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 moreAnd 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.
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 radiationWell, 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.
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.
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
ah ok cool thanks Jay. Tim informs me he has created an account so hopefully he can throw his two penneth in soon.
Radiation type | Absorbed dose (mGy) | Effective dose (mSv) |
Alpha | 1 | 20 |
Beta | 1 | 1 |
Gamma | 1 | 1 |
Neutron | 1 | 10 |
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
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
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.
It doesn't look like that web site is going to admit me...
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.
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.
If the 4 hours plus trips through the VAB are included in the assessment
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?
Hey guys just got a message from Tim asking if his account had been activated
It doesn't look like that web site is going to admit me
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.
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?
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/
It has not been addressed to my satisfaction.
... I have a background in radiation work ...
I was a Nuclear electrician aboard a fast attack submarine for 12 years.
I'm not an expert but I'll give my 2 cents.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.
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
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.
I'm not an expert but I'll give my 2 cents.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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I'm not an expert but I'll give my 2 cents.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.
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 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
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?
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
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 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.
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. :)
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.
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.
My young padawan, you never knew me.Your argument requires us to, since it's based on your expert judgment.
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 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.
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?
Cite where the detection panels were in cased with attenuation.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.
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.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.
Cite where the detection panels were in cased with attenuation.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.
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?
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.
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.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.QuoteI 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?QuoteI 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?
In deep space?
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.
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.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?
Do you think the Wright Brothers wielded similar questions about the experise of highly trained engineers who thought manned flight was impossible?
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.
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.
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.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12056428The article is dated from 1963.
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.
In summary...
Even lightweight aluminum is useful as shielding.
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.
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.
The defense rest.
Cite where the detection panels were in cased with attenuation.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.
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
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.
I will say this slowly.
The Apollo had nothing on it or in it that could attenuate GCR radiation.
...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.
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.QuoteYou 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.QuoteI 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.QuoteTake a moment to review the data and embrace the issue. Intellectual cowardice is so unappealing.
So is bluster.
I will say this slowly.
Please don't patronize your critics. They have been very patient with you.QuoteThe 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.QuoteThe 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.
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.
Give me something to work with and I can change my mind.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that a rocket doesn't work.
What have you got? Refute any point with documentation. I'm waiting...
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.QuoteDemonstrate 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.QuoteGive 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.
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.
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.
These secondary particles cause radiation damage in living organisms (humans).
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.
Problems with...
Research shows that polyethylene is 50% better at shielding solar flares and is 15% better at shielding galactic cosmic radiation as compared to aluminum.
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?
2.1 Shielding of Galactic Cosmic Rays
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.QuoteResearch 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 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.
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?
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.
I am an electrician by trade and I have never designed anything other than motor controls.
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 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?
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?
argumentum ad populum?
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?
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'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.
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.
argumentum ad populum?
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?
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?
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.
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.
We all know that 9/11 was an inside job but does anyone really want to prove it?
I'm sorry. Did the Apollo have any shielding capable of attenuating the high energy protons of GCR?
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.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.QuoteIf 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'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.
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.
It is a simple question deserving only a simple answer.
If you like I could probaly locate a NASA document that admits as much.
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.QuoteIf 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.
I am an electrician by trade and I have never designed anything other than motor controls.
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.
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.
We all know that 9/11 was an inside job but does anyone really want to prove it?
Shielding of SPEs is well understood scientifically...
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).
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.
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.
The exposure levels of the Apollo missions do not correspond to current data expectations.
If you have Information contrary to the information I have provided I would love to see it.
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.
We all know that 9/11 was an inside job but does anyone really want to prove it?
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 choose not to believe this one.
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...
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 choose not to believe this one.
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 choose not to believe this one.
The king has no clothes...
They can't stop curious people 100 years later from going to the Moon and discovering there are no human footprints there.
Surely NASA would have realized that it would be pointless to try faking it.
They believe other people are liars because they would lie when in the same situation.
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.
https://three.jsc.nasa.gov/articles/CucinottaKimChappell0512.pdf
...but what do I know. I am just a layman.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
How can there be any confusion about my position?::) ::) ::)
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?::) ::) ::)
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.
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."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.
The implications have been considered. A while back someone compiled a list of the implications:QuoteThe 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?
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.
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.
470 mgy/day isn't too far off 0.45 Mgy/day,
Just saying.
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.
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 point is that mission dose for a lunar transits should as a minimum be at least .47 mgy/day.
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?
Sometimes people take risks knowing they could very easily die. You did it every time you boarded a nuclear submarine.
...provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface.
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.
Because about half the sky is blocked by the moon itself, compared to floating through cislunar space?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.
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?
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
Impress me as I am convinced that is the correct answer.
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.
While the moon blocks galactic cosmic rays to some extent, the hazards posed by the secondary radiation showers counter the shielding effects...
That didn't hurt did it? I did not intend that it should...
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)
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.
...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.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.
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.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.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.
Akeem's Razor?
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.
The radiation environment, and our measurements of it, involve more complexity than you are allowing.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.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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
No that's not what I'm implying.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?
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.
No that's not what I'm implying.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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expectedI wouldn't be surprised to hear we were off by a factor of 200 percent in our measurements of exposure during Apollo.
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.
OK, perhaps my bad, but the term 'secondary radiation' certainly applies.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.
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.QuoteOverall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expectedI 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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Measurements taken...
and potentially more dangerous -- shower...
You do understand the difference between radiation flux and equivalent biological damage don't you?Yes, I do.
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?
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.
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.
I am pretty sure there was no neutron shielding on the apollo crafts so it was as or more deadly than the cosmic radiation.
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.QuoteI 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.
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.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.QuoteI 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?
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 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.
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?
Maybe in my zeal to express my opinion, I missed it. Tell it to me once again. You have my undivided attention.
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?
When there is simplicity there is clarity.
How about this and who can argue with Einstein?
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.
How about this and who can argue with Einstein?
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.
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.
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?
and Hoax deniers claim they can tell it is real. More sauce?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.
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?
and Hoax deniers claim they can tell it is real. More sauce?
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?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).
I have a question for the group.
Or are you changing the subject?QuoteLook 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.
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.
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.
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
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?
I have a question for the group.
Or are you changing the subject?QuoteLook 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.
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?
This path is deviated only slightly in inclination by all of the apollo missions.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.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?
So you don't think they could have relayed transmission through the unmanned craft. They were not that smart?
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 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.
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.
Take your time and embrace the consequences of this revelation.
