!  I have a very eclectic collection of friends on Facebook, from my various hobbies and interests, but I doubt I would have anything in common with Tim.  He doesn't seem amenable to discussion and debate, let alone light-hearted chit-chat  :)

I have friends from all over the world, many of whom I've never met in person.  Actually, I was talking to a group of them about this Saturday night on our weekly script read, and they literally laughed out loud when I told them Tim's opinion that I just don't know enough about movies if I think it was impossible to fake the footage on the Moon now, since they're in my film discussion group.  I believe one or two of them are also in my historical discussion group, so we had a nice chat about how the Nixon argument doesn't hold water, either.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Northern Lurker on April 23, 2018, 03:05:00 PM
Sorry for joining late into discussion. Keeping up with this thread is a chore.

I have one question for Tim*: as a former nuc, can you tell me where the diesel fuel tank is in a nuclear sub and why it is in that exact place?

Lurky

*if he chooses to answer and LO allows that post.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 23, 2018, 03:15:04 PM
That is not a nuke question.  A nuke question would be something like what chemical was stored onboard the submarine for an emergency means of shutting the reactor down and where was it stored?  Now that is a nuke question.  Write out the six factor formula and show how it varied with T-ave.  I have a thousand nuke questions would you like a few more?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 23, 2018, 03:31:52 PM
I have had a change of heart and I am ready to to make amends on one condition.  The condition is the group answer one single question.  If you were planning a lunar mission what  value would you assign to GCR background radiation,  what would you derive this value from and would it be an daily average?  If the group should answer this question truthfully.  Then I will apologize and in turn answer any and all questions asked of me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 23, 2018, 03:38:11 PM
Sorry for joining late into discussion. Keeping up with this thread is a chore.

I have one question for Tim*: as a former nuc, can you tell me where the diesel fuel tank is in a nuclear sub and why it is in that exact place?

Lurky

*if he chooses to answer and LO allows that post.
My curiosity is peaked.  PM the answer, please.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Al Johnston on April 23, 2018, 03:40:47 PM
Not sure I'd trust Tim to be able to operate the toilet on a submarine, far less the reactor...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 23, 2018, 05:30:58 PM
In all honesty, I hope this is the end of the episode. His claims around our 3D-2D spatial reasoning needed to be closed down, they were insulting and showed complete disregard for genuine efforts to educate him on the matter.

I actually don't believe he's that stupid. I believe he thought he had the smoking gun with the graph, got caught out when it dawned on him he had read the graph incorrectly, and was using data from a different cycle. He then entered full troll mode with the Orion and Apollo trajectories as he could not back down at that point.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 23, 2018, 06:26:30 PM
Sorry for joining late into discussion. Keeping up with this thread is a chore.

I have one question for Tim*: as a former nuc, can you tell me where the diesel fuel tank is in a nuclear sub and why it is in that exact place?

Lurky

*if he chooses to answer and LO allows that post.

Oh, oh!  I know!  I know!   :-X
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 23, 2018, 08:29:44 PM
In all honesty, I hope this is the end of the episode. His claims around our 3D-2D spatial reasoning needed to be closed down, they were insulting and showed complete disregard for genuine efforts to educate him on the matter.

I actually don't believe he's that stupid. I believe he thought he had the smoking gun with the graph, got caught out when it dawned on him he had read the graph incorrectly, and was using data from a different cycle. He then entered full troll mode with the Orion and Apollo trajectories as he could not back down at that point.

Comes under the general heading of digging a deeper hole; never a good idea if you ever have any intentional of getting out of it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 23, 2018, 09:28:19 PM
I have had a change of heart and I am ready to to make amends on one condition.

Look at this guy. He actually thinks he's in a position to set conditions.  ;D

No. Answer the questions, and then I will consider taking you off moderation.

Here they are again:

2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.

4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.

5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?

7. The geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane at TLI are inclined to each other. How does this effect the distribution of radiation relative to the orbital plane?


Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?



Quote
Then I will apologize and in turn answer any and all questions asked of me.

So you agree that you have something to apologize for then? I want you to apologize to the members of the forum and explain why you think it's necessary. Consider it one of the conditions for getting out of moderation.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 23, 2018, 09:55:38 PM
I would not mind seeing an apology to forum members general and specific for the multiple, direct, abrasive accusations of being mathematically illiterate and lacking in any degree of spacial reasoning. As well as both implied and implicit accusations of being unable to read and comprehend written material. (And a strong implication that no-one here could, say, find a pdf at NASA.gov on our own.)

Not that he'd ever provide it, but it is pointless either way; with or without apologies or answers I can't see any reason for him to return.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on April 23, 2018, 10:50:52 PM
That is not a nuke question.  A nuke question would be something like what chemical was stored onboard the submarine for an emergency means of shutting the reactor down and where was it stored?  Now that is a nuke question.  Write out the six factor formula and show how it varied with T-ave.  I have a thousand nuke questions would you like a few more?

If that is in reply to Northern Lurker then I would have to disagree.

You may operate a kettle but you are a submariner, first & foremost. You have to know every inch of the boat and have a good understanding of everyone else's job.

"That's not my part of ship" is not something a submariner says.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 23, 2018, 11:30:29 PM
That is not a nuke question.  A nuke question would be something like what chemical was stored onboard the submarine for an emergency means of shutting the reactor down and where was it stored?  Now that is a nuke question.  Write out the six factor formula and show how it varied with T-ave.  I have a thousand nuke questions would you like a few more?

If that is in reply to Northern Lurker then I would have to disagree.

You may operate a kettle but you are a submariner, first & foremost. You have to know every inch of the boat and have a good understanding of everyone else's job.

"That's not my part of ship" is not something a submariner says.
That being the case, what was the chemical and where was it stored?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 24, 2018, 12:35:18 AM
Look at this guy. He actually thinks he's in a position to set conditions.  ;D

I see you had the good grace to allow Tim to post his conditions. After our PM, I will ignore his posts until he has answered those questions. I think that sets the tone and makes it very crystal clear that he addresses outstanding issues that are relevant to his understanding of the radiation problem and his claim. The very idea that he thinks these questions are posed so he can carry out our research is insulting at the very least.

I am not your research boy or your pupil.


I would not mind seeing an apology to forum members general and specific for the multiple, direct, abrasive accusations of being mathematically illiterate and lacking in any degree of spacial reasoning. As well as both implied and implicit accusations of being unable to read and comprehend written material. (And a strong implication that no-one here could, say, find a pdf at NASA.gov on our own.)

I would add an apology for wasting time, a specific example being the manner in which he barely acknowledged Jason's model and various diagrams from other users, then persisted in a 'discussion' about 2D being a much better way to visualise complex spaces. As with the CRaTER data, his evidence that Orion and Apollo could be represented as a line into the VABs fell apart, and he had nothing to fall back on other than a gish gallop with his ridiculous claims about the merits of 2D over 3D, and cheap shots regarding our spatial awareness.

Also the various posts that suggest we had agreed on a position, when clearly we had not. I would like to see any condition of a return that he answers questions directly, cuts the obnoxious and condescending tone, and ceases with the aforementioned style of posts that I have described.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Northern Lurker on April 24, 2018, 12:45:51 AM
That is not a nuke question.  A nuke question would be something like what chemical was stored onboard the submarine for an emergency means of shutting the reactor down and where was it stored?  Now that is a nuke question.  Write out the six factor formula and show how it varied with T-ave.  I have a thousand nuke questions would you like a few more?

If that is in reply to Northern Lurker then I would have to disagree.

You may operate a kettle but you are a submariner, first & foremost. You have to know every inch of the boat and have a good understanding of everyone else's job.

"That's not my part of ship" is not something a submariner says.


Tim the ex nuc submariner,  I want your answer to my question. Do you know the location of diesel fuel tank or not? Do you know why it is in that exact location or not?

Lurky
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 24, 2018, 12:53:17 AM
I have had a change of heart and I am ready to to make amends on one condition.  The condition is the group answer one single question.  If you were planning a lunar mission what  value would you assign to GCR background radiation,  what would you derive this value from and would it be an daily average?  If the group should answer this question truthfully.  Then I will apologize and in turn answer any and all questions asked of me.

I wouldn't. I would assess the risk and balance those risks against crew safety. I'd test my vessel to make sure it could do what I asked it to do. There is no point assigning an average value: an average of 5 can be derived by values of 4, 5 and 6, or 1, 5 and 9. What you need is an assessment of the probability that your safety values will be exceeded and what you do about it if they are.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 24, 2018, 12:54:44 AM
That is not a nuke question.  A nuke question would be something like what chemical was stored onboard the submarine for an emergency means of shutting the reactor down and where was it stored?  Now that is a nuke question.  Write out the six factor formula and show how it varied with T-ave.  I have a thousand nuke questions would you like a few more?

If that is in reply to Northern Lurker then I would have to disagree.

You may operate a kettle but you are a submariner, first & foremost. You have to know every inch of the boat and have a good understanding of everyone else's job.

"That's not my part of ship" is not something a submariner says.


Tim the ex nuc submariner,  I want your answer to my question. Do you know the location of diesel fuel tank or not? Do you know why it is in that exact location or not?

Lurky

I agree that ANY person versed in the operation of a nuclear submarine would know that answer.  Off the top of their head, too.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 24, 2018, 12:58:39 AM
Why would I deign answer such a silly question?  Who do you think I am that I should answer to your whims?  The question has nothing to with the matter at hand and My knowledge of the submarine is not a matter that is pertinent.  Stay focused.  Be concise and you might lean from your elders.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 24, 2018, 01:03:48 AM
I have had a change of heart and I am ready to to make amends on one condition.  The condition is the group answer one single question.  If you were planning a lunar mission what  value would you assign to GCR background radiation,  what would you derive this value from and would it be an daily average?  If the group should answer this question truthfully.  Then I will apologize and in turn answer any and all questions asked of me.

I wouldn't. I would assess the risk and balance those risks against crew safety. I'd test my vessel to make sure it could do what I asked it to do. There is no point assigning an average value: an average of 5 can be derived by values of 4, 5 and 6, or 1, 5 and 9. What you need is an assessment of the probability that your safety values will be exceeded and what you do about it if they are.
I submit you have to have some level of expectation or you could not have any estimation of your ability to protect the safety of your men.  Having some Idea then you could establish a safety margin but to do so without any idea of what to expect is ludicrous.  It was a valiant attempt but comes across as disingenuous.  I respect you more for the attempt than I do the response and as such I will in turn honor it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 24, 2018, 01:08:34 AM
I have had a change of heart and I am ready to to make amends on one condition.  The condition is the group answer one single question.  If you were planning a lunar mission what  value would you assign to GCR background radiation,  what would you derive this value from and would it be an daily average?  If the group should answer this question truthfully.  Then I will apologize and in turn answer any and all questions asked of me.

I wouldn't. I would assess the risk and balance those risks against crew safety. I'd test my vessel to make sure it could do what I asked it to do. There is no point assigning an average value: an average of 5 can be derived by values of 4, 5 and 6, or 1, 5 and 9. What you need is an assessment of the probability that your safety values will be exceeded and what you do about it if they are.

Correct, and a little more explicitly, the mission would be designed with expected doses deigned by the general radiological conditions of the belts (as we know, they can be influenced by a LOT of factors), but more importantly, there would be action level limits if their doses reached certain values (normally still WELL below standard legal limits for radiation workers).  If such an event occurred, there would already be plans to mitigate the astronaut's risk as derived by Health Physicists.  This could range anywhere from keeping a closer watch on current exposures to aborting the mission altogether.  It just depends on so many variables, including mission length, spacecraft designs, space environment (seems like an oxymoron, but it isn't), mission status, etc.  There is also the possibility that the astronauts' yearly limit could be allowed to be exceeded due to special circumstances.  The legal yearly limit is there to minimize the risk associated with exposure.  It is not a line in the sand where people start dropping like flies.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 24, 2018, 01:24:57 AM
I agree that ANY person versed in the operation of a nuclear submarine would know that answer.  Off the top of their head, too.

Well I'm not at all versed in the operations of nuclear submarines, but I can hazard a guess as to where it would be placed and why.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 24, 2018, 01:57:51 AM
I agree that ANY person versed in the operation of a nuclear submarine would know that answer.  Off the top of their head, too.

Well I'm not at all versed in the operations of nuclear submarines, but I can hazard a guess as to where it would be placed and why.

Based on the insights I have read in the comments you have posted, I would bet money that you would probably be close to the where and spot on to the why.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 24, 2018, 02:05:53 AM
I wouldn't try to find such an average. Plus as someone who has flirted with astronomy, I hate the way extra-solar cosmic rays (essentially stable value and anisotropic, except for the not-small interaction with our own sun's magnetic field) are getting lumped in with solar particles.

Yeah, you could separate out the GCR and plot it over solar cycle and deal with things like Earth and Moon shadow and get some decent numbers. But that still is particle/flux. No way in heck to do a straight-line conversion to "this many grays to a person inside a spacecraft." Even the orientation of the spacecraft matters. Even the duty station of the astronaut matters. And it is different for every energy range.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 24, 2018, 02:08:50 AM
I'm still going to point a finger at the NASA report Tim himself linked to, where GCR was one of four potential radiological hazards to be quantified...with another of the four being the glow in the dark switches in the cockpit.

Yeah, this is the sixties. Even the Army started shying from those comparable tritium night sights. But still...!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 24, 2018, 02:14:46 AM
I'm still going to point a finger at the NASA report Tim himself linked to, where GCR was one of four potential radiological hazards to be quantified...with another of the four being the glow in the dark switches in the cockpit.

Yeah, this is the sixties. Even the Army started shying from those comparable tritium night sights. But still...!
Don't be quick to dismiss the radiation from old syle glow in the night devices.  They would set off alarms on the submarine the radiation was so high.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 24, 2018, 02:28:40 AM
Correct, and a little more explicitly, the mission would be designed with expected doses deigned by the general radiological conditions of the belts (as we know, they can be influenced by a LOT of factors), but more importantly, there would be action level limits if their doses reached certain values (normally still WELL below standard legal limits for radiation workers).  If such an event occurred, there would already be plans to mitigate the astronaut's risk as derived by Health Physicists.  This could range anywhere from keeping a closer watch on current exposures to aborting the mission altogether.  It just depends on so many variables, including mission length, spacecraft designs, space environment (seems like an oxymoron, but it isn't), mission status, etc.  There is also the possibility that the astronauts' yearly limit could be allowed to be exceeded due to special circumstances.  The legal yearly limit is there to minimize the risk associated with exposure.  It is not a line in the sand where people start dropping like flies.
Very well put, and I'm sure the people designing flight profiles for the eventual manned Orion missions are taking just such an approach.  The broader scope of use for Orion means there will be a lot more complexity in mission planning, but the dose calculations will use the virtually the same data we've been going over here ad nauseam - probably just more up to date and accurate.  (It would be interesting to know if any of those thoughts or calculations are available yet.)

Every space mission, whether manned or unmanned, goes through the same sort of process to determine the likely radiation risks to people and equipment.  It's not rocket... oh hang on!  ;D
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 24, 2018, 03:22:25 AM
That is not a nuke question.  A nuke question would be...

Evasion of simple question noted.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 24, 2018, 03:26:09 AM
I have had a change of heart and I am ready to to make amends on one condition.

No, that's not how this works. You have been given conditions to satisfy here. You don't get to dictate what we have to do to earn your apology.

Quote
If you were planning a lunar mission what  value would you assign to GCR background radiation,

Irrelevant. You're the one who decided what the background level should be, you're the one who insists on using an average as a minimum (such a fundamental error I can only assume it is deliberate), and furthermore you are the one using an average derived from data collected on the Apollo missions to declare the data from the Apollo missions bogus. Again, such a simple error that I can only assume it is deliberate.

Quote
If the group should answer this question truthfully.

I will answer no questions as long as you are the one arbitrarily deciding on if the answer is truthful, since you have already demonstrated a total lack of interest in the actual truth.

Quote
Then I will apologize and in turn answer any and all questions asked of me.

