Author Topic: Radiation  (Read 616621 times)

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #240 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.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #241 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.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Radiation
« Reply #242 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?
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 #243 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #244 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #245 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.

Offline Ranb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 264
Re: Radiation
« Reply #246 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.
 

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #247 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?

Offline Ranb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 264
Re: Radiation
« Reply #248 on: March 25, 2018, 05:11:45 PM »
You wouldn't have to fake anything but the actual astronauts footage.  You could have sent an unmanned craft while the astronauts hung out in a sound stage.  Everybody else would be outside the loop.  All of the moon debris could actually be there.  Hell, you could have used a footprint robot for all I know.  The only thing I know for sure is the radiation data is outside of expected values.
And how would that footage be faked?  SG Collins has an interesting video on why he thinks it would have been easier to actually go to the moon than to fake it.  and 

What about the large amount of moon rocks and core samples?  No one has figured out how to do that with a rover yet.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2018, 05:13:50 PM by Ranb »

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #249 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #250 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.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #251 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.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #252 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.

Offline Ranb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 264
Re: Radiation
« Reply #253 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.

Offline Ranb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 264
Re: Radiation
« Reply #254 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?