According to the author, it was sheer luck that the astronauts didn't die in the trip.
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.
Feel free to disregard any information that doesn't support your hypothesis. It is the way of religious fanatics isn't it?
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.
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?
Consider the article and take from it what you may.
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.
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.QuoteConsider 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.
Feel free to disregard any information that doesn't support your hypothesis. It is the way of religious fanatics isn't it?
The flight path of Apollo 11 avoids the centre of the Van Allen radiation belt in an elegant way
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.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?
Your immediate response to the article without due process elicited such a response.
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...
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.From his conclusions.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322643901_Radiation_Analysis_for_Moon_and_Mars_Missions
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.
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?
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.
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?
If you say so....
So you don't think they could have relayed transmission through the unmanned craft. They were not that smart?
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.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.QuoteI 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?
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.From his conclusions.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322643901_Radiation_Analysis_for_Moon_and_Mars_MissionsQuoteThe 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?
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.
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.From his conclusions.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322643901_Radiation_Analysis_for_Moon_and_Mars_MissionsQuoteThe 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.
The author speaks of shielding electron radiation in the VAB, Electrons can be attenuated by aluminum.
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.
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..
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.QuoteI 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.QuoteFuel 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.QuoteI 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.
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.QuoteI 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.QuoteFuel 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.QuoteI 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.
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?
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.
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?
Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.
Why would it be the shielding of choice?
I see no point of conflict with any of my stated positions by the author.
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?
Feel free to disregard any information that doesn't support your hypothesis. It is the way of religious fanatics isn't it?
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.QuoteWhy 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.
There is a considerable difference between detecting and predicting.
Is he not correct in saying SPE's cannot be predicted?
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.
And you're just repeating your original claim along with its misconceptions and oversimplifications.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.QuoteWhy 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.
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.QuoteIs he not correct in saying SPE's cannot be predicted?
He provides no detail about what he means by prediction.
And you're just repeating your original claim along with its misconceptions and oversimplifications.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.QuoteWhy 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.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.QuoteWhy 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.
Consistency is a virtue.
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.QuoteWhy 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.
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.QuoteIs he not correct in saying SPE's cannot be predicted?
He provides no detail about what he means by prediction.
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.
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.
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.QuoteWhy 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"?
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?
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.
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.QuoteSPE'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).
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?
Can you corroborate that with something other than your opinion?
The minimum GCR background levels occurred at solar peak
All solar peaks are not created equal.Quoteand were recorded at .2 mgy/hr.
I think you made an error in units there. mGy/day surely?Quotenow if you add the fact that the moon has a higher background radiation than cislunar space
WHat kind of radiation? How much higher?Quoteas does the trip through the VAB
Which part? For how long? What kind of radiation? How much higher?Quotethen 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...
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.QuoteWhy 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.
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"?
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?
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.QuoteWhy 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.
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.
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.QuoteSPE'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?
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.QuoteCan 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.
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.
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?
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.QuoteWhy 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.
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?
I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported. Blame NASA, not me.
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.QuoteYou 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.
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.
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.QuoteYou 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!
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?
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.QuoteYou 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.
Personally, I am embarrassed for the lot of you...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?
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.QuoteYou 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.
Unless some people concocted and enacted a global hoaxes then they are not experts on global hoaxes.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.
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.
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.QuoteYou 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.
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?
Unless some people concocted and enacted a global hoaxes then they are not experts on global hoaxes.
The minimum GCR background recorded occurred at Solar peak and set the lower limit of GCR.
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.QuoteYou 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.
Unless some people concocted and enacted a global hoaxes then they are not experts on global hoaxes.
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.
"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.Unless some people concocted and enacted a global hoaxes then they are not experts on global hoaxes.
How many global hoaxes have you concocted?
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.
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.
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.
"0" but I do not claim such knowledge.
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?
"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.
Now you guys could easily shut me up by demonstrating using published documentation to show...
If you say so....
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.QuoteYou 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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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. 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....
Then you would no problem claiming this premise is false?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.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.
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....
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.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.
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.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.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.
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?
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.QuoteYou 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?
No, I have stated that GCR is inversely proportional to the solar cycle.
You cannot make the math work no matter how you manipulate the factors.
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.QuoteYou 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.
It will become obvious as we strive to reproduce the miracle of 1969.
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.
It will become obvious as we strive to reproduce the miracle of 1969.
Yeah, that's what I do for a living.
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.
Work your butt off to justify deceptions or make miracles?
Work your butt off to justify deceptions or make miracles?
What sentence did I quote?
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.QuoteYou 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.
The miracle of 1969 was a deception...
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.
Consistency is a virtue.
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.
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?
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?
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 . . . .
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.
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.
Next time, I am going to run a pool on how many posts people will make before they flounce....
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.
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!Should have pulled an Éowyn on the dastard.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
is the above correct or have i confirmed my denseness on this matter.
Do you realize Jason is a professional scientist? His opinion would be considered evidence in a court of law.
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.
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....
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.
Uum I thought about that but since we were being bombarded by some rather discourteous one liners, I stopped, sorry.
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.
yes i introduced him there also lol i believe a gent called grant engaged him there a lotI thought he sounded familiar. I see that he's an expert at flouncing.
are you Grant atomic dog
Is this an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?
are you Grant atomic dog
Nope. Just a space exploration fan and a Trekkie with a smart mouth.
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.
...was insufficient because we could not provide a specific documented justification that it would work in this instance.
just on the subject of GCR does anybody know of a chart of diagram showing the GCR spectrum and possible frequency of each
I was just trying to find out how frequent the high energy particles of the GCR are.
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.
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.
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:
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. :(
Thanks again jay for those 2 answers
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.This looks like it.
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.
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
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.
QuoteOverall, 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.
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?
Is this an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?
#include <disclaimer.h>
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.
The CM hull had a dosimeter in it didn't it? Were the results from those ever published?
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?
Dammit. In behind the flounce. Second time this guy has done that to me.Ditto ;D
Lab tests on mice have concluded that mice lost cognitive skills with an equivalent of 10 day exposure to charged particles 16O, Ti48.
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
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.
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?
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
Heh, I'm sure some conspiracy theorist somewhere is going bonkers about a spacesuit helmet with airholes.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?
Aluminum is useless in shielding GCR's and in fact increase biological dosing due to secondary emissions from the high energy protons.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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?
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?
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 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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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=
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.
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.
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.
I have researched for months looking for any indication that lunar regolith is radioactive and have found nothing.
