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.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs  and  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TelJ75pzP4

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?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPtQYalkcs
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?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPtQYalkcs
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?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPtQYalkcs

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?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPtQYalkcs

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BEylTGOlQ8

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BEylTGOlQ8

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BEylTGOlQ8

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuH4rxda3Z4
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 tr