Author Topic: Radiation  (Read 616905 times)

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #555 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]
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #556 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1637
Re: Radiation
« Reply #557 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

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Radiation
« Reply #558 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?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Obviousman

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 735
Re: Radiation
« Reply #559 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.

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1637
Re: Radiation
« Reply #560 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.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #561 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.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 11:58:50 AM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

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

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #562 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.  ???

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

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

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Radiation
« Reply #563 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.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #564 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=

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #565 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?

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #566 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.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

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

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #567 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.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #568 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.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 01:17:59 PM by timfinch »

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Radiation
« Reply #569 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.