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.
Ah, I wasn't expecting a return to the debate!!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?
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.]
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.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.
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
Tell me if you opened the pdf?I opened it and I find nothing wrong with the data. Note the units of the plot.
Is this information incorrect? Why or why not.
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.
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.
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.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.
Was it lost on you the fact that the graph I provide was an average of all the CraTer detectors?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.
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.
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.
Was it lost on you the fact that the graph I provide was an average of all the CraTer detectors?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.
Let us do a quick recap. A lunar transit consist of a trip Trough the VAB plus a trip through cislunar space plus an orbit around the moon and finally a moon landing. Then the return trip. Cislunar space is the lowest radiation area in this trip. It is unreasonable to think that Apollo 11 mission dose is above cislunar space levels let alone representative of a transit through the VAB and a lunar landing. It wouldn't work even if you took the VAB transit out of the picture.
The question that looms on the horizon is a simple one. Is Apollo 11's mission dose commensurate with an 8 day LEO mission or is it way too high fto support that assertion.
The question that looms on the horizon is a simple one. Is Apollo 11's mission dose commensurate with an 8 day LEO mission or is it way too high fto support that assertion.
When you average out the CraTer detector's readings, there is no point during the entire solar cycle less than the Apollo 11's daily dose. How can you theorize that it should not be at least as high as cislunar background?The question that looms on the horizon is a simple one. Is Apollo 11's mission dose commensurate with an 8 day LEO mission or is it way too high fto support that assertion.
Let's deal with the other questions first. Do you now understand the data that you cited, which MBDK has kindly helped with, and do you know why you need to use GCR fluxes that are pertinent to a peak in the solar cycle, rather than over a complete cycle?
Apollo 9 had a daily dose of .20 and did not transit the vab or land on the moon. Am I expected to believe there is no radiation on the moon or in the VAB. How can the two missions have essentially the same dose rate? How does that work in your mind?
When you average out the CraTer detector's readings, there is no point during the entire solar cycle less than the Apollo 11's daily dose. How can you theorize that it should not be at least as high as cislunar background?The question that looms on the horizon is a simple one. Is Apollo 11's mission dose commensurate with an 8 day LEO mission or is it way too high fto support that assertion.
Let's deal with the other questions first. Do you now understand the data that you cited, which MBDK has kindly helped with, and do you know why you need to use GCR fluxes that are pertinent to a peak in the solar cycle, rather than over a complete cycle?
We are beating a dead horse and making no headway. Let's try a different tactic. Is it safe to assume the radiation levels for the majority of the transit through the VAB are at least as high as the SAA?
Ask the question again. I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.
I did not take an average over the whole cycle.
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.
Look at the graph of the averaged detector's readings. Is there any point on that graph that goes below .22? If there is, I don't see it. Now assuming there is such a point is it low enough to compensate for the higher lundar radiation and the transit through the VAB?Ask the question again. I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.
Alright, I will rephrase the most important one. I have given you in post #586, a RANDOM sampling of the data taken during the peak solar activities (remember Apollo 11 went to the Moon during the same phase of the Sun's activity) of your referenced graph (albeit in the separate GCR format provided below the graph), which is in the year 2013. That RANDOM 5 days of data correlates to exposures easily below .22mGy/day. A look at the dates well before and after the ones I provided are consistent with that data. This directly contradicts your claim that the radiation levels were higher that .22mGy/day. Do you now recognize the error in your assumtions? If not, SPECIFICALLY why not?
The CraTer data is empirical proof that the Apollo's mission dose rate is to low to have made a lunar transit.
I did not take an average over the whole cycle.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.
But you said it was fairly flat throughout the cycle, that's essentially taking an average by visual inspection of a graph. You made the assumption that you could simply read off a graph rather than interrogate the data in detail. That's the difference between your approach and the approach of MBDK.
I did not take an average over the whole cycle.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.
But you said it was fairly flat throughout the cycle, that's essentially taking an average by visual inspection of a graph. You made the assumption that you could simply read off a graph rather than interrogate the data in detail. That's the difference between your approach and the approach of MBDK.
Ask the question again. I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.
Alright, I will rephrase the most important one. I have given you in post #586, a RANDOM sampling of the data taken during the peak solar activities (remember Apollo 11 went to the Moon during the same phase of the Sun's activity) of your referenced graph (albeit in the separate GCR format provided below the graph), which is in the year 2013. That RANDOM 5 days of data correlates to exposures easily below .22mGy/day. A look at the dates well before and after the ones I provided are consistent with that data. This directly contradicts your claim that the radiation levels were higher that .22mGy/day. Do you now recognize the error in your assumtions? If not, SPECIFICALLY why not?
You first. Answer my question.The CraTer data is empirical proof that the Apollo's mission dose rate is to low to have made a lunar transit.
I have pointed out just the opposite. You are now just trolling. I will give you one last gasp, though. What units are the graph in regarding radiation exposure?
Data from the Apollo era stated the range of GCR fluctuated from a low point at Solar maximum of .2 mgy/day to a maximum of 2.5 times that at solar minimum which is a considerable variation. Comparatively speaking the CraTer data does show such a deviation and is relatively flat over the entire solar cycle.
Ask the question again. I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.
Alright, I will rephrase the most important one. I have given you in post #586, a RANDOM sampling of the data taken during the peak solar activities (remember Apollo 11 went to the Moon during the same phase of the Sun's activity) of your referenced graph (albeit in the separate GCR format provided below the graph), which is in the year 2013. That RANDOM 5 days of data correlates to exposures easily below .22mGy/day. A look at the dates well before and after the ones I provided are consistent with that data. This directly contradicts your claim that the radiation levels were higher that .22mGy/day. Do you now recognize the error in your assumtions? If not, SPECIFICALLY why not?
Further, is it a fair assumption to use a recent cycle and extrapolate that data for a different solar cycle? One solar cycle is different to another solar cycle as there is an underlying periodic fluctuation in the solar cycle activity.
This question is are directed at timfinch, not you MBDK.
I did not take an average over the whole cycle.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.
But you said it was fairly flat throughout the cycle, that's essentially taking an average by visual inspection of a graph. You made the assumption that you could simply read off a graph rather than interrogate the data in detail. That's the difference between your approach and the approach of MBDK.
Oh no. Now he has entered the "it just doesn't look right to me" realm, as the graph clearly corresponds with the specific data I retrieved, which just happens to be the very data the graph was drawn from.