Really not how this works.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 24, 2018, 03:38:13 AM
I agree that ANY person versed in the operation of a nuclear submarine would know that answer.  Off the top of their head, too.

Hell, I've never even set foot on a submarine, nuclear or otherwise, but even I know where they put the tanks and why on a nuclear one. Tim's evasion of a simpler question and the suggestion he can do the more complex ones is not only not helping his credibility, it's not even written in a credible manner. Looks more like someone using word salad to sound clever than actually a genuine question. For one thing I'm pretty damn sure that emergency shutdown mechanisms are not 'chemical' and are integrated into the reactors, given that all the actual reacting takes place in a sealed and shielded compartment. In an emergency shutdown scenario I wouldn't want to be going to a store somewhere else to get something, then opening the reactor up to use it. This isn't like Spock restarting the Enterprise engines in Star trek II, after all....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 24, 2018, 05:11:22 AM
For one thing I'm pretty damn sure that emergency shutdown mechanisms are not 'chemical' and are integrated into the reactors, given that all the actual reacting takes place in a sealed and shielded compartment.

You may want to research that a bit more.

From: http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/nuclear-power-plant-safety-systems/index.cfm

"All nuclear reactors in Canada have two independent, fast-acting and equally effective shutdown systems.

The first shutdown system is made up of rods that drop automatically and stop the chain reaction if something irregular is detected.

The second system injects a liquid, or poison, inside the reactor to immediately stop the chain reaction.

Both systems work without power or operator intervention. However, they can also be manually activated."

NOTE:  Edited to add source and quote, after finding them.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Northern Lurker on April 24, 2018, 05:35:36 AM
For one thing I'm pretty damn sure that emergency shutdown mechanisms are not 'chemical' and are integrated into the reactors, given that all the actual reacting takes place in a sealed and shielded compartment. In an emergency shutdown scenario I wouldn't want to be going to a store somewhere else to get something, then opening the reactor up to use it.

Those chemicals are neutron poisons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison). They can be pumped into reactor as a part of SCRAM or in some reactors to help moderating the huge difference in reactivity between new and nearly spent fuel loads, whcich  would be unpractical to control with only control rods.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 24, 2018, 05:57:21 AM
Ah, well I stand corrected, thank you, Lurker. I also withdraw my criticism of Tim's question about chemicals for shutdown purposes.

See how easy that was, tim?

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nickrulercreator on April 24, 2018, 10:19:07 AM
Damn, I think this thread has the most posts, second only to the thread: AeE130 Website: http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=629.0
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 24, 2018, 10:25:35 AM
I agree that ANY person versed in the operation of a nuclear submarine would know that answer.  Off the top of their head, too.

Hell, I've never even set foot on a submarine, nuclear or otherwise, but even I know where they put the tanks and why on a nuclear one. Tim's evasion of a simpler question and the suggestion he can do the more complex ones is not only not helping his credibility, it's not even written in a credible manner. Looks more like someone using word salad to sound clever than actually a genuine question. For one thing I'm pretty damn sure that emergency shutdown mechanisms are not 'chemical' and are integrated into the reactors, given that all the actual reacting takes place in a sealed and shielded compartment. In an emergency shutdown scenario I wouldn't want to be going to a store somewhere else to get something, then opening the reactor up to use it. This isn't like Spock restarting the Enterprise engines in Star trek II, after all....

Don't you know? The bag of SCRAM powder is stored in the Beano locker, right next to the Relative Bearing Grease.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 24, 2018, 12:15:52 PM
LO please add this question.

Is this a log or linear graph?

(https://i.imgur.com/ebermKJ.jpg)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 24, 2018, 12:53:24 PM
Ah, well I stand corrected, thank you, Lurker. I also withdraw my criticism of Tim's question about chemicals for shutdown purposes.

You could not elude the knowledge of the nuke-submariners. I was fairly clueless that the chemicals alluded to neutron poison. I cannot elude this fact now, so am generous to those that have increased my knowledge that little bit more*.

I was looking at the thread last night, and the number of elude mistakes I made was a trifle embarrassing. I hope it does not affect effect affect effect affect effect make people think that I am unable to use grammar.

Quote
See how easy that was, tim?

* See how easy that was, Tim?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 24, 2018, 01:09:09 PM
Don't you know? The bag of SCRAM powder is stored in the Beano locker, right next to the Relative Bearing Grease.

Along with the glass hammer and left handed screwdriver. Was bearing grease invented by Ralph Rene?

Did you know that the UK Trident SSBNs are based in Scotland's Faslane. Before they enter home port they are painted with tartan paint?  ::)

Sorry to Scottish friends and those with Scottish ancestry for the awful stereotype regarding tartan.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on April 24, 2018, 03:15:54 PM
Oh, and whilst you are at it, go to stores and get a long weight. And I understand you want to put your name down for training as a splash target coxswain?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 24, 2018, 03:21:10 PM
... and fetch a bucket of sparks and some skyhooks while you're in the stores.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 24, 2018, 03:29:11 PM
Just checked my emails, and got this email from our local Labour Party branch.  :o

I'm 100% sure that they aren't connected, but it sort of freaked me out.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: mako88sb on April 24, 2018, 03:44:48 PM
... and fetch a bucket of sparks and some skyhooks while you're in the stores.

Reminds me of when I joined air cadets and sent off to find some prop wash when we went on our first airplane ride in a DC-3. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Northern Lurker on April 24, 2018, 04:09:20 PM
... and fetch a bucket of sparks and some skyhooks while you're in the stores.

Reminds me of when I joined air cadets and sent off to find some prop wash when we went on our first airplane ride in a DC-3.

I'm still looking for some elbow grease. And Tim's answer...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 24, 2018, 04:19:15 PM
So much for this guy having a change of heart. He's basically started off again at Cosmoquest with identical and unaltered arguments without at any point acknowledging his stunning mistakes. It's fairly obvious that he is incapable of seeing anything beyond his narrow and very inaccurate viewpoint.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 24, 2018, 04:38:35 PM
So much for this guy having a change of heart. He's basically started off again at Cosmoquest with identical and unaltered arguments without at any point acknowledging his stunning mistakes. It's fairly obvious that he is incapable of seeing anything beyond his narrow and very inaccurate viewpoint.

Reading through the new thread, and it makes for a very depressing read.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 24, 2018, 04:49:29 PM
Why would I deign answer such a silly question?

Continued evasion of simple question noted.

Quote
Who do you think I am that I should answer to your whims?

Who do you think we are that we should accept your absurd oversimplifications?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 24, 2018, 04:54:15 PM
I submit you have to have some level of expectation or you could not have any estimation of your ability to protect the safety of your men.

This is not about safety. You want a number to work with so you can keep telling us the Apollo numbers are bogus. The GCR flux for a two week mission isn't a significant safety concern, therefore it matters not what actual number you use as a baseline.

The issue here is not what number we would use but why you insist on calling an average a minimum and using an average calculated from the Apollo mission doses to claim the Apollo mission doses that very average was calculated from are bogus.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 24, 2018, 05:02:56 PM
So much for this guy having a change of heart. He's basically started off again at Cosmoquest with identical and unaltered arguments without at any point acknowledging his stunning mistakes. It's fairly obvious that he is incapable of seeing anything beyond his narrow and very inaccurate viewpoint.

He's a troll - stirring crap up for the sake of stirring crap up. I'll bet real money he isn't a committed HB, just someone with a lot of spare time and a pathological need to nerd snipe.  And given the page count for this thread, damned good at it. 

God speed Timmeh; as trolls go, you were especially annoying. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 24, 2018, 07:06:17 PM
Along with the glass hammer and left handed screwdriver. Was bearing grease invented by Ralph Rene?

You forgot the anvil ring, the long weight and the prop wash!


ETA: oops, ninja'd on the last two

ETA2: Actually, in my very early days in the RNZAF, someone tried to dupe me by sending me to the Main Store for a long weight, a left-handed screwdriver and a bottle of prop wash. However, as my Dad had been in the RAF, he had briefed me well for such a request, so, I "used my initiative". I reported to the Main Store, and requested a ratchet-screwdriver; the type that could lock in the tightening or untightening position. I also requisitioned a large container of  Carbon-X, a mil spec exterior degreaser/cleaner approved for use in aviation. The long weight was problematic, I had to leave the base for that one. I went to a second hand house parts merchant and bought a 12lb, 24in long sash weight like this one.

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/iv2g50lzp3kpyni/Sashweight.jpg?raw=1)

It took me all day to find what I was looking for, and I was prepared to spend a few dollars in order to have my fun, after all, I had to be a good young Airman, and make sure my sergeant got the long wait weight he was wanting.

I finally turned up about 10 minutes before knock-off and put the items on a bench in the workshop where everyone was. I explained to the sergeant that the ratchet screwdriver was all I could find, but it could be used left or right handed, that the Carbon-X was used for washing helicopter blades so it should be OK for propellers, and then I pointed to the sash weight and asked him if the weight was long enough. There was a lot snickering and quiet laughter from the rest of lads in the workshop... one of them said (quite loud enough for everyone to hear) "Cooky 3 - Sarge Nil". 

ETA3: I came back to visit the workshop a few years later as a Corporal, and Sarge was still there (a Flight-Sergeant by then). He had mounted the sash weight on a nice varnished wooden board and it was hanging on the wall in his office!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on April 24, 2018, 07:39:13 PM
We'd also get new joiners to go to the galley and ask the cooks for milk for the sea cat...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seacat_(missile)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 24, 2018, 07:42:13 PM
Fetch 'em yourself, I'm due on deck for Mail-Bouy duty.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 24, 2018, 08:06:35 PM
Reading the CosmoWhatever thread. Looks like he got tired of wearing dolphins -- now he's Army, possibly even a 12B. I look forward to seeing what total hash he makes of my old MOS.

All he needs now is the guitar and the bicycle.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 24, 2018, 09:50:01 PM
Reading the CosmoWhatever thread. Looks like he got tired of wearing dolphins -- now he's Army, possibly even a 12B. I look forward to seeing what total hash he makes of my old MOS.

All he needs now is the guitar and the bicycle.
I am sure my distinguished military career is somehow related to the moon hoax topic but how it is related is beyond my comprehension.  It is true that during my 16 years of exemplary service the Viet Nam war was ended Noriega was captured, the Berlin wall was destroyed and the Soviet Union was shattered into pieces.  I am not claiming that I was responsible for these things but they did happen during my watch.  To satisfy the undying curiosity,  I served 4 years in the Army as a 12B Combat Engineer.  I was Discharged as a E-5 (Sargent) and served 2 years as Squad leader in Co. C17th Engineering Battalion, Ft. Hood, Tx.  After leaving the Army I attended the University of Texas in San Antonio but dropped out after one year to join the Navy.  I served aboard the USS Sam Houston (SSN 609) and the USS Tunny (SSN 682) I achieved the rank of E-7 and was honorably discharge for medical reasons in 1991.  I worked as an Industrial Maintenance Electrician until disability forced an early retirement in 2012.  I was widowed this past October and I have a Son and 3 grandchildren.  There is nothing beyond this of my story.  Now can we get on with proving the Moon Hoax.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Northern Lurker on April 25, 2018, 05:39:23 AM
Since Tim has changed his story, I can tell about submarine's diesel tank. It is located between forward crew compartment and reactor compartment because there it acts as an additional radiation shield. I was wondering how Tim, as a nuclear submariner, can reconcile that in submarine structural elements can shield from radiation but on Apollo not. Or maybe he wasn't a real submariner. Apparently, per Cosmoquest, he wasn't.

Lurky
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 25, 2018, 07:49:57 AM
Big surprise.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 25, 2018, 08:15:30 AM
Really big surprise, he hasn't changed his style or numbers.  I expect he won't last more than a couple of days and then be suspended or banned.
LO, this is your decision, but I would take a long hard look at his new thread

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?168399-I-m-back-with-a-vengeance-and-undeniable-proof-of-the-Moon-Hoax&p=2446967#post2446967

Before determining whether to allow him to post again.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on April 25, 2018, 08:45:36 AM
He is on suspension again from Cosmoquest, I just joined today as I heard many people talk about it, and noticed Tim had been suspended when nosing around the format of the forum.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 25, 2018, 09:09:42 AM
It is a source of never ending surprise that these characters will join a forum to ask people they won't believe for answers they don't want.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: ineluki on April 25, 2018, 09:22:22 AM
I believe that Jay observed him being a troll

I admit i don't have a lot of patience with the hoaxers, but wasn't that obvious on page 6, when he tried to play some argument from authority, while whining about the need to prove that authority?




Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on April 25, 2018, 09:36:15 AM
It is a source of never ending surprise that these characters will join a forum to ask people they won't believe for answers they don't want.

I think Tim out Adrian's Adrian, in other words he will not listen or simply hand wave away any answer that does not align itself with his preconceived notion of fact.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: ineluki on April 25, 2018, 10:02:00 AM
It is a source of never ending surprise that these characters will join a forum to ask people they won't believe for answers they don't want.

While behaving in an annoying, condescending, abbrasive manner that would get them buzzed (or is that aldrined?) in Real Life...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on April 25, 2018, 10:54:57 AM
Don't be quick to dismiss the radiation from old syle glow in the night devices.  They would set off alarms on the submarine the radiation was so high.
If you're thinking of the alarm on the frisker, then yes it would provided you put the probe next to the source.  I was always more concerned with the naturally occurring activity in the tiles used to protect the floor of the head/shower.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 25, 2018, 12:40:42 PM
It is a source of never ending surprise that these characters will join a forum to ask people they won't believe for answers they don't want.

I've never thought about it in those terms. I needed a smile today, and that's made me smile. Part of the issue being is that they think it makes them critical thinkers. Most of the questions I have asked in my life are to learn.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 25, 2018, 01:06:12 PM
Since Tim has changed his story, I can tell about submarine's diesel tank. It is located between forward crew compartment and reactor compartment because there it acts as an additional radiation shield. I was wondering how Tim, as a nuclear submariner, can reconcile that in submarine structural elements can shield from radiation but on Apollo not. Or maybe he wasn't a real submariner. Apparently, per Cosmoquest, he wasn't.

Lurky

You could not have been a Nuke or even a well trained submariner. If you had been then you would know the diesel tanks were in the ballast tanks and as such would not act as shielding to the the living spaces.  You would know that primary shielding was provided by polyethylene, lead, steel and water tanks used in the operation of the reactor.  You would know that the diesel tanks are placed in the ballast tanks to minimize the impact on trim.  Diesel is replaced by seatwater as it is consumed thereby negating a change in trim.  You embarrass all submarine sailors with this lack of institutional knowledge.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 25, 2018, 02:13:54 PM
Same old crap on CQ I see. Same misconceptions, same use of published papers that actually contradict his stated opinion, and same refusal to actually show any of his own work. Troll troll troll...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Geordie on April 25, 2018, 04:02:20 PM
I know not a single one of you knew this or you would have recognized that Braeuning was attempting to deceive you.  Show me your respect for pulling the wool off your eyes by creating a Go Fund me account to continue my research.

I'm wading my way through this thread post by post (only six days behind; I remember being on p. 20 trying to catch up to p. 40, seems so quaint now) and I must say almost all of the replies to this what seems to me to be an obvious troll are remarkably tolerant and otherwise in good faith, in addition to being loaded with educational material, cold hard facts, and the knowledge of how to apply said facts.

Thanks, to everyone posting helpful, collegiate information, and to timfinch for making it all possible, even if she can't or won't admit to recognizing its veracity.

Sadly, although a lifelong Apollo Program enthusiast (I used to build rectangular prism-style Saturn Vs out of Lego ~45 years ago as well as drawing them "realistically" in kindergarten and grade one,) I came to this site solely for the schadenfreude, but the impressive demonstration of collective knowledge and experience is why I have stayed.

Well, it's back to post #2183 for me...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 25, 2018, 05:05:55 PM
Since Tim has changed his story, I can tell about submarine's diesel tank. It is located between forward crew compartment and reactor compartment because there it acts as an additional radiation shield. I was wondering how Tim, as a nuclear submariner, can reconcile that in submarine structural elements can shield from radiation but on Apollo not. Or maybe he wasn't a real submariner. Apparently, per Cosmoquest, he wasn't.

