Author Topic: Radiation  (Read 49082 times)

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #930 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.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 02:21:24 PM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

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

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Radiation
« Reply #931 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.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Radiation
« Reply #932 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.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #933 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.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

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

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2716
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #934 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Rob48

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Radiation
« Reply #935 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:



Compare the two highlighted columns.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #936 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.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #937 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:



Compare the two highlighted columns.

Dude, Tim has moved on.  He is content with the built in plotter.

Offline Rob48

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Radiation
« Reply #938 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?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 02:34:20 PM by Rob48 »

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: Radiation
« Reply #939 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.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Radiation
« Reply #940 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.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #941 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.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 02:39:02 PM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

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

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #942 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?

 ;)
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

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

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #943 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.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #944 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.