I agree 100%, but since he provided the data, I just wanted to point out that even his own reference did not support his erroneous conclusion.
You first. Answer my question.The CraTer data is empirical proof that the Apollo's mission dose rate is to low to have made a lunar transit.
I have pointed out just the opposite. You are now just trolling. I will give you one last gasp, though. What units are the graph in regarding radiation exposure?
I did not take an average over the whole cycle.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.
But you said it was fairly flat throughout the cycle, that's essentially taking an average by visual inspection of a graph. You made the assumption that you could simply read off a graph rather than interrogate the data in detail. That's the difference between your approach and the approach of MBDK.
Oh no. Now he has entered the "it just doesn't look right to me" realm, as the graph clearly corresponds with the specific data I retrieved, which just happens to be the very data the graph was drawn from.
You mean that the data you cited was used to draw the graph, and detailed interrogation of that data shows that we cannot assume that the variation in GCR is flat?
You first. Answer my question.The CraTer data is empirical proof that the Apollo's mission dose rate is to low to have made a lunar transit.
I have pointed out just the opposite. You are now just trolling. I will give you one last gasp, though. What units are the graph in regarding radiation exposure?
Not playing games here. Your own reference unquestionably (to a reasonable person) shows your .22mGy/day claim to be absolutely false. Are you honorable enough to admit that, or are you just going to troll some more? My point has been made. Clearly. Unless you want to continue in a logical manner, and are willing to confront the facts, I have better things to do.
More juvenile games. Time to go. I may check back in later. Cheers!
I will concede this silly discussion if anyone can show me a reputable site that states a Cislunar GCR rating of less than .2 mgy/day at anytime in history. If it has ever been lower than .2 then my argument falls as false.
I will concede this silly discussion if anyone can show me a reputable site that states a Cislunar GCR rating of less than .2 mgy/day at anytime in history. If it has ever been lower than .2 then my argument falls as false.
You've been shown from your own data that levels can fall below 0.2 mGy/day.
Further, if you look at the veracity of your own claims, Apollo 14 dose rates were 1.27 mGy/day. What does this tell you about the variation of radiation levels in cislunar space within a solar cycle?
Finally, surely you need data from solar cycle 20 and not solar cycle 24 if you want to test your 'anytime in history claim.' Your argument of extrapolation falls flat given the variations that exist in the background GCR.
Luke, you are sadly mistaken. There is not a single point in the CraTer data less than .20.
.22 mgy/day is false? What are you talking about. That is the stated mission dose rate of Apollo 11. How can you say that is false?
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.
Luke, you are sadly mistaken. There is not a single point in the CraTer data less than .20.
NASA itself quotes the lowest GCR ever recorded is .2 mgy/day.
Why are you so insistent in your refusal to do it?
Now remember this is the model NASA uses to plan space missions.
What do you guys make of the NASA radiation model compared to empirical data from the MSL/Rad mission? Now remember this is the model NASA uses to plan space missions.
Ask the question again. I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.
Easter isn't even a holiday in my religion, and I had plans yesterday.
The path to the moon is through deep space?What do you guys make of the NASA radiation model compared to empirical data from the MSL/Rad mission? Now remember this is the model NASA uses to plan space missions.
It's a model used in risk assessment of ISS missions and the design of space vehicles that enter deep space.
How does it apply to a short duration manned mission, such as Apollo?
The path to the moon is through deep space?
I don't assume I am right. I am not a Conspiracy Theorist. I have worked for the government most of my life and I think it is to inept to conduct a conspiracy. I simply can't make the numbers work and I was hoping you guys might provide some insight. Rather than consider the data on its merit, you guys raise shields and establish a defensive posture. I will follow the truth wherever it leads and if it leads to a conspiracy then so be it. I am interested in protecting nothing but the truth.Ask the question again. I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.
You've missed the most important question of all.
Why do you assume you're right? Why don't you think that you might possibly be misunderstanding something, since you're talking about something that you admit isn't your field? Surely people working in the field might know things that you don't, right?
And as to why no one is leaping to respond to you, did you not consider that maybe people have something to do on Easter? Easter isn't even a holiday in my religion, and I had plans yesterday.
The path to the moon is through deep space?
No it's not. It's through cislunar space. The Earth's magnetosphere has influence on the radiation environment on the far side of the Moon and beyond.
I am not a Conspiracy Theorist.
I simply can't make the numbers work and I was hoping you guys might provide some insight. Rather than consider the data on its merit, you guys raise shields and establish a defensive posture.
I just read that scientist originally thought the tail of earth's magnetosphere should partially shield the moon from GCR flux but it turns out it provides no shielding to the high energy flux of GCR whatsoever.
... and this is born out by the CraTer data.
Cislunar space is deep space.
I don't assume I am right. I am not a Conspiracy Theorist. I have worked for the government most of my life and I think it is to inept to conduct a conspiracy. I simply can't make the numbers work and I was hoping you guys might provide some insight. Rather than consider the data on its merit, you guys raise shields and establish a defensive posture. I will follow the truth wherever it leads and if it leads to a conspiracy then so be it. I am interested in protecting nothing but the truth.Ask the question again. I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.
You've missed the most important question of all.
Why do you assume you're right? Why don't you think that you might possibly be misunderstanding something, since you're talking about something that you admit isn't your field? Surely people working in the field might know things that you don't, right?
And as to why no one is leaping to respond to you, did you not consider that maybe people have something to do on Easter? Easter isn't even a holiday in my religion, and I had plans yesterday.
I simply can't make the numbers work and I was hoping you guys might provide some insight.
Rather than consider the data on its merit, you guys raise shields and establish a defensive posture.
I will follow the truth wherever it leads and if it leads to a conspiracy then so be it. I am interested in protecting nothing but the truth.
I simply can't make the numbers work and I was hoping you guys might provide some insight. Rather than consider the data on its merit, you guys raise shields and establish a defensive posture.
You didn't interpret the CRaTER graph properly (for whatever reason); that's one reason in a multitude of reasons why you can't make the numbers work. As pointed out by Jason and eluded to by others, it's a logarithmic scale so you can't judge the graph as being essentially flat. You've been pointed to the data, shown the data and had the data analysed for you. You've been asked to make links with the solar cycle and GCR, and how you can extrapolate data from cycle 24 to 20, and you've not answered that question. There are no shields raised, there is no defensive posture. You've shown a complete lack of understanding for nuclear physics.
What you need to understand about this forum is that you will be questioned in a Socrastic manner by some members to determine your level of expertise.