Lurky
Aha, I was right then.

I also think that would place it fairly close to the diesel motor itself (you'd want to keep the fuel lines as short as possible). The diesel motor is usually in the bottom of the boat, directly below the conning tower, an understandable position because the exhaust needs to get out of the smoke stack which is usually on the conning tower. You would want to keep that exhaust pipe run as short as possible too.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Northern Lurker on April 25, 2018, 05:25:24 PM
And full disclosure: I have set my foot on a sub only twice, both were decomissioned museum boats. My info is from open sources like Tom Clancy's non-fiction Submarine and other publications and websites I have come across.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 25, 2018, 05:33:09 PM
Really big surprise, he hasn't changed his style or numbers.  I expect he won't last more than a couple of days and then be suspended or banned.
LO, this is your decision, but I would take a long hard look at his new thread

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?168399-I-m-back-with-a-vengeance-and-undeniable-proof-of-the-Moon-Hoax&p=2446967#post2446967

Before determining whether to allow him to post again.

He demanded the right to administer the thread he started, to determine the direction in which it went, and then deliberately and willfully challenged the mods to silence him. That just reeks of "suicide by mod" and will almost certainly be followed by pigeon chess.... going back to his echo chamber nutcase CT sites claiming victory and his banning as a badge of honour.

As we would say in this country..... what a wanker! 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 25, 2018, 05:45:04 PM
His latest on the 7 degree inclination at TLI burn.

CQ User Clanger: The flight path angle contributed to a small change in inclination.

Tim Finch: A rocket is not a plane and there is no air to act upon wings even if it had them. so what difference does a flight path angle matter?

I'm no longer sure what to think.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 25, 2018, 06:00:07 PM
His latest on the 7 degree inclination at TLI burn.

CQ User Clanger: The flight path angle contributed to a small change in inclination.

Tim Finch: A rocket is not a plane and there is no air to act upon wings even if it had them. so what difference does a flight path angle matter?

I'm no longer sure what to think.
I am wondering what Tim will make of the graph on page 2 of this...
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 25, 2018, 06:59:57 PM
His latest on the 7 degree inclination at TLI burn.

CQ User Clanger: The flight path angle contributed to a small change in inclination.

Tim Finch: A rocket is not a plane and there is no air to act upon wings even if it had them. so what difference does a flight path angle matter?

I'm no longer sure what to think.
I am wondering what Tim will make of the graph on page 2 of this...
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf
Obliviously low. ;)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 25, 2018, 07:02:12 PM
His latest on the 7 degree inclination at TLI burn.

CQ User Clanger: The flight path angle contributed to a small change in inclination.

Tim Finch: A rocket is not a plane and there is no air to act upon wings even if it had them. so what difference does a flight path angle matter?

I'm no longer sure what to think.

I only hope Clanger gets further than I did, as tim still doesn't believe Apollo changed plans.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 25, 2018, 07:34:17 PM
His latest on the 7 degree inclination at TLI burn.

CQ User Clanger: The flight path angle contributed to a small change in inclination.

Tim Finch: A rocket is not a plane and there is no air to act upon wings even if it had them. so what difference does a flight path angle matter?

I'm no longer sure what to think.

He goes further, stating "...Rockets use thrusters to steer and the main engines are used for thrust to obtain the necessary speed."

I'm tempted to log this one as being loose with language again; using common or colloquial terms instead of the appropriate technical terminology, but on reflection it amounts to the same thing. The group of people who misuse terminology map very well to the group of people who don't understand the underlying concepts.

Who the heck uses "speed" in a spaceflight context? But that's not anywhere near the weirdness of talking about "steering."



I'm still on the fence with him. I really don't know if he is having one on and role-playing this TimFinch character, or if he is a truly stunning poster boy for Dunning-Kruger, truly unable to conceive of any reality that doesn't match his naive understanding.

Counter to the later is that in his latest (now merged) thread at CQ he's very slightly modified some of his arguments and explanations to make use of material he was provided here (without, of course, ever acknowledging his previous ideas were wrong). Counter to the former is I have trouble believing in someone who could play flawlessly that kind of role for that long.

He really seems to believe this stuff, like when he lectures a working scientist and a college-level instructor on first year (hell, first WEEK) Statistics.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 25, 2018, 07:42:21 PM
The group of people who misuse terminology map very well to the group of people who don't understand the underlying concepts.

I'd agree with that but there's something else going on with him for sure. Witness his argument that my model showed 'perpendicular' components...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 25, 2018, 07:50:19 PM
When he comes back in I'm tempted to demand he define "perpendicular." You know he'd just waffle; first throw it back, "I'm not your English teacher. If you didn't learn it yet I suggest you go back to high school." Then use every answer that isn't his own; cut and paste from some online dictionary (the less mainstream the dictionary, the better).

He seems to just plain have an aversion to answering anything from anyone, and I truly can not tell if it is in arrogant affront that anyone else dare speak when it is his turn to lecture, or a sneaking realization that he truly knows nothing and is trying to throw up a wall of chaff to hide it.

Or possibly both. He's really a Monk Plus, able to hold at least two incompatible beliefs in his head at the same time.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 25, 2018, 10:47:50 PM
2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?
Protons, neutrons, electrons, gammas and x-rays, and alpha particles

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.
Material shielding can be effective against galactic cosmic rays, but thin shielding may actually make the problem worse for some of the higher energy rays, because more shielding causes an increased amount of secondary radiation.  In interplanetary space, however, it is believed that thin aluminium shielding would give a net increase in radiation exposure but would gradually decrease as more shielding is added to capture generated secondary radiation. The main contributions to the radiation doses arise from high-energy heavy ion (HZE) particles. As the incident radiations attenuate in the shield material, there is a significant buildup of secondary particles resulting from nuclear fragmentation and coulomb dissociation processes. A substantial fraction of these secondaries are energetic protons and neutrons. During solar minimum periods, at least 1 g/era 2 of liquid hydrogen shielding, 3.5 g/cm 2 of water shielding, or 6.5 g/cm 2 of aluminum shielding will be needed to keep the estimated risk to the blood-forming organs below the current annual Space Station Freedom limit of 0.5 Sv/year.   The preferred materials of choice for galactic cosmic  ray shielding are materials with low atomic mass number constituents and significant hydrogen content.
4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.
The heavier the atomic number of the shielding the greater the resultant secondaries
5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.
Braeunig claims forty percent of the incident proton energy is radiated in the form of secondary particles and electromagnetic radiation.  Because these energies are easily absorbed in the body the damage is actually greater from the secondaries tha the primaries.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?
The integral flux decreases as energy increases.

7. The geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane at TLI are inclined to each other. How does this effect the distribution of radiation relative to the orbital plane? 
The geomagnetic equator is 11.5 degrees above the geographical equator.  This results in a lunar plane of roughly 29 degrees to the equator being 17.5 degrees above the geomagnetic equator.
8. Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit? 
I have repeatedly stated the only contributing factor in radiation exposure other than time is angle or inclinatination of the transit.  The steeper the inclination the lower the exposure.  The TLI does not change the the orbital plane it only expands the apogee of the orbit.  Rockets do not steer with the main engine, they steer with thrusters and unless they did then they would remain on identical orbital planes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on April 26, 2018, 01:01:03 AM
You could not have been a Nuke or even a well trained submariner.
I was.  Nuke school class 8401, served on Tautog, Jacksonville, Bates and Cavalla.  Had NEC's of 3355/3365 and eventually 3366.

If you had been then you would know the diesel tanks were in the ballast tanks and as such would not act as shielding to the the living spaces.
Actually what you describe is the arrangement of a diesel powered submarine.  They were equipped with diesel/ballast tanks

  You would know that primary shielding was provided by polyethylene, lead, steel and water tanks used in the operation of the reactor.
You may want to be careful what details you reveal about submarines.  Surely you were debriefed on the nature of certain classified information you were exposed to in the USN prior to leaving the service.  I've been looking for an unclassified description of a typical USN nuclear powered submarine tank and compartment layout, but the best I can find is one of the Ohio class on Wikipedia.  It shows a tank or void near the RC, but it's not labeled.

You would know that the diesel tanks are placed in the ballast tanks to minimize the impact on trim.  Diesel is replaced by seatwater as it is consumed thereby negating a change in trim.  You embarrass all submarine sailors with this lack of institutional knowledge.
The NFO tank on a nuke boat contains seawater and diesel fuel; it is not used as a trim tank although use of the fuel can affect trim since diesel is lighter than seawater.  This is normally not a problem as use of the DG is minimized.

As I've said before, the information we were exposed to in nuclear power school and prototype has little to do with the environment in space.  It would be better if you told us more about how well you understand the relevant source material related to space travel instead of trying to impress us with your naval nuclear power background.

ETA:  Here is a link you can search for that shows the layout of the reactor, primary shield and secondary shield of a UK nuclear submarine.  NTEC Radiation Shielding Module : A Shielding Application  Note the location of the forward shield tank, they call it the DOF tank.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: timfinch on April 26, 2018, 01:11:15 AM
Then you should know what the primary and secondary shields consisted of and should know the diesel tanks were in the ballast tanks.  i can forgive you confusing a fuel oil tank for the diesel tank because as a nuke machinist mate you probably didn't spend a lot of time replacing tank sensors and working on the diesel generator as I did and you probably didn't spend half as much time at sea as I did.  No harm, no foul.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Northern Lurker on April 26, 2018, 01:21:41 AM
It is located between forward crew compartment and reactor compartment because there it acts as an additional radiation shield. I was wondering how Tim, as a nuclear submariner, can reconcile that in submarine structural elements can shield from radiation but on Apollo not. Or maybe he wasn't a real submariner. Apparently, per Cosmoquest, he wasn't.

Lurky

You could not have been a Nuke or even a well trained submariner. If you had been then you would know the diesel tanks were in the ballast tanks and as such would not act as shielding to the the living spaces.  You would know that primary shielding was provided by polyethylene, lead, steel and water tanks used in the operation of the reactor.  You would know that the diesel tanks are placed in the ballast tanks to minimize the impact on trim.  Diesel is replaced by seatwater as it is consumed thereby negating a change in trim.  You embarrass all submarine sailors with this lack of institutional knowledge.

As Ranb earlier mentioned, you explained diesel tanks of a diesel electric sub. We were talking about nuclear powered submarines, where diesel tanks are between forward crew compartment and reactor compartment. Care to reconcile why US Navy uses structure and equipment as part of radiation shielding but you claim it's impossible and unusable on Apollo.


6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?
The integral flux decreases as energy increases.

Do you realize what that means to shielding requirements?

Lurky
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 26, 2018, 01:53:55 AM
The geomagnetic equator is 11.5 degrees above the geographical equator.  This results in a lunar plane of roughly 29 degrees to the equator being 17.5 degrees above the geomagnetic equator.

As we have tried to explain, the geomagnetic equator is inclined to, not above, the geographic equator. Since the north magnetic pole is actually inclined towards the launch site (seriously, look it up), over the continental US the geomagnetic equator is actually 11.5 degrees below the geographic equator. That has the effect of making the inclination of the Apollo orbit to the VAB closer to 40 degrees.

Quote
Rockets do not steer with the main engine, they steer with thrusters and unless they did then they would remain on identical orbital planes.

Wrong. If the main rocket engine is not aligned with the orbital plane then of course a plane change can (and inevitably will) occur. That's physics. If a spacecraft in an equatorial orbit with an inclination of 0 degrees happened to have its main engine pointed at 90 degrees to the plane of the orbit, what do you think will happen when it fires that engine?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 26, 2018, 02:27:17 AM
Rockets do not steer with the main engine, they steer with thrusters and unless they did then they would remain on identical orbital planes.
You've been watching too much (bad) science fiction I think  :D

As I said over at CQ, a few hours experimenting with Kerbal Space Program would give you a much better understanding of how spacecraft actually operate, and the effects of, for example, firing the main engine when the vehicle is oriented at an angle from its velocity vector.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 26, 2018, 03:08:27 AM
Please stop using glow.  It makes your posts harder to read, and you need all the help you can get.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 26, 2018, 04:37:15 AM
Please stop using glow.  It makes your posts harder to read, and you need all the help you can get.
It is a common CT tactic to use unconventional formatting. For reasons unexplained, they think it somehow adds weight to their claims. One need only visit timecube to see such in action.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 26, 2018, 04:40:12 AM
Rockets do not steer with the main engine, they steer with thrusters and unless they did then they would remain on identical orbital planes.
So much wrong. You likely believe that the pointy end always points in the direction of travel (snigger).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on April 26, 2018, 07:26:22 AM
Rockets do not steer with the main engine, they steer with thrusters and unless they did then they would remain on identical orbital planes.
So much wrong. You likely believe that the pointy end always points in the direction of travel (snigger).

It actually shows a complete lack of understanding of orbital mechanics, no wonder he had a problem with a 3D rendering of the path taken by Apollo.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 26, 2018, 07:27:48 AM
Please stop using glow.  It makes your posts harder to read, and you need all the help you can get.
It is a common CT tactic to use unconventional formatting. For reasons unexplained, they think it somehow adds weight to their claims. One need only visit timecube to see such in action.

He did this on CQ also?  I must be going blind as I didn't recognize it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on April 26, 2018, 09:08:44 AM
Then you should know what the primary and secondary shields consisted of and should know the diesel tanks were in the ballast tanks.
The NFO tank is not a ballast tank even if its condition affects trim.  While a ballast tank can be emptied at sea with the reactor critical as part of standard ship's operation, the NFO tank is never allowed to be anything but full while the reactor is critical.  All nukes know this with the possible exception of yourself.

 
I can forgive you confusing a fuel oil tank for the diesel tank because as a nuke machinist mate you probably didn't spend a lot of time replacing tank sensors and working on the diesel generator as I did and you probably didn't spend half as much time at sea as I did.  No harm, no foul.
You act as though anyone here has said anything to forgive about SSN/SSBN design other than you. The contempt in your posts for your fellow submariners and others who are interested in learning more about technological accomplishments is insulting. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 26, 2018, 09:12:12 AM
Please stop using glow.  It makes your posts harder to read, and you need all the help you can get.
It is a common CT tactic to use unconventional formatting. For reasons unexplained, they think it somehow adds weight to their claims. One need only visit timecube to see such in action.

He did this on CQ also?  I must be going blind as I didn't recognize it.
Not that I am aware, but he is likely aware of the stricter regime there. I was referring to the general proclivity of fringe claimants to go font-crazy such as timecube. http://timecube.2enp.com/

Have fun trying to make head nor tale of it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Northern Lurker on April 26, 2018, 10:57:12 AM
I was referring to the general proclivity of fringe claimants to go font-crazy such as timecube. http://timecube.2enp.com/

Have fun trying to make head nor tale of it.

My head hurts

Lurky
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 26, 2018, 11:05:50 AM
Please stop using glow.  It makes your posts harder to read, and you need all the help you can get.

I should be able to override the styling of the font. I'll see what I can do this evening after I'm done work.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 26, 2018, 11:21:20 AM
For a moment I thought you meant a browser plug-in that would de-fontify TimeCube. That would be....

I dunno, the thing is such a work of art. Famous, too.

You know, way back when I was at a forum where if a poster misbehaved they'd be disemvoweled. Their posts would remain -- jst wtht n f th vwls.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 26, 2018, 01:13:40 PM
You could not have been a Nuke or even a well trained submariner. If you had been then you would know the diesel tanks were in the ballast tanks and as such would not act as shielding to the the living spaces.  You would know that primary shielding was provided by polyethylene, lead, steel and water tanks used in the operation of the reactor.  You would know that the diesel tanks are placed in the ballast tanks to minimize the impact on trim.  Diesel is replaced by seatwater as it is consumed thereby negating a change in trim.  You embarrass all submarine sailors with this lack of institutional knowledge.

