Author Topic: Radiation  (Read 615795 times)

Online Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: Radiation
« Reply #195 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?
::) ::) ::)
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #196 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.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Radiation
« Reply #197 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.
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Radiation
« Reply #198 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.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Count Zero

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Pad 39A July 14,1969
Re: Radiation
« Reply #199 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?
"What makes one step a giant leap is all the steps before."

Offline Drewid

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 42
Re: Radiation
« Reply #200 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.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #201 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #202 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."
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Radiation
« Reply #203 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.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Saturn
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: Radiation
« Reply #204 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.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Radiation
« Reply #205 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.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Saturn
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: Radiation
« Reply #206 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?
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #207 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.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #208 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.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #209 on: March 25, 2018, 03:09:32 PM »
Does anyone have any data to indicate the MSL/RAD data is incorrect?