There are people here who are qualified aerospace engineers, biologists, chemists, geologists, photographers, electrical engineers, programmers, communication engineers. We have other long standing valued members such as Gillianren who has no formal background in science, but her degree(s) and background brings different skills and expertise to the forum. We have members without degrees who have encyclopedic knowledge of Apollo and how the various engineering systems worked. You even have humble physicists like me, how have studied space radiation. Expect a hard time if you can't get the numbers to work, particularly when you have been shown and cattle-prodded in the right direction.
If you have no level of expertise then you can 'follow the truth' all you like, but you won't get to the truth as you need that expertise. If you can't make the numbers work, does that mean the numbers must be false or is it possible that you simply have the wrong answer? Has the latter thought entered your mind?
This is a log scale. Note the difference between this and the CraTer data scale.
I could argue the point and explain to you the difference between a linear scale with an exponential axis and a logarithmic scale which is not linear rather it is exponential but I am sure you won't understand the difference so I will let you have it anyway you want to look at it.This is a log scale. Note the difference between this and the CraTer data scale.
The CRaTER scale is logarithmic on the ordinate, as the major unit is scaled in powers of 10 according to 10n. Just because the minor units are not included, it's still a log scale as the major unit increases by an order of magnitude (on the ordinate).
... but I am sure you won't understand the difference so I will let you have it anyway you want to look at it.
I don't assume I am right. I am not a Conspiracy Theorist. I have worked for the government most of my life and I think it is to inept to conduct a conspiracy. I simply can't make the numbers work and I was hoping you guys might provide some insight. Rather than consider the data on its merit, you guys raise shields and establish a defensive posture. I will follow the truth wherever it leads and if it leads to a conspiracy then so be it. I am interested in protecting nothing but the truth.Ask the question again. I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.
You've missed the most important question of all.
Why do you assume you're right? Why don't you think that you might possibly be misunderstanding something, since you're talking about something that you admit isn't your field? Surely people working in the field might know things that you don't, right?
And as to why no one is leaping to respond to you, did you not consider that maybe people have something to do on Easter? Easter isn't even a holiday in my religion, and I had plans yesterday.
I don't assume I am right. I am not a Conspiracy Theorist. I have worked for the government most of my life and I think it is to inept to conduct a conspiracy. I simply can't make the numbers work and I was hoping you guys might provide some insight. Rather than consider the data on its merit, you guys raise shields and establish a defensive posture. I will follow the truth wherever it leads and if it leads to a conspiracy then so be it. I am interested in protecting nothing but the truth.Ask the question again. I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.
You've missed the most important question of all.
Why do you assume you're right? Why don't you think that you might possibly be misunderstanding something, since you're talking about something that you admit isn't your field? Surely people working in the field might know things that you don't, right?
And as to why no one is leaping to respond to you, did you not consider that maybe people have something to do on Easter? Easter isn't even a holiday in my religion, and I had plans yesterday.
And when those numbers don't turn out to be what you want them to be you start throwing insults around.
Asking questions requires listening to answers.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf
...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:YES
- Have you interrogated the CRaTER data?
- How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?
The post clearly states solar cycle 20 was not as active as later cycles.GCR flux varies inversely with solar activity.
- How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?
[/list]
Secondary Flux on the Moon
Energetic particles and neutrons from cosmic rays induce nuclear reactions with target nuclei in the lunar regolith. Solar cosmic ray-produced secondaries are much less abundant than galactic cosmic ray-produced secondaries and occur primarily in the upper decimeter of the regolith. Since it is the energy of the incident particle that determines what reactions will occur, the GCR particles are of most concern. Typical particles with energies at MeV levels will induce reactions with an interaction mean free path of about 100 g cm-2. Thus, even GCR particles will interact with lunar surface materials at depths <5 m.
During the nuclear reactions (E >10 MeV) secondary particles are emitted; the original particle may emerge at a lower energy. Secondary neutrons and high energy particles can cause additional reactions. It is the secondary particles, especially the neutrons caused by GCR, that are relevant.
Solar wind particles are typically of such low energy that they penetrate no more than a micrometer. They can produce sputtered particles and can induce crystal damage. Most solar cosmic rays are stopped by ionization within the upper few cm of the regolith. The associated heavy nuclei are stopped in the outer millimeter. The main reactions produced by solar cosmic ray particles occur in the upper cm of the regolith, and few secondary particles are released.
Heavy nuclei in GCR radiation are usually stopped at depths <10 cm due to ionization energy loss, with most radiation damage occurring in the upper few cm. Shielding at a few g cm-2 is typically sufficient to remove most of the highly ionized heavy GCR nuclei. The lighter primary nuclei are more penetrating than heavier nuclei. Secondaries may be ionizing particles or uncharged, e.g. neutrons. The cascade that results from interaction depends on the energy of the incident particle and the nature (average atomic number) of the interacting material but can extend to depths of meters. Neutrons produced on the Moon typically have energies of a few MeV and travel until they interact or escape. Neutron interaction is most efficient with elements whose mass is lower than oxygen. Because such elements have relatively low concentrations (Table II), neutrons lose energy slowly and require many collisions to reach thermal energies (<0.1 eV).
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/wiki/lunaref/index.php/Lunar_Ionizing_Radiation_Environment
Moon dust is radioactive and this article is the definitive proof. The radiation reflected from the Moon raise the Background radiation in orbit around the Moon 30 to 40 percent. Think about that for a minute. The surface of the moon is so radioactive that it increases the radiation in the lunar orbit by 30 to 40 percent. That is staggering.
During the nuclear reactions (E >10 MeV) secondary particles are emitted; the original particle may emerge at a lower energy. Secondary neutrons and high energy particles can cause additional reactions. It is the secondary particles, especially the neutrons caused by GCR, that are relevant.
Moon dust is radioactive and this article is the definitive proof.
The radiation reflected from the Moon raise the Background radiation in orbit around the Moon 30 to 40 percent.
Think about that for a minute. The surface of the moon is so radioactive that it increases the radiation in the lunar orbit by 30 to 40 percent. That is staggering.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf
...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:
- Have you interrogated the CRaTER data?
- How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?
- How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?
Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive? Why wouldn't that be public knowledge? Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?
YES
The post clearly states solar cycle 20 was not as active as later cycles.
GCR flux varies inversely with solar activity.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf
...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:
- Have you interrogated the CRaTER data?
- How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?
- How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?