You were never a nuclear submariner.  There is so much wrong in your post, it is clear you have no idea what really exists.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 26, 2018, 01:26:09 PM
You could not have been a Nuke or even a well trained submariner.
I was.  Nuke school class 8401, served on Tautog, Jacksonville, Bates and Cavalla.  Had NEC's of 3355/3365 and eventually 3366.

If you had been then you would know the diesel tanks were in the ballast tanks and as such would not act as shielding to the the living spaces.
Actually what you describe is the arrangement of a diesel powered submarine.  They were equipped with diesel/ballast tanks

  You would know that primary shielding was provided by polyethylene, lead, steel and water tanks used in the operation of the reactor.
You may want to be careful what details you reveal about submarines.  Surely you were debriefed on the nature of certain classified information you were exposed to in the USN prior to leaving the service.  I've been looking for an unclassified description of a typical USN nuclear powered submarine tank and compartment layout, but the best I can find is one of the Ohio class on Wikipedia.  It shows a tank or void near the RC, but it's not labeled.

You would know that the diesel tanks are placed in the ballast tanks to minimize the impact on trim.  Diesel is replaced by seatwater as it is consumed thereby negating a change in trim.  You embarrass all submarine sailors with this lack of institutional knowledge.
The NFO tank on a nuke boat contains seawater and diesel fuel; it is not used as a trim tank although use of the fuel can affect trim since diesel is lighter than seawater.  This is normally not a problem as use of the DG is minimized.

As I've said before, the information we were exposed to in nuclear power school and prototype has little to do with the environment in space.  It would be better if you told us more about how well you understand the relevant source material related to space travel instead of trying to impress us with your naval nuclear power background.

ETA:  Here is a link you can search for that shows the layout of the reactor, primary shield and secondary shield of a UK nuclear submarine.  NTEC Radiation Shielding Module : A Shielding Application  Note the location of the forward shield tank, they call it the DOF tank.

Ahhhh.  I did not read this prior to my last post.  But obviously the classified information portion is one I also have to tread lightly around.  That is why you see few details in my comments regarding the submarines, other than pointing out how unknowledgeable timfinch is.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 26, 2018, 04:31:50 PM
Apropos of nothing, on CQ, tim has 368 posts but 369 visits to his profile page. This amuses me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 26, 2018, 04:41:44 PM

Ahhhh.  I did not read this prior to my last post.  But obviously the classified information portion is one I also have to tread lightly around.  That is why you see few details in my comments regarding the submarines, other than pointing out how unknowledgeable timfinch is.
I would not be concerned about that. I have harboured some reservations about Tim's claims for some time. Although I have, personally, set foot on submarines, we are fortunate enough to have people aboard (pun intended) who have done that for a living.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 26, 2018, 04:50:00 PM
The CQ thread is going in circles just like log scale discussion. I'm sure he thinks the VABs are fixed in space as the Earth rotates underneath them.


Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 26, 2018, 05:18:20 PM
The CQ thread is going in circles just like log scale discussion. I'm sure he thinks the VABs are fixed in space as the Earth rotates underneath them.

Ha!  The ONLY thing fixed in space is timfinch's ability to comprehend.

NOTE:  Edited to fix fat-fingered spelling mistake.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 26, 2018, 05:28:26 PM
The CQ thread is going in circles just like log scale discussion. I'm sure he thinks the VABs are fixed in space as the Earth rotates underneath them.


Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk


Yup.

The latest game seems to be...
"I don't know where I am going wrong"

Various members point out where he is going wrong.

"Oh so I am right".

Ignoring the rhetorical baloney, which I have seen many times before, the level of cognitive dissonance is a sight to behold. He did throw in the site/sight baloney in what I can only suspect was a fishing expedition for diversion. Nobody bit on that. Not even gillian. (No offence, gillian).

My provisional assessment is that we could have either a moron or a troll, and I lean toward the latter. Look at reality. In real life, one could not function without some grasp of 3 dimensions, yet tim contends that 2 dimensions are good enough for everything. To me that raises a very big flag.

For example, I happen to live close to an international airport. Planes fly over my home every day. Viewed top down, those flight paths pass directly through my house in the "timverse".  Thus, in the "timverse", every time a plane takes off, I have to raise my coffee mug to avoid the wing knocking over said mug.

Now, obviously Tim does not believe that. One would have to be nuts to believe that. Thus, the conclusion must be that Tim does know that, has at least some grasp of 3D and is lying about that for what reason?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 26, 2018, 05:42:35 PM
Yep, same old trolling. He won't last long. Still, it gave me an excuse to dust off my old VAB pencil diagram and create some new examples. The more he claims to not understand the stuff he is spoonfed the more he will edge himself closer to a ban. I came close to reporting him already after he insisted (and even appealed to a mod) that we give him what he asked for three times after I posted exactly wat he had requested.

I'm actually quite enjoying the mental exercise involved in coming up with illustrations. I might be able to eductae some children with them, even if they are beyond Tim's comprehension....
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 26, 2018, 06:27:06 PM
Yep, same old trolling. He won't last long. Still, it gave me an excuse to dust off my old VAB pencil diagram and create some new examples. The more he claims to not understand the stuff he is spoonfed the more he will edge himself closer to a ban. I came close to reporting him already after he insisted (and even appealed to a mod) that we give him what he asked for three times after I posted exactly wat he had requested.

I'm actually quite enjoying the mental exercise involved in coming up with illustrations. I might be able to eductae some children with them, even if they are beyond Tim's comprehension....
There is a problem in there. It is the objective of the crank to burn your time, my time and everyone's time. Apollo hoaxers are a dying breed. Let the medieval breed simply die out.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: inconceivable on April 26, 2018, 06:33:57 PM
The thing about all this radiation talk that gets me is that it will probably all be revised in the future.  If you read a lot of the Nasa publications and articles they always put a disclaimer?  Usually they say something like "Though accurate at the time of publication........  You have to take it as faith that the information is correct and peer reviewed.  Might as well just believe in Sasquatch.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 26, 2018, 06:40:34 PM
Nobody bit on that. Not even gillian. (No offence, gillian).

I'm sticking to my one simple question that he's continuing to ignore or answer dishonestly in a way that doesn't really answer it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Allan F on April 26, 2018, 06:47:41 PM
The thing about all this radiation talk that gets me is that it will probably all be revised in the future.  If you read a lot of the Nasa publications and articles they always put a disclaimer?  Usually they say something like "Though accurate at the time of publication........  You have to take it as faith that the information is correct and peer reviewed.  Might as well just believe in Sasquatch.

It may be REFINED in future papers, but the fundamentals won't change.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 26, 2018, 07:32:42 PM
Rockets do not steer with the main engine, they steer with thrusters and unless they did then they would remain on identical orbital planes.
So much wrong. You likely believe that the pointy end always points in the direction of travel (snigger).

It actually shows a complete lack of understanding of orbital mechanics, no wonder he had a problem with a 3D rendering of the path taken by Apollo.

It actually shows ignorance of how rockets even manoeuvre in space. Thrusters don't "steer" a spacecraft, they merely change the spacecraft's orientation. An an example, see how the SpaceX Falcon 9 boostback burn works
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 26, 2018, 08:28:18 PM
I am sure his problems and complaints about a three-dimensional universe stem from the same sources of his problems and complaints about averages. He can only handle a simplistic, straight-line approach to a problem. He has yet to reach that point of understanding where one realizes the tools one knows are insufficient for the problem at hand. Instead he keeps trying to force the square pegs into the round holes.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 26, 2018, 11:32:55 PM
The thing about all this radiation talk that getsme is that it will probably all be revised in the future.  If you read a lot of the Nasa publications and articles they always put a disclaimer?  Usually they say something like "Though accurate at the time of publication........  You have to take it as faith that the information is correct and peer reviewed.  Might as well just believe in Sasquatch.
That's how science works. It's not some set dogma etched stone tablets from on high; it's observations, analysis and experiments. As all three of those improve, say, because we get better instruments for more complete observation, or someone comes up with an analysis that fits the facts better, or preforms a more illuminating experiments, the findings may change.
Your complaint just shows how little you know or understand of how the scientific process work.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 27, 2018, 01:32:05 AM
An Isaac Asimov essay for Inconceivable:

http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on April 27, 2018, 01:49:31 AM
For ranb: in your professional opinion, did TimFinch meet your standards as a professional submariner?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 27, 2018, 02:28:35 AM
...

I'm actually quite enjoying the mental exercise involved in coming up with illustrations. I might be able to eductae some children with them, even if they are beyond Tim's comprehension....
It's reached the point where I don't think they are beyond his comprehension.  He understands exactly what they show.

His postings are becoming more and more provocative, and I reckon he's trying to get a "suicide by mod" award to go and flaunt at other hoax-believer sites / forums.

His repeated "misinterpretations", "misreadings" and requests for reposting, re-drawing, and his constant reposting of the same diagrams, lead me to one conclusion...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 27, 2018, 03:21:42 AM
The thing about all this radiation talk that gets me

Oh look, another thing that 'gets you'. Care to address any of the responses to the previous things that 'got you'? No? Thought not. Why change the habit of a lifetime, eh?

Quote
is that it will probably all be revised in the future.

Of course it will. That's how science works. New discoveries, new understanding, refinements of models. It doesn't overturn everything that was previously understood.

Quote
You have to take it as faith that the information is correct and peer reviewed.

No, you don't. The whole point of publication in peer reviewed journals is that you can actually examine the data and methods yourself and, given the right equipment, repeat the experiments. It has nothing to do with faith.

Quote
Might as well just believe in Sasquatch.

There's a world of difference between science not knowing everything and science not knowing anything. The thing that gets me is the number of people who don't get that difference and think they can fill in the gaps or replace the bits they don't like with whatever fairy tale most appeals to them.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: VQ on April 27, 2018, 03:28:22 AM
The thing about all this radiation talk that gets me is that it will probably all be revised in the future.  If you read a lot of the Nasa publications and articles they always put a disclaimer?  Usually they say something like "Though accurate at the time of publication........  You have to take it as faith that the information is correct and peer reviewed.  Might as well just believe in Sasquatch.

It may be REFINED in future papers, but the fundamentals won't change.

Though of course the VAB's do change geometry and intensity over time due to solar weather and changes in earth's magnetic field.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 27, 2018, 03:30:39 AM
For ranb: in your professional opinion, did TimFinch meet your standards as a professional submariner?


Well, he didn't meet my standards as a serviceman. I would not have put up with an airman like him under my command.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 27, 2018, 08:33:23 AM
It has become comedy gold over on CQ.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on April 27, 2018, 09:10:23 AM
For ranb: in your professional opinion, did TimFinch meet your standards as a professional submariner?

Not at all.  I thought it was very strange that he would not understand the relationship of the fuel tanks and reactor shielding.

I've also encountered more than a few Sailors who were stubborn, but they normally knew their limitations and did not indulge in arguments in which they stuck to a position just to tell others they were wrong.  I thought his " I'm a nuclear trained electrician" and "I supervised ELT's" was especially galling.  For example I'm more than a bit learned when it comes to firearms, but would never tell a real soldier how to do their job.   :)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 27, 2018, 10:50:31 AM
And it's closed again.

Just as well. Someone went and mentioned that the magnetic field lines are FAR from straight on the surface of the Earth, meaning a compass doesn't point at the geomagnetic pole, either. I can not imagine the confusion poor A Square was likely to be driven into had that line of discussion continued.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 27, 2018, 10:52:01 AM
That's unfair to A Square. He not only grasped 3 dimensions (although to be truthful, it did take a demonstration) in the end he was ahead of the Sphere.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 27, 2018, 11:51:34 AM
He started a new thread which was swiftly closed. I haven't formed an opinion of his motives or his understanding as I simply do not understand whether he:

a) Stubbornly refuses to accept any correction to his assumptions as a consequence of inflated ego.
b) Believes he is cleverer than the rest of the world.
c) Is deliberately trolling.
d) Is role playing the character.

He is wasting people's time. I cannot believe that he does not comprehend some simple concepts, given that he is relatively erudite. He's not your frothing at the mouth in the YouTube badlands type. Maybe it is best to ignore him now?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Mag40 on April 27, 2018, 12:01:32 PM
He started a new thread which was closed swiftly. I haven't formed an opinion of his motives or his understanding as I simply do not understand whether he:

a) Stubbornly refuses to accept any correction to his assumptions as a consequence of inflated ego.
b) Believes he is more clever than the rest of the world.
c) Is deliberately trolling.
d) Is role playing the character.

He is wasting people's time. I cannot believe that he does not comprehend some simple concepts, given that he is relatively erudite. He's not your frothing at the mouth in the YouTube badlands type. Maybe it is best to ignore him now?

Did you read what he said? It shows an epic inability to grasp reality. A user has quite correctly mirrored the left side of the Earth to show it in its entirety. It demonstrates that an exit angle on the opposite side of the Earth adds the 11.5 degrees. Game set and match.

His response is total gibberish. He keeps carping on about the Lunar plane when it is nothing at all to do with any of it. He is either painfully dumb or a dedicated troll. I see no chance of him ever seeing how clueless he is being.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 27, 2018, 12:15:48 PM
He started a new thread which was swiftly closed. I haven't formed an opinion of his motives or his understanding as I simply do not understand whether he:

a) Stubbornly refuses to accept any correction to his assumptions as a consequence of inflated ego.
b) Believes he is cleverer than the rest of the world.
c) Is deliberately trolling.
d) Is role playing the character.

He is wasting people's time. I cannot believe that he does not comprehend some simple concepts, given that he is relatively erudite. He's not your frothing at the mouth in the YouTube badlands type. Maybe it is best to ignore him now?
Well, well. I suppose he could be seeking the badge of honour of a banning.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 27, 2018, 12:19:36 PM
Did you read what he said?

Yes, I've read exactly what he said. I can't fathom the reasons beyond his commitment, or more precisely rationalise his reasons without making assumptions. It could be a combination of issues and/or motives.

If I were to edge my bets based on the evidence, then he's a troll. So is it time to ignore him? If he's painfully dumb then there's probably little that can be done given the efforts that have been expended, particularly by Jason.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 27, 2018, 12:40:05 PM
He started a new thread which was swiftly closed. I haven't formed an opinion of his motives or his understanding as I simply do not understand whether he:

a) Stubbornly refuses to accept any correction to his assumptions as a consequence of inflated ego.
b) Believes he is cleverer than the rest of the world.
c) Is deliberately trolling.
d) Is role playing the character.

He is wasting people's time. I cannot believe that he does not comprehend some simple concepts, given that he is relatively erudite. He's not your frothing at the mouth in the YouTube badlands type. Maybe it is best to ignore him now?

I just got back from radiation therapy and a treadmill workout and was going to ask why he thinks he's right and the rest of us are wrong given that he linked data, reports that he clearly doesn't understand and refute his contention, but I missed the opportunity.  I must say the mods are being very tolerate of him.  I conclude he is a troll.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 27, 2018, 01:28:25 PM
I actually reported one of my own posts last night to ask that the mods hold his feet to the fire about why they didn't just fake the data.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on April 27, 2018, 02:10:02 PM
He is wasting people's time.

Yes, and that is the entire point.  He is trolling, nerd-sniping, what have you, because that's how he has fun.  It's all about how getting as many other people riled up and frothing SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET as possible, because it's fun watching the monkeys dance.  Hell, he straight out admitted as much back on page 20 or something. 

Getting a thread this size on a site that's, no offense, as lightly trafficked as this one is quite the accomplishment. 

He's not a real HB.  He may or may not understand the material, but that's irrelevant - he doesn't care.  He knows how to push buttons, and that's all that matters. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 27, 2018, 02:28:01 PM
Yes, and that is the entire point.  He is trolling, nerd-sniping, what have you, because that's how he has fun.

