Author Topic: Radiation  (Read 616535 times)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #135 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #136 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.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #137 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?

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Radiation
« Reply #138 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?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #139 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?
« Last Edit: March 25, 2018, 01:24:08 AM by JayUtah »
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #140 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?
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #141 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?

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #142 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!

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #143 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #144 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?

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #145 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.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #146 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #147 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Radiation
« Reply #148 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?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #149 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.