Nice graph. Although the next few solar cycles WERE more active than 24, cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20. But trolls don't swallow facts, so I predict no admission of this simple truth from him.
YES
At what Julian dates?QuoteThe post clearly states solar cycle 20 was not as active as later cycles.
...except in the case of cycle 20. Cycle 20 is more active than cycle 24, my graphic shows that, and so do many other graphics from the literature. What cycle is the CRaTER data taken from and what effect would the higher activity of cycle 20 on the GCR influx. Assuming we can extrapolate of course.QuoteGCR flux varies inversely with solar activity.
Good, so if cycle 20 is more active than 24, what do you think happens to the CRaTER data?
cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20"?????????????????
So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive. Let's consider the implications of that finding. There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface. The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters. The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing. Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive? Why wouldn't that be public knowledge? Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?
I'll try and simplify even further:
Some GCR might hit molecules on the lunar surface with enough impact to cause fission in some elements.
Some of those fission products might be directed upward.
Some of those fission products directed upwards might be long lived.
Some of those fission products directed upwards might have a half life long enough to possibly hit an astronaut's suit.
Some of the fission products that made it as far as the suit might possibly have the capability to go through the suit's protective layers.
As a non-physicist how am I doing? Anyone care to calculate probabilities?
So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive. Let's consider the implications of that finding. There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface. The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters. The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing. Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive? Why wouldn't that be public knowledge? Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?
It's not, as previously noted. Do you KNOW the difference between secondary radiation and a radioactive element? It has been previously explained, and you have used the terms, but your post indicates you don't, however, that is also indicative of troll behavior.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf
...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:
- Have you interrogated the CRaTER data?
- How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?
- How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?
Nice graph. Although the next few solar cycles WERE more active than 24, cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20. But trolls don't swallow facts, so I predict no admission of this simple truth from him.
cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20"?????????????????
So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive. Let's consider the implications of that finding. There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface. The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters. The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing. Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive? Why wouldn't that be public knowledge? Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?
It's not, as previously noted. Do you KNOW the difference between secondary radiation and a radioactive element? It has been previously explained, and you have used the terms, but your post indicates you don't, however, that is also indicative of troll behavior.
These are not my words. I posted the article but I did not write it. Other people, professional people are telling you moon dust and the surface of the moon are radioactive. I'm just the messenger.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf
...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:
- Have you interrogated the CRaTER data?
- How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?
- How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?
Nice graph. Although the next few solar cycles WERE more active than 24, cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20. But trolls don't swallow facts, so I predict no admission of this simple truth from him.
cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20"?????????????????
Yep. I made a mistake. I should have said "cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 24".
See how easy that is?
As a non-physicist how am I doing? Anyone care to calculate probabilities?
Secondary Flux on the Moon
Energetic particles and neutrons from cosmic rays induce nuclear reactions with target nuclei in the lunar regolith. Solar cosmic ray-produced secondaries are much less abundant than galactic cosmic ray-produced secondaries and occur primarily in the upper decimeter of the regolith. Since it is the energy of the incident particle that determines what reactions will occur, the GCR particles are of most concern. Typical particles with energies at MeV levels will induce reactions with an interaction mean free path of about 100 g cm-2. Thus, even GCR particles will interact with lunar surface materials at depths <5 m.
During the nuclear reactions (E >10 MeV) secondary particles are emitted; the original particle may emerge at a lower energy. Secondary neutrons and high energy particles can cause additional reactions. It is the secondary particles, especially the neutrons caused by GCR, that are relevant.
Solar wind particles are typically of such low energy that they penetrate no more than a micrometer. They can produce sputtered particles and can induce crystal damage. Most solar cosmic rays are stopped by ionization within the upper few cm of the regolith. The associated heavy nuclei are stopped in the outer millimeter. The main reactions produced by solar cosmic ray particles occur in the upper cm of the regolith, and few secondary particles are released.
Heavy nuclei in GCR radiation are usually stopped at depths <10 cm due to ionization energy loss, with most radiation damage occurring in the upper few cm. Shielding at a few g cm-2 is typically sufficient to remove most of the highly ionized heavy GCR nuclei. The lighter primary nuclei are more penetrating than heavier nuclei. Secondaries may be ionizing particles or uncharged, e.g. neutrons. The cascade that results from interaction depends on the energy of the incident particle and the nature (average atomic number) of the interacting material but can extend to depths of meters. Neutrons produced on the Moon typically have energies of a few MeV and travel until they interact or escape. Neutron interaction is most efficient with elements whose mass is lower than oxygen. Because such elements have relatively low concentrations (Table II), neutrons lose energy slowly and require many collisions to reach thermal energies (<0.1 eV).
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/wiki/lunaref/index.php/Lunar_Ionizing_Radiation_Environment
Moon dust is radioactive and this article is the definitive proof. The radiation reflected from the Moon raise the Background radiation in orbit around the Moon 30 to 40 percent. Think about that for a minute. The surface of the moon is so radioactive that it increases the radiation in the lunar orbit by 30 to 40 percent. That is staggering.
Once again, his own source refutes him. From the above reference:
"The ionizing radiation environment at the Moon, both in orbit and on the surface, consists of the solar wind, solar particle events (SPE, also referred to as solar cosmic rays) and galactic cosmic radiation."
Please note the absence of "radioactive Moon dust" as being included as part of the Moon's radiation environment. This is because that dust's temporary radioactivity is caused by the GCR's secondary events - NOT neutron capture that makes the elements unstable, and thus causes them to be considered radioactive. This has been previously explained, but like any good troll, he ignores that fact.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf
...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:
- Have you interrogated the CRaTER data?
- How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?
- How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?
Nice graph. Although the next few solar cycles WERE more active than 24, cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20. But trolls don't swallow facts, so I predict no admission of this simple truth from him.
cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20"?????????????????
Yep. I made a mistake. I should have said "cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 24".
See how easy that is?
So the article stating that cycle 20 was not as active as later cycles is wrong also?
As a non-physicist how am I doing? Anyone care to calculate probabilities?
The main mechanism at GCR energies is fragmentation of the proton. The proton will interact with the nuclei of atoms and produce a shower of pions and a neutron. The pions will quickly decay in leptons and muons, with gamma being produced. There will also be bremstrahlung. It really is very complicated, but the main result is a a neutron, a lot neutrinos, some muons and then electrons/positrons are produced. The latter can are normally produced through pair production.
There's no NASA cabal as our friend suggests. In fact there are several NASA article that discuss the primary shower of proton fragmentation and the production of pions. There is also fragmentation of heavier nuclei in the GCR.