It is the most likely explanation, I agree. I'm finding it hard to believe he is that dumb, given the way he has twisted and turned and argued every minute point to shift focus. He's pulled and pushed his opponents in different ways by remaining on the right side of polite (most of the time). His grandiose pomposity, vodka tonic moments and declarations of tired withdrawal to reconsider his position are injections on his part to suggest he may consider the views of others, and keep the debate alive. He draws a sense of willingness to listen with claims he lacks understanding and then starts all over again with invites for different explanations to the problem. His efforts to post images and versions of his understanding are there to draw more 'nerds' into his web. He creates a tempo with feigned absurdity.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 27, 2018, 02:39:17 PM
I actually reported one of my own posts last night to ask that the mods hold his feet to the fire about why they didn't just fake the data.

I noticed that you asked that question several time, and it was ignored several times.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 27, 2018, 02:42:17 PM
Sure, but it is much easier to nail him here than on CQ because...

A) we have much more lattitude here

And

B) On CQ if one doesn't follow the rules, the mods respond quickly and emphatically. The culture there is far more strict.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 27, 2018, 02:45:19 PM
Ben's last visit to CQ? 2017-Nov-21 01:08

Odd that.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 27, 2018, 02:54:25 PM
Ben's last visit here? Today.

I wonder given the commentary here about the thread on CQ why exactly he doesn't have any opinion here or there?

Most odd.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 27, 2018, 03:07:58 PM
I actually reported one of my own posts last night to ask that the mods hold his feet to the fire about why they didn't just fake the data.

I noticed that you asked that question several time, and it was ignored several times.

Well, he did say something about sending people to Guantanamo if they noticed the discrepancy.  Which is both wrong and not an answer.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 27, 2018, 03:13:27 PM
just a quick comment here for my friend Abbadon. I actually went on CQ a few days ago to see Tim's thread there but didn't stay long.

secondly and I really mean this. I have all throughout my membership here followed the rules. I have never insulted anybody or tried to run any threads. I have asked a question and received many answers.

Tim on several occasions broke the rules here and was reminded by a very many people that rules existed and that he should both follow them and follow the word of Lunar Orbit which is something I am very prepared to do.

may I cast your mind back Abbadon to a post by Lunar Orbit themselves In which he quite clearly instructed the participants to 'KNOCK OFF THE WITCH HUNT'.

are you refusing to comply with that direct order or do you think you are above every one here who has literally not carried on the ridiculous notion you are doing.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 27, 2018, 03:13:54 PM
Sure, but it is much easier to nail him here than on CQ because...

A) we have much more lattitude here

And

B) On CQ if one doesn't follow the rules, the mods respond quickly and emphatically. The culture there is far more strict.


Equally though, LO rightly stamps down quickly on racism, sexism, homophobia, inappropriate comment towards religious/cultural groups, offensive images; and puts a stop to more offensive conspiracy theories such as Sandy Hook and holohoax.

LO is slow to exercise the watch, moderation and ban hammers, but evidence and history is on his side. The claimant has always had every opportunity to articulate the case. It was around 2500 posts in this thread before moderation.

I feel this is right because this forum is dedicated to the Apollo hoax. Closing a thread rapidly for reasons other than rudeness or offence would be churlish and interpreted as censoring. CQ runs under a different remit and promotes mainstream science in the wider domain, so does operate under tighter rules.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 27, 2018, 03:54:09 PM
The thread is re-opened for the time being.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 27, 2018, 04:25:31 PM
just a quick comment here for my friend Abbadon.
I am not your friend and you have yet to spell my name correctly.

I actually went on CQ a few days ago to see Tim's thread there but didn't stay long.
Nope. Your last visit to CQ was November 2017.

secondly and I really mean this. I have all throughout my membership here followed the rules. I have never insulted anybody or tried to run any threads. I have asked a question and received many answers.
Which is exactly what tandem socks do.

Tim on several occasions broke the rules here and was reminded by a very many people that rules existed and that he should both follow them and follow the word of Lunar Orbit which is something I am very prepared to do.
Sure. But surely you can acknowledge that it looks pretty bleak right now. Yes/No?

may I cast your mind back Abbadon to a post by Lunar Orbit themselves In which he quite clearly instructed the participants to 'KNOCK OFF THE WITCH HUNT'.
Sure. How many times is it now that you have intentionally spelt my handle wrong? Two more times in this post. It cannot be anything other than intentional at this stage. The name is in the bible.

are you refusing to comply with that direct order or do you think you are above every one here who has literally not carried on the ridiculous notion you are doing.
You really do not want to know what I really think. Just look at your own post. You conceded the incorrect spelling on one hand and then did it again in a single post. Twice. Do you not think that raises some honking red flags? And you still have not returned to CQ, I took a screen shot of it and Waybacked it, so you cannot wriggle out.

You are simply going to have to realise that respect is not a right, it is earned.
So far, you have failed to do so.

Sure, you don't like that much. But that is the reality of the internet. As I am at pains to tell my kids, anyone on the internet can represent themselves to be anything. The null is to assume they are not what they purport to be. Now, as it happens, a member may be heading my direction in the not too distant. If I can swing it, we will meet up in the flesh, as it were. It won't be my first time and certainly won't be my last. He/she may even meet my kids, or I his/hers depending upon logistics.

Despite that it has not yet happened, I would entrust my kids to the care of said member.
Want to know why? 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 27, 2018, 04:31:26 PM
just a quick comment here for my friend Abbadon.
I am not your friend and you have yet to spell my name correctly.

I actually went on CQ a few days ago to see Tim's thread there but didn't stay long.
Nope. Your last visit to CQ was November 2017.

secondly and I really mean this. I have all throughout my membership here followed the rules. I have never insulted anybody or tried to run any threads. I have asked a question and received many answers.
Which is exactly what tandem socks do.

Tim on several occasions broke the rules here and was reminded by a very many people that rules existed and that he should both follow them and follow the word of Lunar Orbit which is something I am very prepared to do.
Sure. But surely you can acknowledge that it looks pretty bleak right now. Yes/No?

may I cast your mind back Abbadon to a post by Lunar Orbit themselves In which he quite clearly instructed the participants to 'KNOCK OFF THE WITCH HUNT'.
Sure. How many times is it now that you have intentionally spelt my handle wrong? Two more times in this post. It cannot be anything other than intentional at this stage. The name is in the bible.

are you refusing to comply with that direct order or do you think you are above every one here who has literally not carried on the ridiculous notion you are doing.
You really do not want to know what I really think. Just look at your own post. You conceded the incorrect spelling on one hand and then did it again in a single post. Twice. Do you not think that raises some honking red flags? And you still have not returned to CQ, I took a screen shot of it and Waybacked it, so you cannot wriggle out.

You are simply going to have to realise that respect is not a right, it is earned.
So far, you have failed to do so.

Sure, you don't like that much. But that is the reality of the internet. As I am at pains to tell my kids, anyone on the internet can represent themselves to be anything. The null is to assume they are not what they purport to be. Now, as it happens, a member may be heading my direction in the not too distant. If I can swing it, we will meet up in the flesh, as it were. It won't be my first time and certainly won't be my last. He/she may even meet my kids, or I his/hers depending upon logistics.

Despite that it has not yet happened, I would entrust my kids to the care of said member.
Want to know why?

first of all the name spelling was intentional as I am getting sick and tired of you.
second I did indeed go to CQ just didn't log in. don't jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts.
third we are not tandem socks. I have done what is asked. I have no control over what over people who live on the other side of the world do.
fourth it only looks bleak to you because it is only you who insists on following this idea.
fifth the name spelling is nothing to do with a direct instruction from the sole manager of this site. do what he says.
finally it isn't my intention to gain anything from anybody other than answers to my questions which I am very grateful for. i'm sure I will ask more in the future. it doesn't bother me if I don't gain any trust. as I have said it is only you who is following this line of thought.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 27, 2018, 04:33:41 PM
The thread is re-opened for the time being.
It is? Oh goody.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 27, 2018, 04:56:06 PM
just a quick comment here for my friend Abbadon.
I am not your friend and you have yet to spell my name correctly.

I actually went on CQ a few days ago to see Tim's thread there but didn't stay long.
Nope. Your last visit to CQ was November 2017.

secondly and I really mean this. I have all throughout my membership here followed the rules. I have never insulted anybody or tried to run any threads. I have asked a question and received many answers.
Which is exactly what tandem socks do.

Tim on several occasions broke the rules here and was reminded by a very many people that rules existed and that he should both follow them and follow the word of Lunar Orbit which is something I am very prepared to do.
Sure. But surely you can acknowledge that it looks pretty bleak right now. Yes/No?

may I cast your mind back Abbadon to a post by Lunar Orbit themselves In which he quite clearly instructed the participants to 'KNOCK OFF THE WITCH HUNT'.
Sure. How many times is it now that you have intentionally spelt my handle wrong? Two more times in this post. It cannot be anything other than intentional at this stage. The name is in the bible.

are you refusing to comply with that direct order or do you think you are above every one here who has literally not carried on the ridiculous notion you are doing.
You really do not want to know what I really think. Just look at your own post. You conceded the incorrect spelling on one hand and then did it again in a single post. Twice. Do you not think that raises some honking red flags? And you still have not returned to CQ, I took a screen shot of it and Waybacked it, so you cannot wriggle out.

You are simply going to have to realise that respect is not a right, it is earned.
So far, you have failed to do so.

Sure, you don't like that much. But that is the reality of the internet. As I am at pains to tell my kids, anyone on the internet can represent themselves to be anything. The null is to assume they are not what they purport to be. Now, as it happens, a member may be heading my direction in the not too distant. If I can swing it, we will meet up in the flesh, as it were. It won't be my first time and certainly won't be my last. He/she may even meet my kids, or I his/hers depending upon logistics.

Despite that it has not yet happened, I would entrust my kids to the care of said member.
Want to know why?

first of all the name spelling was intentional as I am getting sick and tired of you.
Yes, I know.

second I did indeed go to CQ just didn't log in. don't jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts.
And had no comment to make since November 2017. Well that is credible. Not.

third we are not tandem socks.
The evidence available suggests you are. I have posted my credentials as an engineer. I have met with various in real life. And you have what exactly? Surely you can see how this has all the hallmarks of a game?

I have done what is asked.
I don't believe you.

I have no control over what over people who live on the other side of the world do.
Correct. The other 96% of humanity watches the US sink into oblivion of ignorance with despair.

fourth it only looks bleak to you because it is only you who insists on following this idea.
A rather odd claim given that you slavishly follow tim.

fifth the name spelling is nothing to do with a direct instruction from the sole manager of this site. do what he says.
You have already claimed that you spell it wrong purposefully.
finally it isn't my intention to gain anything from anybody other than answers to my questions which I am very grateful for.
Except you have had answers to all of your questions with not so much as any response at all.

i'm sure I will ask more in the future.
Feel free. I very much doubt you will respond.
it doesn't bother me if I don't gain any trust. as I have said it is only you who is following this line of thought.
And you would be wrong in that supposition.  Trust is a critical component.  As matters stand, you have none.

Sure, I get that as an upstanding, moral citizen you might take offence at the notion that you not. But how the hell could anyone on the intertubes know that? Should we consider anything posted by anyone as true? Simply by dint of being on the webernets?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 27, 2018, 05:08:36 PM
just a quick comment here for my friend Abbadon.
I am not your friend and you have yet to spell my name correctly.

I actually went on CQ a few days ago to see Tim's thread there but didn't stay long.
Nope. Your last visit to CQ was November 2017.

secondly and I really mean this. I have all throughout my membership here followed the rules. I have never insulted anybody or tried to run any threads. I have asked a question and received many answers.
Which is exactly what tandem socks do.

Tim on several occasions broke the rules here and was reminded by a very many people that rules existed and that he should both follow them and follow the word of Lunar Orbit which is something I am very prepared to do.
Sure. But surely you can acknowledge that it looks pretty bleak right now. Yes/No?

may I cast your mind back Abbadon to a post by Lunar Orbit themselves In which he quite clearly instructed the participants to 'KNOCK OFF THE WITCH HUNT'.
Sure. How many times is it now that you have intentionally spelt my handle wrong? Two more times in this post. It cannot be anything other than intentional at this stage. The name is in the bible.

are you refusing to comply with that direct order or do you think you are above every one here who has literally not carried on the ridiculous notion you are doing.
You really do not want to know what I really think. Just look at your own post. You conceded the incorrect spelling on one hand and then did it again in a single post. Twice. Do you not think that raises some honking red flags? And you still have not returned to CQ, I took a screen shot of it and Waybacked it, so you cannot wriggle out.

You are simply going to have to realise that respect is not a right, it is earned.
So far, you have failed to do so.

Sure, you don't like that much. But that is the reality of the internet. As I am at pains to tell my kids, anyone on the internet can represent themselves to be anything. The null is to assume they are not what they purport to be. Now, as it happens, a member may be heading my direction in the not too distant. If I can swing it, we will meet up in the flesh, as it were. It won't be my first time and certainly won't be my last. He/she may even meet my kids, or I his/hers depending upon logistics.

Despite that it has not yet happened, I would entrust my kids to the care of said member.
Want to know why?

first of all the name spelling was intentional as I am getting sick and tired of you.
Yes, I know.

second I did indeed go to CQ just didn't log in. don't jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts.
And had no comment to make since November 2017. Well that is credible. Not.

third we are not tandem socks.
The evidence available suggests you are. I have posted my credentials as an engineer. I have met with various in real life. And you have what exactly? Surely you can see how this has all the hallmarks of a game?

I have done what is asked.
I don't believe you.

I have no control over what over people who live on the other side of the world do.
Correct. The other 96% of humanity watches the US sink into oblivion of ignorance with despair.

fourth it only looks bleak to you because it is only you who insists on following this idea.
A rather odd claim given that you slavishly follow tim.

fifth the name spelling is nothing to do with a direct instruction from the sole manager of this site. do what he says.
You have already claimed that you spell it wrong purposefully.
finally it isn't my intention to gain anything from anybody other than answers to my questions which I am very grateful for.
Except you have had answers to all of your questions with not so much as any response at all.

i'm sure I will ask more in the future.
Feel free. I very much doubt you will respond.
it doesn't bother me if I don't gain any trust. as I have said it is only you who is following this line of thought.
And you would be wrong in that supposition.  Trust is a critical component.  As matters stand, you have none.

Sure, I get that as an upstanding, moral citizen you might take offence at the notion that you not. But how the hell could anyone on the intertubes know that? Should we consider anything posted by anyone as true? Simply by dint of being on the webernets?

let me just say this again but this will be my very last post to you abaddon as now you are talking nonsense.

I have explained why I haven't been online at CQ. I don't need to say it again.

the evidence doesn't say we are. only in your mind. as evidence I ask you read some of the comments about this by other members who have refused to follow your line of thinking.

when I say I have done what is asked I mean I have followed all rules and provided what has been asked. your 'I don't believe you comment is nonsense.

I have never followed Tim. I asked a question here posed by tim, introduced him as a member and followed the thread with great interest.

I think you will find I have posted quite a few times in this thread. I have had no reason to post more as the people who have answered Tim have far more knowledge than me.

when I say it doesn't bother me I mean its only you doing this. if people here don't show me respect i'm not perturbed. my scientific knowledge pales in comparison  so I deserve no respect for that. I haven't asked for any either. I have simply asked a question.

this is the last time I will respond to you Abaddon as in my opinion you have insulted me. whatever you post now or in the future, on this thread or any other (including any other questions I may or not ask) I wont respond to you.

Lunar Orbit I believe I have followed the rules here, in my opinion Abaddon hasn't. I wont respond to any more posts of his while he insults me like this.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 27, 2018, 05:31:33 PM
just a quick comment here for my friend Abbadon.
I am not your friend and you have yet to spell my name correctly.

I actually went on CQ a few days ago to see Tim's thread there but didn't stay long.
Nope. Your last visit to CQ was November 2017.

secondly and I really mean this. I have all throughout my membership here followed the rules. I have never insulted anybody or tried to run any threads. I have asked a question and received many answers.
Which is exactly what tandem socks do.

Tim on several occasions broke the rules here and was reminded by a very many people that rules existed and that he should both follow them and follow the word of Lunar Orbit which is something I am very prepared to do.
Sure. But surely you can acknowledge that it looks pretty bleak right now. Yes/No?

may I cast your mind back Abbadon to a post by Lunar Orbit themselves In which he quite clearly instructed the participants to 'KNOCK OFF THE WITCH HUNT'.
Sure. How many times is it now that you have intentionally spelt my handle wrong? Two more times in this post. It cannot be anything other than intentional at this stage. The name is in the bible.

are you refusing to comply with that direct order or do you think you are above every one here who has literally not carried on the ridiculous notion you are doing.
You really do not want to know what I really think. Just look at your own post. You conceded the incorrect spelling on one hand and then did it again in a single post. Twice. Do you not think that raises some honking red flags? And you still have not returned to CQ, I took a screen shot of it and Waybacked it, so you cannot wriggle out.

You are simply going to have to realise that respect is not a right, it is earned.
So far, you have failed to do so.

Sure, you don't like that much. But that is the reality of the internet. As I am at pains to tell my kids, anyone on the internet can represent themselves to be anything. The null is to assume they are not what they purport to be. Now, as it happens, a member may be heading my direction in the not too distant. If I can swing it, we will meet up in the flesh, as it were. It won't be my first time and certainly won't be my last. He/she may even meet my kids, or I his/hers depending upon logistics.

Despite that it has not yet happened, I would entrust my kids to the care of said member.
Want to know why?

first of all the name spelling was intentional as I am getting sick and tired of you.
Yes, I know.

second I did indeed go to CQ just didn't log in. don't jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts.
And had no comment to make since November 2017. Well that is credible. Not.

third we are not tandem socks.
The evidence available suggests you are. I have posted my credentials as an engineer. I have met with various in real life. And you have what exactly? Surely you can see how this has all the hallmarks of a game?

I have done what is asked.
I don't believe you.

I have no control over what over people who live on the other side of the world do.
Correct. The other 96% of humanity watches the US sink into oblivion of ignorance with despair.

fourth it only looks bleak to you because it is only you who insists on following this idea.
A rather odd claim given that you slavishly follow tim.

fifth the name spelling is nothing to do with a direct instruction from the sole manager of this site. do what he says.
You have already claimed that you spell it wrong purposefully.
finally it isn't my intention to gain anything from anybody other than answers to my questions which I am very grateful for.
Except you have had answers to all of your questions with not so much as any response at all.

i'm sure I will ask more in the future.
Feel free. I very much doubt you will respond.
it doesn't bother me if I don't gain any trust. as I have said it is only you who is following this line of thought.
And you would be wrong in that supposition.  Trust is a critical component.  As matters stand, you have none.

Sure, I get that as an upstanding, moral citizen you might take offence at the notion that you not. But how the hell could anyone on the intertubes know that? Should we consider anything posted by anyone as true? Simply by dint of being on the webernets?

let me just say this again but this will be my very last post to you abaddon as now you are talking nonsense.

I have explained why I haven't been online at CQ. I don't need to say it again.

the evidence doesn't say we are. only in your mind. as evidence I ask you read some of the comments about this by other members who have refused to follow your line of thinking.

when I say I have done what is asked I mean I have followed all rules and provided what has been asked. your 'I don't believe you comment is nonsense.

I have never followed Tim. I asked a question here posed by tim, introduced him as a member and followed the thread with great interest.

I think you will find I have posted quite a few times in this thread. I have had no reason to post more as the people who have answered Tim have far more knowledge than me.

when I say it doesn't bother me I mean its only you doing this. if people here don't show me respect i'm not perturbed. my scientific knowledge pales in comparison  so I deserve no respect for that. I haven't asked for any either. I have simply asked a question.

this is the last time I will respond to you Abaddon as in my opinion you have insulted me. whatever you post now or in the future, on this thread or any other (including any other questions I may or not ask) I wont respond to you.

Lunar Orbit I believe I have followed the rules here, in my opinion Abaddon hasn't. I wont respond to any more posts of his while he insults me like this.
Sigh. Do you not realise that buckets of people represent themselves in weird terms? That's how internet stalking works. You are impossibly naive.

I could claim to be PDJT and you would take it at face value. Because it was on the intertubes.

Understand that how you are perceived is a direct function of how you self present. If one self presents as a moron who believes that clowns are the progeny of virgin unicorns, one might expect a level of mockery. Seems an extreme, right? But that is your space.


And as for you ignoring me? Colour me a river.  All that does is identify that you have no answer to the difficult questions, so you prefer to pretend they never happened. Up to you. Want to be seen as an internet wingnut or not?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 27, 2018, 05:54:17 PM
He started a new thread which was swiftly closed.

And so it was.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 27, 2018, 05:57:39 PM
He started a new thread which was swiftly closed.

And so it was.

Hahaha, you spotted it; you clever rascal you!  ;)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 27, 2018, 06:43:38 PM
Much as I understand and sympathize with the CosmoQuest moderation philosophy, it is a failure in this thread. TimFinch is gaming the system. Whether it is for pure trolling, or to avoid having to confront his own inability, I can not say.

The moderators are assuming good faith and are allowing him to string everyone else along. He is NOT going to answer direct questions, no matter how much they ask. He is NOT going to stick to the subject, no matter how much they intend that to happen. He's just going to do the same thing he did here, with the exception being no-one gets to acknowledge it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 27, 2018, 07:22:21 PM
Well, if you want to see the wheels fall off, he's now shown he knows nothing of orbital mechanics or has Jason has identified, his trolling has fallen apart as he has gone from talking of ellipses to straight trajectories for Apollo.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 27, 2018, 07:25:43 PM
I was joking with my Wallace and Gromit reference, but I'm beginning to wonder if Tim actually thinks orbital mechanics actually do work that way... :-)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 27, 2018, 07:34:27 PM
I was joking with my Wallace and Gromit reference, but I'm beginning to wonder if Tim actually thinks orbital mechanics actually do work that way... :-)

Yes, I picked up on your joke. I asked him earlier in the CQ thread if he believed the rocket travelled in a straight line and he ignored me. It dawned on me following his Orion and Apollo equivalence and his insistence of using 2D to represent the problem. He is obsessed by the latter.

He then kept referring to the rocket slowing down due to gravity. This made me realise that he actually thinks it followed a straight line, along with the Orion diagram he presented here. When he then spoke of Bob representing the orbit as a curve, it then became a little more obvious.

I do believe he's taking trolling to a new level though, and it's all a sham on his part to play dumb to keep the debate open for his jollies. So where I say 'he thinks', I mean he's pretending to think. That's my speculation of course.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 27, 2018, 07:52:55 PM
It can be quite difficult to tell the difference between a fool and someone assuming such a role. :o The two are not mutually exclusive, surprisingly enough.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 27, 2018, 08:21:18 PM
It can be quite difficult to tell the difference between a fool and someone assuming such a role. :o The two are not mutually exclusive, surprisingly enough.

We are having a somewhat similar problem with a poster in a JFK Conspiracy thread on ISF.  He displays all the classic tells of Dunning-Kruger Effect... he is convinced he knows everything about everything, and more than anyone else does on any given subject. Further, he simply cannot be convinced that he is wrong, and holds on to long debunked ideas. Exhibitors of Dunning Kruger cannot bear the idea that someone else might have more knowledge on any subject than they do, so when they realise they have encountered a bona-fide expert on a subject of discussion, they will attack that expert's knowledge as irrelevant and meaningless, and attempt to belittle them by making them out to be obsessed in that subject field. Anyone who dares to point out he is wrong is dealt with in a dismissive and often rude and demeaning manner.

TimFinch exhibits exactly the same characteristics....

- When he was out of his depth with graphs and mathematics, he attacked those who knew he was wrong and knew what they were talking about.

- When he showed an inability to understand a 3D model of orbital mechanics, he professed a preference for using 2D, and attacked the idea of 3D as too complex (claiming that if things could not be explained simply, then you didn't understand the subject.... (TimFinch thought he could explain things with 2D, therefore, in his mind, he understood better than those who insisted on the 3D view)

IME, this is classic DK behaviour, and if it looks familiar, it is... The Blunder and Adrian van Weereld (AWE130) are other examples of people exhibiting DK Effect   
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 27, 2018, 08:41:08 PM
Ben's last visit to CQ? 2017-Nov-21 01:08

Odd that.

I told you to knock it off with the witch hunt. What part wasn't clear?

Seriously. You're acting paranoid and it makes the rest of us look bad. I get that sometimes conspiracy theorists hide their intentions when they join, but that doesn't mean every new member is lying.

The fact that Ben and Tim had some kind of relationship prior to joining the forum is NOT suspicious because they could be acquaintances and still be on opposite sides of the debate. The fact that Ben has not logged into CosmoQuest since November is NOT suspicious because he can read the forum without logging in (I just logged into CQ for the first time in several years yesterday). The fact that he spelled your name wrong is NOT suspicious because mistakes happen... even to people who believe the Apollo moon landings happened.

You are doing the same thing as Timfinch. You're letting your certainty that you are right blind you to the possibility that you are wrong. It is irrational.

This is your last warning on the matter. You can have suspicions but if you start throwing around accusations you better be prepared to provide solid evidence. It's no different than when a conspiracy theorist accuses one of us of being a government stooge.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 27, 2018, 09:01:45 PM
I was joking with my Wallace and Gromit reference, but I'm beginning to wonder if Tim actually thinks orbital mechanics actually do work that way... :-)

Yes, I picked up on your joke. I asked him earlier in the CQ thread if he believed the rocket travelled in a straight line and he ignored me. It dawned on me following his Orion and Apollo equivalence and his insistence of using 2D to represent the problem. He is obsessed by the latter.

He then kept referring to the rocket slowing down due to gravity. This made me realise that he actually thinks it followed a straight line, along with the Orion diagram he presented here. When he then spoke of Bob representing the orbit as a curve, it then became a little more obvious.

I do believe he's taking trolling to a new level though, and it's all a sham on his part to play dumb to keep the debate open for his jollies. So where I say 'he thinks', I mean he's pretending to think. That's my speculation of course.
I snickered when he said that "if it isn't written it wasn't done"  or words to that effect.  If he would go back to a 3-D model and then hold up a plane that intersects the Moon in ~3 days he should be able to visualize that orbit ellipse.  He says he is done, but we've heard that before, I suspect he will be back.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Peter B on April 27, 2018, 10:45:08 PM
The thing about all this radiation talk that gets me is that it will probably all be revised in the future.  If you read a lot of the Nasa publications and articles they always put a disclaimer?  Usually they say something like "Though accurate at the time of publication........  You have to take it as faith that the information is correct and peer reviewed.  Might as well just believe in Sasquatch.

Out of interest, do you think that scientists from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea (or any number of other countries unfriendly to the USA) "take it as faith that the information is correct" that NASA publishes?

It's a simple fact that, during the Cold War, a country as skilled at propaganda and misdirection as the USSR would have had a propaganda coup of the highest order if they'd been able to demonstrate the NASA had faked Apollo.

And given Russia's current behaviour towards the USA in particular and the West in general, it's hard to see Russia passing up an opportunity to make mischief at the USA's expense if scientific malfeasance by NASA could be shown, particularly if it had some sort of government backing, direction or support.

tl;dr NASA wouldn't fake data because it would be too easy to show they were wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: VQ on April 28, 2018, 12:30:33 AM
He flounced at CQ, again.

Anyways, I learned a bit more about terrestrial magnetic field weakening as a result of these threads, so I'm out ahead.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on April 28, 2018, 12:32:40 AM
Here's another point why NASA would not use false data.
As has been pointed out, despite incredulity, that radiation does damage electronics. If the radiation was significantly stronger than NASA and even other space agencies reported, satellites, including privately owned ones, like many communications satellites, would be failing t faster than expected. The companies, not to mention the insurance companies, the latter whose whole business model is based on accurately predicting risks and assigning a commiserate rate to insure them by, would  knows something was amiss, and these are multibillion dollar companies with thousands of employees. Think all of them are just going to roll over for some  government hoax that was doomed to fail from from the start, when they're losing money over it?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 28, 2018, 01:57:48 AM
Yeah, I asked him why they didn't just fake it to something believable.  The answer was something something magic trick, something something Guantanamo.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: molesworth on April 28, 2018, 03:17:52 AM
Yeah, I asked him why they didn't just fake it to something believable.  The answer was something something magic trick, something something Guantanamo.
Yeah, I was wondering what direction he was going there.  Definitely moving from smartcooky's Dunning-Kruger, through cognitive dissonance and into tinfoil hat territory   ::)

I believe he's mentioned, either here or on CQ, that he'll keep "exposing the truth" until the Men in Black knock on his door  ;D
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 28, 2018, 03:57:00 AM
Yeah, I asked him why they didn't just fake it to something believable.  The answer was something something magic trick, something something Guantanamo.
I am sure it made sense somewhere in his head. Besides, apparently you are just a woman and ergo don't count in the timverseTM
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 28, 2018, 11:37:31 AM
I wonder where he went now.

See, that's something that really annoys me about that particular species. They learn.

No, they don't learn their ideas or wrong, or that they lack a grasp of the subjects. They learn some of the obvious mistakes and they learn a few more buzzwords and just enough about concepts entirely above their heads to successfully fake it for an opening post.

It's like the final evolution of the dance other conspiracy believers do; argument to counter argument to counter-counter argument, except Tim's evolution skips the difficult and onerous step of formulating a new argument. He just takes his opponents work to give his original grossly flawed argument a more glittery look.

So Tim can be presumed to have taken his game to another unwitting group. A group where he can flash in fresh with graphs of AP8 minimum and TL1 plots and thus wow over as much of the peanut gallery as he can in his first posts.

And then proceed to drag whatever new conversation he's in out over endless pages until it is finally obvious to all he doesn't know anything and has no intention of ever learning anything.

What a colossal farting waste of time.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 28, 2018, 11:49:28 AM
They learn some of the obvious mistakes and they learn a few more buzzwords and just enough about concepts entirely above their heads to successfully fake it for an opening post.

I agree, the flounces are all part of Tim reading through the threads, going away, finding out some more information and then coming back with the 'how about this then, this fits?' It is a common tactic, and he used to maximum advantage. The other tactic he tried was simply ignoring posters.

The problem with this for Tim, there is always someone here at the board who can dissect his inconsistencies, such as quoting averages taken from the Apollo mission to give ranges for GCR dose, and by ignoring posters he eventually trips himself up for someone else to pounce on his misunderstandings.

Quote
What a colossal farting waste of time.

In the main for those that have required knowledge, yes. Not entirely for me, I've learned some new concepts and ideas as I went away and read new, materiel and read posts from others. It has clarified my understanding of the TLI orbit. I've thought about better ways of challenging the poster and the argument that way I question. There are some old hands here, and it is great to learn.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 28, 2018, 11:52:37 AM
One question that came up last night at CQ was the 7 degree increase in inclination at TLI. A poster argued that we really needed an expert in orbital mechanics as the increase in speed was only 50%, so it would not give a 7 deg increase in the TLI orbital plane. The poster suggested closer to 3.5 deg.

I would be inclined (pun intended) to agree with this estimate. Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 28, 2018, 12:51:49 PM
One question that came up last night at CQ was the 7 degree increase in inclination at TLI. A poster argued that we really needed an expert in orbital mechanics as the increase in speed was only 50%, so it would not give a 7 deg increase in the TLI orbital plane. The poster suggested closer to 3.5 deg.

I would be inclined (pun intended) to agree with this estimate. Any thoughts?

The 7 degree number is what Bob and I worked with in my simulator, as it was first I wanted to make sure everything worked before pressing on.  It doesn't sound like much but over 6-7 minute burn those degrees begin to add up.
I did like the way you handed him his hat when discussing:
What is the bremsstrahlung mechanism?
 What is the bremsstrahlung spectrum produced by electrons in aluminum?
 What contribution did other CM materials make to absorption of bremsstrahlung?