The whole idea of the GCR being captured by nuclei to synthesise radio isotopes is a little barking. neutron capture is a possibility, but with light elements found in rocks, the cross sections are very low, and you have to get right down to thermal energies for it to occur. A the relativistic energies we are discussing the cross sections fall by several orders of magnitude for light elements. For most elements it is zero.
Cycle 24 is after cycle 20. If it is less active than cycle 20 then the statement cannot be correct. So what is it?https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf
...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:
- Have you interrogated the CRaTER data?
- How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?
- How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?
Nice graph. Although the next few solar cycles WERE more active than 24, cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20. But trolls don't swallow facts, so I predict no admission of this simple truth from him.
cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20"?????????????????
Yep. I made a mistake. I should have said "cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 24".
See how easy that is?
So the article stating that cycle 20 was not as active as later cycles is wrong also?
Of course not, as I NOWHERE made any inference to such a thing. And regardless, due to the fact that cycle 20 WAS more active than cycle 24, the cycles in-between were irrelevant. It seems you are now trying to fork along the troll path to argue semantics rather than logic. Soon you are going to demand a toll.
Secondary Flux on the Moon
Energetic particles and neutrons from cosmic rays induce nuclear reactions with target nuclei in the lunar regolith. Solar cosmic ray-produced secondaries are much less abundant than galactic cosmic ray-produced secondaries and occur primarily in the upper decimeter of the regolith. Since it is the energy of the incident particle that determines what reactions will occur, the GCR particles are of most concern. Typical particles with energies at MeV levels will induce reactions with an interaction mean free path of about 100 g cm-2. Thus, even GCR particles will interact with lunar surface materials at depths <5 m.
During the nuclear reactions (E >10 MeV) secondary particles are emitted; the original particle may emerge at a lower energy. Secondary neutrons and high energy particles can cause additional reactions. It is the secondary particles, especially the neutrons caused by GCR, that are relevant.
Solar wind particles are typically of such low energy that they penetrate no more than a micrometer. They can produce sputtered particles and can induce crystal damage. Most solar cosmic rays are stopped by ionization within the upper few cm of the regolith. The associated heavy nuclei are stopped in the outer millimeter. The main reactions produced by solar cosmic ray particles occur in the upper cm of the regolith, and few secondary particles are released.
Heavy nuclei in GCR radiation are usually stopped at depths <10 cm due to ionization energy loss, with most radiation damage occurring in the upper few cm. Shielding at a few g cm-2 is typically sufficient to remove most of the highly ionized heavy GCR nuclei. The lighter primary nuclei are more penetrating than heavier nuclei. Secondaries may be ionizing particles or uncharged, e.g. neutrons. The cascade that results from interaction depends on the energy of the incident particle and the nature (average atomic number) of the interacting material but can extend to depths of meters. Neutrons produced on the Moon typically have energies of a few MeV and travel until they interact or escape. Neutron interaction is most efficient with elements whose mass is lower than oxygen. Because such elements have relatively low concentrations (Table II), neutrons lose energy slowly and require many collisions to reach thermal energies (<0.1 eV).
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/wiki/lunaref/index.php/Lunar_Ionizing_Radiation_Environment
Moon dust is radioactive and this article is the definitive proof. The radiation reflected from the Moon raise the Background radiation in orbit around the Moon 30 to 40 percent. Think about that for a minute. The surface of the moon is so radioactive that it increases the radiation in the lunar orbit by 30 to 40 percent. That is staggering.
Once again, his own source refutes him. From the above reference:
"The ionizing radiation environment at the Moon, both in orbit and on the surface, consists of the solar wind, solar particle events (SPE, also referred to as solar cosmic rays) and galactic cosmic radiation."
Please note the absence of "radioactive Moon dust" as being included as part of the Moon's radiation environment. This is because that dust's temporary radioactivity is caused by the GCR's secondary events - NOT neutron capture that makes the elements unstable, and thus causes them to be considered radioactive. This has been previously explained, but like any good troll, he ignores that fact.
Am I to believe that you think only neutron capture is responsible for nuclear instability? So you don't believe High energy particles and rays can cause fission?
Cycle 24 is after cycle 20. If it is less active than cycle 20 then the statement cannot be correct. So what is it?https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf
...and? What are you trying to show me, other then Cycle 20 was a more active time for the Sun than when the current CRaTER data was collected in cycle 24? So the three questions still remain:
- Have you interrogated the CRaTER data?
- How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?
- How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?
Nice graph. Although the next few solar cycles WERE more active than 24, cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20. But trolls don't swallow facts, so I predict no admission of this simple truth from him.
cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 20"?????????????????
Yep. I made a mistake. I should have said "cycle 20 is also CLEARLY more active than cycle 24".
See how easy that is?
So the article stating that cycle 20 was not as active as later cycles is wrong also?
Of course not, as I NOWHERE made any inference to such a thing. And regardless, due to the fact that cycle 20 WAS more active than cycle 24, the cycles in-between were irrelevant. It seems you are now trying to fork along the troll path to argue semantics rather than logic. Soon you are going to demand a toll.
Am I to believe that you think only neutron capture is responsible for nuclear instability?
So you don't believe High energy particles and rays can cause fission?
Ah, the joys of being in a different time zone... ;DAh, I wasn't expecting a return to the debate!!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?
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.]
If protons are not capable of causing fission then where are all the neutrons coming from?
Ah, the joys of being in a different time zone... ;DAh, I wasn't expecting a return to the debate!!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?
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 relevance to the Apollo missions is that the data used for shielding, design of rad-hard electronics etc. is based on the measurements over many years, starting pre-Apollo. The published, currently available data, which has been used for many, many missions, shows that the environment outside LEO and the VAB is not as hostile as you claim, and certainly not enough to prevent manned lunar missions.
You're claiming that this data, used by engineers in many countries, is incorrect, and misrepresents the actual environment, but the success and reliability of missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond, to Lagrange points etc. says otherwise.
Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with spacecraft reliability and failure data, because radiation damage is not the primary cause of missions failures (even ignoring launch failure and human errors).
98% of GCR is comprised of heavy ions and 85% which are protons.
If protons are not capable of causing fission then where are all the neutrons coming from?
Nuclear spallation. Fission is something entirely different.
98% of GCR is comprised of heavy ions and 85% which are protons.
What is the other -83% made from?
Technically you would be correct.