He indeed knows buzz words, but not in what relation they have to the subject matter.  I learned a bit from your discussion.  And  I assume that Bob is correct, seems reasonable that Aluminum at 8 g/cm^2  would attenuate electrons < 7 MeV.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 28, 2018, 01:16:24 PM
I am sure it made sense somewhere in his head. Besides, apparently you are just a woman and ergo don't count in the timverseTM

As I've said repeatedly, I really don't think that was the issue.  When it comes to things like orbits and radiation and so forth, he can bluster and bloviate, but when it comes to "but what if you're wrong," there's not much impressive that he can say.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 28, 2018, 02:08:20 PM
He never gives in, he's now hijacking another CQ thread with the same discussion.

Apollo Orion graphics that might be useful. (https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?168552-Some-Apollo-Orion-graphics-that-might-be-useful)

These are some quite nice graphics from Grant though.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 28, 2018, 02:15:37 PM
Yes they are, but tim still doesn't get it nor the 3-D view insisting the trajectory is over the north pole!,  Bah look at the first image.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 28, 2018, 02:20:18 PM
Yes they are, but tim still doesn't get it nor the 3-D view insisting the trajectory is over the north pole!,  Bah look at the first image.

He cannot compile the three images and work out the trajectory. The 3rd image does indeed look as though it does go over the north pole, but it's just the perspective of the 2D rendering. The perspective from the first two images tells you that Apollo did not go over the north pole.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 28, 2018, 02:31:44 PM
And he still has spatial recognition issues with 3-D.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 28, 2018, 02:40:41 PM
And he's still trying to moderate his own thread. We'll see how long that lasts.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 28, 2018, 02:48:05 PM
And he's still trying to moderate his own thread. We'll see how long that lasts.

I endorse people having a platform to speak freely, and I understand he's not promulgating hateful words, I just find his presence annoying now. He's had his chance, and just needs to ride off into the sunset. I'm sure someone can say conjure a spitting-coffee-over-the-monitor comment regarding his spatial understanding of sunsets.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 28, 2018, 04:31:42 PM
It just reminded me of this



especially the closing line...
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on April 28, 2018, 05:58:33 PM
Weird new gambit he's got going on now.

Wonder where Ben is? He might be able to help with this.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 28, 2018, 06:17:34 PM
Suspended just now. No idea for how long. It will be some time before Tim will be answering questions.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 28, 2018, 06:20:17 PM
Being a mod anywhere is a difficult and demanding job, but they have been to lenient with him.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on April 28, 2018, 06:36:07 PM
Weird new gambit he's got going on now.

Wonder where Ben is? He might be able to help with this.
well it might be related to Tim's desire that everyone follow him to Facebook where he could control the conversation. He got no takers for that,so he is trying to control the conversation on CQ. That is just a guess. In any event, Tim got dinged for multiple reasons, all of which he knew were not allowed since he had previous warnings for and 1 suspension .  I don't recall off the top of my head the steps in the suspension scale on CQ. Nevertheless the mods flat out stated that upon returning any further infractions would result in a ban. Seems a bit severe to me, but I am just a member and not party to mod decision processes.

ETA. Mod just posted, it's a two week suspension.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 28, 2018, 08:38:57 PM
TimFinch is gone for the next two weeks (or longer) so he won't be answering questions soon. The mail box will have time to cool off.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: smartcooky on April 28, 2018, 10:25:37 PM
It just reminded me of this



especially the closing line...


That is bloody hilarious!
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 29, 2018, 07:53:56 AM
That is bloody hilarious!

Which spawned Smith and Jones and the famous Smith and Jones Head to Head.

Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 29, 2018, 01:04:51 PM
Weird new gambit he's got going on now.

Wonder where Ben is? He might be able to help with this.

I haven't looked at CQ for a while. TBH I got a bit fed up of Tim's constant nonsense. I have actually blocked him from facebook messenger. i'm sure in good time he will be banned from CQ
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on April 29, 2018, 01:06:52 PM
It'll be at least two weeks before that happens . . . .
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 29, 2018, 01:07:54 PM
well that's 2 weeks for him to google something else to throw at the wall lol
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 29, 2018, 01:12:39 PM
Or he will start commenting, again in the new thread that he doesn't understand the 3-D representations that clearly support Apollo skimming near the upper boundary of the VARB, missing most of the radiation, therein.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 29, 2018, 01:16:16 PM
Or he will start commenting, again in the new thread that he doesn't understand the 3-D representations that clearly support Apollo skimming near the upper boundary of the VARB, missing most of the radiation, therein.

that's why I was getting annoyed. he was clearly wrong just wouldn't admit it
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 29, 2018, 01:24:45 PM
Or he will start commenting, again in the new thread that he doesn't understand the 3-D representations that clearly support Apollo skimming near the upper boundary of the VARB, missing most of the radiation, therein.

that's why I was getting annoyed. he was clearly wrong just wouldn't admit it

Yes as gillianren has noted, he can't publically admit to his incorrect observations, radiation, TLI planes needed to get the crews safely above the VARB and land on the Moon.  I don't believe he will last long when the suspension is over, but that is just me.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 29, 2018, 01:35:26 PM
I don't believe he will last lnof when the suspension is over, but that is just me.

My money is on a short return punctuated with a final flame-out.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 29, 2018, 03:23:24 PM
well that's 2 weeks for him to google something else to throw at the wall lol

If the mods follow through, he needs to answer outstanding questions. If he googles new facts that are unrelated to the trajectory and shielding and throws these at the wall, then your guess is as good as mine regarding the moderator reaction.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 29, 2018, 03:23:55 PM
My money is on a short return punctuated with a final flame-out.

That's par for the course in these circumstances.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 29, 2018, 04:56:43 PM
My money is on a short return punctuated with a final flame-out.

That's par for the course in these circumstances.

I'll take it, if I can get it.  I haven't been able to get within 20 strikes, yet.   :'(
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 30, 2018, 07:28:05 AM
that's why I was getting annoyed. he was clearly wrong just wouldn't admit it

I am pretty convinced now that he is just a troll on the windup for whatever reason. His complete inability to grasp log graphs, the difference between an average and a minimum, the correct way to compare two data sets to get sound conclusions, geometry and perspective is entirely at odds with his claims on this thread that he is a person who made the 'cream of the crop' to be allowed to serve on a nuclear sub. His actions and his claims lead to four possible conclusions:

1: He is indeed what he says he is and is just a bored troll feigning ignorance looking to get a reaction from people for reasons of his own.
2: He is indeed as inept as he appears to be and was never in fact a serviceman, or at least not one who had to pass a rigorous selection process to obtain one of his postings.
3: He was indeed a serviceman who did come out in the top few percent of his class to get one of his postings, and the entire selection process for US nuclear subs is actually massively deficient.
4: He is just a troll who makes up anything and everything he can just to get a reaction from people.

Given that his 'I'm just asking questions to clarify my understanding' position as an attempted defence of asking questions that have in fact already been answered explicitly is painfully transparent, I'm leaning heavily towards option 4 at this point.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on April 30, 2018, 08:35:41 AM
that's why I was getting annoyed. he was clearly wrong just wouldn't admit it

I am pretty convinced now that he is just a troll on the windup for whatever reason. His complete inability to grasp log graphs, the difference between an average and a minimum, the correct way to compare two data sets to get sound conclusions, geometry and perspective is entirely at odds with his claims on this thread that he is a person who made the 'cream of the crop' to be allowed to serve on a nuclear sub. His actions and his claims lead to four possible conclusions:

1: He is indeed what he says he is and is just a bored troll feigning ignorance looking to get a reaction from people for reasons of his own.
2: He is indeed as inept as he appears to be and was never in fact a serviceman, or at least not one who had to pass a rigorous selection process to obtain one of his postings.
3: He was indeed a serviceman who did come out in the top few percent of his class to get one of his postings, and the entire selection process for US nuclear subs is actually massively deficient.
4: He is just a troll who makes up anything and everything he can just to get a reaction from people.

Given that his 'I'm just asking questions to clarify my understanding' position as an attempted defence of asking questions that have in fact already been answered explicitly is painfully transparent, I'm leaning heavily towards option 4 at this point.

Yeah i have actually just read the entire thread on CQ and i thought i was looking in a mirror. it reminds me of a FB group i was in (i think i asked this question here ) about moonbounce. the guy that claimed this claimed he was a radio ham but didnt know what the MSFN was lol

when i explained why moonbounce wouldnt work his answer was 'yes they did Ben'
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 30, 2018, 03:10:49 PM
I'll take it, if I can get it.  I haven't been able to get within 20 strikes, yet.   :'(

1 round at 89 and that's the only time I broke 90.  :'(
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 30, 2018, 03:14:35 PM
Given that his 'I'm just asking questions to clarify my understanding' position as an attempted defence of asking questions that have in fact already been answered explicitly is painfully transparent, I'm leaning heavily towards option 4 at this point.

Add to this, 'OK, we've all agreed upon the point that [insert point not agreed to here], so let's move on', and the 'my abilities cannot match people here.'

I am leaning towards 4. It seems a safe bet.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: MBDK on April 30, 2018, 03:30:56 PM
I'll take it, if I can get it.  I haven't been able to get within 20 strikes, yet.   :'(

1 round at 89 and that's the only time I broke 90.  :'(

Truth is, my best ever was a 104, but I count all penalties and take no mulligans.  Still I love to play when I can.  I just am really bad at it.   ;D
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on April 30, 2018, 06:39:46 PM
I'll take it, if I can get it.  I haven't been able to get within 20 strikes, yet.   :'(

1 round at 89 and that's the only time I broke 90.  :'(

Truth is, my best ever was a 104, but I count all penalties and take no mulligans.  Still I love to play when I can.  I just am really bad at it.   ;D

Nah I shoot in the low 200's on the front nine. :-[
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Count Zero on April 30, 2018, 08:50:24 PM
I could never get past that little windmill.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 01, 2018, 08:45:34 PM
Poor Tim. I guess he really misses us because he has attempted to register three new accounts since I banned him.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on May 01, 2018, 08:54:32 PM
Poor Tim. I guess he really misses us because he has attempted to register three new accounts since I banned him.
:o

He has no one to post with and he is indeed lonely, all hr might have is FB
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: tikkitakki on May 02, 2018, 09:11:24 PM
Meanwhile at CosmoQuest:

Quote
TimFinch banned along with the sock puppet (Researcher) he created to circumvent his suspension.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on May 02, 2018, 09:13:12 PM
Meanwhile at CosmoQuest:

Quote
TimFinch banned along with the sock puppet (Researcher) he created to circumvent his suspension.

Yes I just saw that.  The mods acted quickly Gone from two forums, now all he has left is his HB crowd at FB.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 02, 2018, 09:20:34 PM
Meanwhile at CosmoQuest:

Quote
TimFinch banned along with the sock puppet (Researcher) he created to circumvent his suspension.

Hmm. I wonder who alerted them to the fact that "Researcher" was Tim's sock puppet?  ;)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 03, 2018, 12:29:31 AM
Meanwhile at CosmoQuest:

Quote
TimFinch banned along with the sock puppet (Researcher) he created to circumvent his suspension.

Hmm. I wonder who alerted them to the fact that "Researcher" was Tim's sock puppet?  ;)

Researcher's only post:

Quote
Grant Hutchinson, I am asking for a friend. After plotting the transit of Apollo 11 on Celestial can you definitively say that the TLI inclination changed during the VAB transit? If so by how much and at what point?

Tim has more socks than the laundry technician at Manchester United. My bold, but it does make one wonder if this was a sock pilot fish for a second sock CT. The plot is thicker than an East Coast chowder, but easier to to solve than a puppy sat next to a pile of its own poop.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on May 03, 2018, 01:13:43 AM
"I am asking for a friend."
I've seen a baby more convincingly lie. Like, literally, I have. This baby of a former girlfriend had some breathing problems, so her mum would always pay attention if it looked like she was coughing or choking. One day, the baby made this little 'cheh cheh' sound. It was clear she was trying to replicate the sound to get mama's attention.
It was more convincing than  'Researcher' there.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on May 03, 2018, 02:15:54 AM
Oh, yeah, my fifteen-month-old lies pretty well, and she's preverbal.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on May 03, 2018, 02:41:33 AM
Oh, yeah, my fifteen-month-old lies pretty well, and she's preverbal.
Same with this kid at the time. Children, innocent? Ha! ;D
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: gillianren on May 03, 2018, 03:36:11 AM
Same with this kid at the time. Children, innocent? Ha! ;D

She also knows that people think she's cute and exploits it.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on May 03, 2018, 03:58:14 AM
just so everybody knows that wasnt me lol

can i just ask. i read that there were plans to return to the moon in the next 3 years. is this correct.

also do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 03, 2018, 04:07:30 AM
can i just ask. i read that there were plans to return to the moon in the next 3 years. is this correct.

There are always plans to return to the Moon, they just never reach fruition because administrations change and NASA's budget and priorities get shifted. Apollo was an anomaly in that it had a huge political motivation (beating those evil commies to the Moon), began near the start of a new administration, progressed through a second term for the democrats, and by the time the republicans got into power they were able to ride the coat-tails of a more or less complete project where all the groundwork had been done and only the business of actually scoring the final touchdown remained. Once that was done the project was dismantled. There has never been such a concerted effort with such massive national support in any space project since.

Now, my own view on the return to the Moon subject is that Trump wants to do it because the Chinese said they were going to and he wants to be the next 'winner' of a space race (which also puts a 3 year deadline into the context of getting it done before his first term is over or, if he doesn't get a second, so close to his departure he can claim the credit anyway).

Quote
also do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.

Not a chance in hell. HBs are still vocal in the face of every other bit of evidence. You could land the next mission right next to the Apollo 11 descent stage and broadcast live HD TV from the surface and someone would still call it fake.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: raven on May 03, 2018, 04:34:49 AM
just so everybody knows that wasnt me lol

can i just ask. i read that there were plans to return to the moon in the next 3 years. is this correct.

also do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.
Maybe some of the fencesitters, but those have mostly vanished by now anyway. The hardcore crowd will just say these are fake too. You could boot them out the hatch sans suit, and their last words would be . . . (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qKcJF4fOPs).
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on May 03, 2018, 04:43:03 AM
can i just ask. i read that there were plans to return to the moon in the next 3 years. is this correct.

There are always plans to return to the Moon, they just never reach fruition because administrations change and NASA's budget and priorities get shifted. Apollo was an anomaly in that it had a huge political motivation (beating those evil commies to the Moon), began near the start of a new administration, progressed through a second term for the democrats, and by the time the republicans got into power they were able to ride the coat-tails of a more or less complete project where all the groundwork had been done and only the business of actually scoring the final touchdown remained. Once that was done the project was dismantled. There has never been such a concerted effort with such massive national support in any space project since.

Now, my own view on the return to the Moon subject is that Trump wants to do it because the Chinese said they were going to and he wants to be the next 'winner' of a space race (which also puts a 3 year deadline into the context of getting it done before his first term is over or, if he doesn't get a second, so close to his departure he can claim the credit anyway).

Quote
also do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.

Not a chance in hell. HBs are still vocal in the face of every other bit of evidence. You could land the next mission right next to the Apollo 11 descent stage and broadcast live HD TV from the surface and someone would still call it fake.

True. some of people i've seen in the FB groups are unbelievable.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Obviousman on May 03, 2018, 05:13:16 AM
I agree. Many said "show us photos" and when probes did that, they claimed they were faked. It didn't matter whether they were US, Indian or Chinese probes... if it refuted their claims then "... they had to be faked...".

Once more I refer to Jack White: If there is evidence that the Moon landings are genuine then I would be more than happy to study it.... but since the landings were faked, any evidence must also be faked therefore it is a waste of my time to examine such evidence.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on May 03, 2018, 06:03:33 AM
just so everybody knows that wasnt me lol

can i just ask. i read that there were plans to return to the moon in the next 3 years. is this correct.

also do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.
If you mean a manned landing, then that would be 2023 at the earliest on Orion EM2 and that depends on:
A: All goes to plan
and
B: The funding does not get cut.

A: requires a successful Orion AA2 and EM2 launch and B: US gov commitment to keep spending, neither of which are certainties.

Outside of that, you have the Chinese (2036), Japan (2030) Russia (2028) and a few private ventures. It is uncertain how solid those dates are. Or if they are even funded yet.

If you mean unmanned missions, there are several every year anyway. This year, for example, we have Chang'e-4 and Chandrayaan-2, both of which are due to land robotic rovers. Chang'e-5 is due for next year and is a sample return mission.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on May 03, 2018, 07:10:54 AM
just so everybody knows that wasnt me lol

can i just ask. i read that there were plans to return to the moon in the next 3 years. is this correct.

also do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.
If you mean a manned landing, then that would be 2023 at the earliest on Orion EM2 and that depends on:
A: All goes to plan
and
B: The funding does not get cut.

A: requires a successful Orion AA2 and EM2 launch and B: US gov commitment to keep spending, neither of which are certainties.

Outside of that, you have the Chinese (2036), Japan (2030) Russia (2028) and a few private ventures. It is uncertain how solid those dates are. Or if they are even funded yet.

If you mean unmanned missions, there are several every year anyway. This year, for example, we have Chang'e-4 and Chandrayaan-2, both of which are due to land robotic rovers. Chang'e-5 is due for next year and is a sample return mission.

ah ok thanks Abaddon
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: jfb on May 03, 2018, 10:03:28 AM
just so everybody knows that wasnt me lol

can i just ask. i read that there were plans to return to the moon in the next 3 years. is this correct.

There's always talk of sending people back to the Moon, but there's no actual program to do so. SLS Block I won't be flying before 2021, the Block II upper stage needed to boost both the Orion spacecraft and a lander to the moon won't be ready until a year or so after that, and, crucially, there's no lander.  The absolute best you could do by 2021 is an Apollo 8 style mission, and that's if NASA and all the contractors involved (mainly Boeing and LockMart) seriously hump it between now and then.  Having worked with Boeing on another contract in the past, let me say the likelihood of that is low

In the private sector, SpaceX had a plan to send a couple of people around the moon using the Falcon Heavy and Crew Dragon spacecraft a la Apollo 8, but those plans have been shelved since the announcement of their BFR/BFS system.  Elon wants to go straight to Mars, anyway.  But, per SpaceX, the BFS spacecraft would have enough delta-V to land on the Moon and return to Earth without refueling.  But again, that's not going to be flying by 2021. 

Quote
also do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.

No, because most HBs are not rational, and won't believe their lying eyes. 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on May 03, 2018, 03:13:08 PM
also do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.
A small segment of the Apollo program deniers believe rockets don't work in a vacuum.  Therefore any future landings will also be faked in their minds.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on May 03, 2018, 06:05:23 PM
just so everybody knows that wasnt me lol

can i just ask. i read that there were plans to return to the moon in the next 3 years. is this correct.

also do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.
If you mean a manned landing, then that would be 2023 at the earliest on Orion EM2 and that depends on:
A: All goes to plan
and
B: The funding does not get cut.

A: requires a successful Orion AA2 and EM2 launch and B: US gov commitment to keep spending, neither of which are certainties.

Outside of that, you have the Chinese (2036), Japan (2030) Russia (2028) and a few private ventures. It is uncertain how solid those dates are. Or if they are even funded yet.

If you mean unmanned missions, there are several every year anyway. This year, for example, we have Chang'e-4 and Chandrayaan-2, both of which are due to land robotic rovers. Chang'e-5 is due for next year and is a sample return mission.

ah ok thanks Abaddon
Don't thank me. It is in the nature of such missions that delays may occur. Chang'e-4 is due to launch in June. Will it? I have no idea. The Chinese program is a bit opaque.

However, bear in mind that when the Chinese put a man in orbit, the HB wingnuts immediately claimed it was faked as soon as HD video was released. They claimed it was faked in a large water tank. Shenzou 5 I believe.

In any event, it was a LEO mission and the HBs found themselves denying that while at the same time claiming that Apollo stayed in that very same orbit in the 60s/70s, Apollo/Salyut, Mir, Spacelab, ISS and so forth are held as evidence that only LEO is possible. Shenzou 7 had the first Chinese space walk IN LEO which is exactly what the HB claims is entirely possible since the 60s. Suddenly, when the Chinese do it, it is faked. In a water tank, no less. That's right, the HB loons think that LEO is faked. You should read Ryan Mackey's theory of the Expansion of Conspiracy Theories. In short, it states that the more conspiracies one claims, the more extreme the next conspiracy claim must be until...one ends with that which cannot be supported.

Were I a betting man, the Chinese will return to the moon before the US. Why? Well, I believed that years ago simply because they are more committed to the idea. Now that the US has seen fit to put a moron at the helm, well, space research is such an easy target for budget cuts, isn't it?

Shenzou 7 space walk

Good luck proving that isn't a tank of water on earth.

ETA: Fixed spelling.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Geordie on May 06, 2018, 03:21:38 AM
Yes they are, but tim still doesn't get it nor the 3-D view insisting the trajectory is over the north pole!,  Bah look at the first image.

He cannot compile the three images and work out the trajectory. The 3rd image does indeed look as though it does go over the north pole, but it's just the perspective of the 2D rendering. The perspective from the first two images tells you that Apollo did not go over the north pole.
I took my kids to see Isle of Dogs this evening, and the 3D-rendered-in-2D thing was a joke and a plot device! As an airplane shown in full 2D profile approaches a cablecar tower, also in full profile, one of the dogs says "He'll lose a wing for sure!" and yup, when tower and airplane coincide, off comes the wing and down goes the plane. This in a movie aimed at kids and the general public.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 06, 2018, 07:19:53 AM
Guess who has shown up at the Straight Dope Message Board?

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854290 (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854290)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Zakalwe on May 06, 2018, 07:38:02 AM
He didn't last long there, did he?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on May 06, 2018, 08:30:06 AM
Guess who has shown up at the Straight Dope Message Board?

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854290 (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854290)

Any port in a storm for this lonely "radiation expert".
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on May 06, 2018, 08:38:38 AM
Guess who has shown up at the Straight Dope Message Board?

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854290 (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854290)

Any port in a storm for this lonely "radiation expert".
No. Once upon a long ago, I used to chase those morons down. I only do that these days if they invent something grossly egregious.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 06, 2018, 09:07:26 AM
He didn't last long there, did he?

Less than an hour and a half.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 06, 2018, 11:25:57 AM
i'm guessing he meant to be 'Heisenberg'.

If you're going to try and be clever, it helps if you actually are.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 06, 2018, 12:07:52 PM


i'm guessing he meant to be 'Heisenberg'.

Heisenberg is the name he used for one of the sock puppet accounts he created here.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 06, 2018, 12:14:59 PM
Heisenberg is the name he used for one of the sock puppet accounts he created here.

Except at the TSD boards he spells it Hesenberg. I guess he's uncertain about the spelling... I'll get my coat.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on May 06, 2018, 12:24:54 PM
One of the mods at Straight Dope does like him.  Tim's 2nd thread on Apollo god locked.  https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854325

A mere 18 minutes of posts.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on May 06, 2018, 01:31:13 PM
He tried to put the "dope" in. They set him straight.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on May 06, 2018, 01:34:35 PM
Absolutely classic hoaxie behavior, though, and give the lie to any claims he had of intellectual honesty. After being shown and, after much back and forth, tacitly agreeing that his "2.4" figure was WRONG, when he rolled out his well-practiced argument at a new board he went right back to the original.

Basically, he lied to them. As I said earlier; the only thing most of the hoaxies get out of discussion is a chance to rehearse. And sometimes, at least in the braver ones, they learn a few new buzz words they can show off to look (for a few minutes) like they know what they are doing.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on May 06, 2018, 01:38:13 PM
He's here now:  https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854330

I'd be almost tempted to join. The cambot hasn't learned human speech yet...his posts are so meandering, disorganized, and badly phrased their informational content is essentially nil. But on the other hand, I've already seen the trick this pony can do. I think I'll go practice my trumpet some more.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 06, 2018, 02:06:36 PM
Looks like he's already reduced to complaining that no-one understands him and everyone is wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on May 06, 2018, 02:26:20 PM
Looks like he's already reduced to complaining that no-one understands him and everyone is wrong.

I'm really enjoying watching him being spanked by people who aren't even space buffs. Proving his arguments are so bad they can't win over an unbiased general audience.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on May 06, 2018, 02:27:02 PM
I said it before timfinch is right everyone else is wrong.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: nomuse on May 06, 2018, 02:28:35 PM
To his credit, he did get a couple things right. They were things everyone else already knew, and no-one debated, but still....that puts him one up on IDW.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on May 06, 2018, 07:03:34 PM
Well, the Straight Dope Forum just banned me for trolling.  Most of my posts were on the Apollo thread.  Not sure which of my posts were the offending ones.

Ranb 
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 06, 2018, 07:11:50 PM
And they consigned the whole thread to the cornfield.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on May 06, 2018, 07:23:54 PM
It seems the forum has been scrubbed of anything to do with my handle also.  Does this seem to be oversensitive for a forum?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 06, 2018, 07:32:27 PM
They're pretty sensitive to anything that smacks of a board war. They've had problems with Stormfront invasions in the past.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on May 06, 2018, 07:38:28 PM
Their FAQ says in part; "We have one guiding principle: Don't be a jerk."  I was a jerk to the person formerly known as TimFinch.  Sucks to be me hahahaha,
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 07, 2018, 06:16:17 AM
So, does Tim have any other outlets for his argument?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 07, 2018, 06:18:49 AM
So, does Tim have any other outlets for his argument?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Toilet_370x580.jpg)
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on May 07, 2018, 07:58:51 AM
So, does Tim have any other outlets for his argument?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Toilet_370x580.jpg)

Harse but fair.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: peter eldergill on May 07, 2018, 08:20:36 AM
I was reading the thread RanB posted on as a guest and then all of a sudden I couldn't access the thread at all. Found that a bit weird

Peter
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: theteacher on May 07, 2018, 12:23:32 PM
I was reading the thread RanB posted on as a guest and then all of a sudden I couldn't access the thread at all. Found that a bit weird

Peter

I bookmarked page 3 to be sure to be able to find it again, and now I have the same problem. So I have registered and have had my account activated - same result. The title was "Apollo 11's mission radiation dose is to low to have made a lunar transit." - Page 3 - Straight Dope Message Board. What comes after the quotemark is part of the link. I have also tried to search for "hesenberg" but in vain. Could the whole thread have been deleted or something?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: theteacher on May 07, 2018, 12:30:14 PM
I was reading the thread RanB posted on as a guest and then all of a sudden I couldn't access the thread at all. Found that a bit weird

Peter

I bookmarked page 3 to be sure to be able to find it again, and now I have the same problem. So I have registered and have had my account activated - same result. The title was "Apollo 11's mission radiation dose is to low to have made a lunar transit." - Page 3 - Straight Dope Message Board. What comes after the quotemark is part of the link. I have also tried to search for "hesenberg" but in vain. Could the whole thread have been deleted or something?

Sorry - that was the name of the link. The link itself is https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854330&page=3
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: peter eldergill on May 07, 2018, 01:11:34 PM
There is one very small thread in the "about our board" and a long time member asked about the thread and basically got "We prefer not to talk about it openly, PM if you want"

Peter
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: mako88sb on May 07, 2018, 02:04:49 PM
All for the best. As Jay pointed out, the guy is nothing but a troll.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on May 07, 2018, 06:44:40 PM
My banning was sudden, no warning at all.  I was banned for trolling and that was it.  :( :)

As far as I know there is no way to contact the board admin to find out exactly what I did to piss them off.  If anyone here knows beowulff on TSD forum, maybe he is wiling to give me a clue?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on May 07, 2018, 10:33:58 PM
I was reading the thread RanB posted on as a guest and then all of a sudden I couldn't access the thread at all. Found that a bit weird

Peter

I bookmarked page 3 to be sure to be able to find it again, and now I have the same problem. So I have registered and have had my account activated - same result. The title was "Apollo 11's mission radiation dose is to low to have made a lunar transit." - Page 3 - Straight Dope Message Board. What comes after the quotemark is part of the link. I have also tried to search for "hesenberg" but in vain. Could the whole thread have been deleted or something?
They tossed the thread and Tim, apparently because it was simply so utterly stupid. Can't really say I blame them. I have some fragments in my cache. It seems to me that Tim simply doubled down on the dumb. Here and CQ, if it is deleted and that is the end of it. On ISF if it is deleted, it appears in a member only spot for the simple reason that nobody will learn from it if nobody can see it. There might be such a location on TSD, I don't know, not being a member.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Ranb on May 10, 2018, 03:31:15 PM
It seems the mod thought I was a sock of Hesenberg.  I'm not sure how socks are expected to act, but I opposed nearly everything Hesenberg said on the Straight Dope Forum.

Unfortunately I burned that bridge as the next day I registered with a new e-mail/name, posted a few times then asked a mod about the deleted thread.  This resulted in another ban for being a sock of a banned member.  I suppose they checked the IP address.

Ranb
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 10, 2018, 04:18:08 PM
It seems the mod thought I was a sock of Hesenberg.  I'm not sure how socks are expected to act, but I opposed nearly everything Hesenberg said on the Straight Dope Forum.

You expect me to believe that two people brought their argument to a new forum and were mistaken for sock puppets even though they were on opposing sides? That can't possibly happen. Obviously the only explanation is that you really are Tim Finch, right Abaddon?

I'm kidding, of course. I just wanted to point out that this is exactly what Abaddon would have had me do to Ben Parry. It's why we should not make any assumptions about the motives of people who are new to the forum.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: bknight on May 10, 2018, 06:05:07 PM
LO, do you have a Db of IP addresses?  Or just do an eyeball of them?
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: benparry on May 11, 2018, 03:54:08 AM
It seems the mod thought I was a sock of Hesenberg.  I'm not sure how socks are expected to act, but I opposed nearly everything Hesenberg said on the Straight Dope Forum.

You expect me to believe that two people brought their argument to a new forum and were mistaken for sock puppets even though they were on opposing sides? That can't possibly happen. Obviously the only explanation is that you really are Tim Finch, right Abaddon?

I'm kidding, of course. I just wanted to point out that this is exactly what Abaddon would have had me do to Ben Parry. It's why we should not make any assumptions about the motives of people who are new to the forum.


all water under the bridge. Abaddon very kindly posted a video of lunar legacy which i'm going to watch in full this weekend. I've blocked Tim on messenger so i havent heard from him since.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 11, 2018, 03:22:54 PM
It seems the mod thought I was a sock of Hesenberg.  I'm not sure how socks are expected to act, but I opposed nearly everything Hesenberg said on the Straight Dope Forum.

Once banned, is there any sort of appeal with forums? LO, if a member is banned, can they contact you to appeal and overturn the ban if there is a genuine mistake? Please answer that question or I will ask the moderator to step in.  ;D
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Abaddon on May 11, 2018, 05:47:09 PM
It seems the mod thought I was a sock of Hesenberg.  I'm not sure how socks are expected to act, but I opposed nearly everything Hesenberg said on the Straight Dope Forum.

You expect me to believe that two people brought their argument to a new forum and were mistaken for sock puppets even though they were on opposing sides? That can't possibly happen. Obviously the only explanation is that you really are Tim Finch, right Abaddon?

I'm kidding, of course. I just wanted to point out that this is exactly what Abaddon would have had me do to Ben Parry. It's why we should not make any assumptions about the motives of people who are new to the forum.


all water under the bridge. Abaddon very kindly posted a video of lunar legacy which i'm going to watch in full this weekend. I've blocked Tim on messenger so i havent heard from him since.
I wasn't sure if you had seen parts 4 and 5. The whole thing was split into chunks originally because of youtube size rules at the time. I have no clue if there was something which provoked svector to reassemble it and publish it again.
Title: Re: Radiation
Post by: Geordie on May 12, 2018, 03:02:07 AM
I was reading the thread RanB posted on as a guest and then all of a sudden I couldn't access the thread at all. Found that a bit weird

Peter
Did you notice any black helicopters while this was happening?