Different bullet same gun, same result.
How does Spallation reduce the neutron radiation on the surface of the moon?
GCR's are the source of the neutrons and the radioactivity of the moon's surface.
98% of GCR is comprised of heavy ions and 85% which are protons.What is the other -83% made from?
Don't you mean 2%?
I could argue the point and explain to you the difference between a linear scale with an exponential axis and a logarithmic scale which is not linear rather it is exponential but I am sure you won't understand the difference so I will let you have it anyway you want to look at it.
98% of GCR is comprised of heavy ions and 85% which are protons.What is the other -83% made from?
Don't you mean 2%?
No I was pointing out that your 98% heavy ions and 85% protons adds up to 183%. 98% of GCR is not made up of heavy ions, so I am glad you corrected that to make it more clear what you meant.
I could argue the point and explain to you the difference between a linear scale with an exponential axis and a logarithmic scale which is not linear rather it is exponential but I am sure you won't understand the difference so I will let you have it anyway you want to look at it.
Please do explain it. I'd be interested to learn. ANd I certainly would understand the difference thank you.
However, it doesn't make much difference because the actual numbers have been given to you and are there for you to look at, yet you ignore them. Why?
I could argue the point and explain to you the difference between a linear scale with an exponential axis and a logarithmic scale which is not linear rather it is exponential but I am sure you won't understand the difference so I will let you have it anyway you want to look at it.
Please do explain it. I'd be interested to learn. ANd I certainly would understand the difference thank you.
However, it doesn't make much difference because the actual numbers have been given to you and are there for you to look at, yet you ignore them. Why?
The difference is one is a linear scale meaning the divisions are equally spaced and the other the division are spaced as a logarithmic function. The CraTer graph is linear with an exponential axis.
You misunderstood. 85%of the ninety eight percent is what they are saying.
I could argue the point and explain to you the difference between a linear scale with an exponential axis and a logarithmic scale which is not linear rather it is exponential but I am sure you won't understand the difference so I will let you have it anyway you want to look at it.
Please do explain it. I'd be interested to learn. ANd I certainly would understand the difference thank you.
However, it doesn't make much difference because the actual numbers have been given to you and are there for you to look at, yet you ignore them. Why?
The difference is one is a linear scale meaning the divisions are equally spaced and the other the division are spaced as a logarithmic function. The CraTer graph is linear with an exponential axis.
Thank you. And the answer to my question about the actual numbers being shown to you is...?
So it is recap time once again.
1. I am wrong in believing Apollo 11"s reported mission daily dose does not represent of an actual lunar transit.
2. I am wrong in believing the lunar surface is radioactive.
3. I am wrong in believing that GCR levels have never been recorded lower than .2mgy/day
4. I am wrong in believing that a transit of 4 hours through the VAB following any path will add a significant radiation dose.
5. I am wrong in believing that a lunar orbit is a higher exposure rate than travel in deep space and cislunar space.
6. Finally, I am wrong in believing no lunar mission can have a dose rate less than background radiation of cislunar space.
I have looked at the numbers and I cannot begin to imagine how you believe Apollo 11 could have operated in cislunar space, transited the VAB and landed on the moon and have received only .22 mgy/day.
I have looked at the numbers and I cannot begin to imagine how you believe Apollo 11 could have operated in cislunar space, transited the VAB and landed on the moon and have received only .22 mgy/day.
Thag is NOT what I asked. Do you acknowledge that GCR rates less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded in the data you presented to us or not?
I have looked at the numbers and I cannot begin to imagine how you believe Apollo 11 could have operated in cislunar space, transited the VAB and landed on the moon and have received only .22 mgy/day.
Thag is NOT what I asked. Do you acknowledge that GCR rates less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded in the data you presented to us or not?
Show me on this graph where you see a dose rate of less than .2 mgy/day. I blew it up and still don't see it. I would have used the graph from 1969 but it was expended when the astronauts ran out of toilet paper.
Show me on this graph...
Show me on this graph...
NO, for the love of god, the actual NUMBERS!
How difficult is this for you to understand? Earlier in the thread you were shown a set of numbers copied and pasted from the data that graph is based on. You have those numbers at your disposal via the link on the graph for the GCR rate. You can look at the DATA. Why will you not do it?
I've produced a screenshot that illustrates the numbers. It was not difficult to pop into a spreadsheet and put in a conditional format.
I have looked at the numbers and I cannot begin to imagine how you believe Apollo 11 could have operated in cislunar space, transited the VAB and landed on the moon and have received only .22 mgy/day.
Thag is NOT what I asked. Do you acknowledge that GCR rates less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded in the data you presented to us or not?
Show me on this graph where you see a dose rate of less than .2 mgy/day. I blew it up and still don't see it. I would have used the graph from 1969 but it was expended when the astronauts ran out of toilet paper.
I have attached a section of data used to plot the graph. I ran the whole set of data through a spreadsheet - in excess of 64000 days worth of data. Not quite the computations that require a computer the size of tennis court, but nonetheless I hope this helps.
There are 6 detectors abroad CRaTER. The green cells highlight those detectors that meet your requirement, the green cells where the dose is greater 0.22 mGy/day. The red cells where the dose is greater 0.22 mGy/day.
On a particular day, the percentage of times when all detectors were below your requirement was 64%. Now remember, this data is taken in cycle 24. Apollo occurred in cycle 20 where solar activity was greater.
The values in the cells are in cGy/day.
Also, you are not interpreting the y-axis correctly. Most of those dotted lines correspond to the x-axis divisions. This is a logarithmic y-axis. There are no subdivisions marked between the major graduations. This matches with the numbers.
Phew... for a minute. I was of course being flippant when I said 'I probably won't understand his explanation.' given the patronising tone. Honest :-\
That is quite impressive but I was of the opinion that to obtain an accurate indication of exposure because each of the detectors are different that you had to average the values. I could be wrong in this matte but it seems plausible on the surface.
Also, you are not interpreting the y-axis correctly. Most of those dotted lines correspond to the x-axis divisions. This is a logarithmic y-axis. There are no subdivisions marked between the major graduations. This matches with the numbers.
That is quite impressive but I was of the opinion that to obtain an accurate indication of exposure because each of the detectors are different that you had to average the values.
Phew... for a minute. I was of course being flippant when I said 'I probably won't understand his explanation.' given the patronising tone. Honest :-\
Sorry, that was addressed to Tim. I know you can interpret a log graph correctly. :)
That is quite impressive but I was of the opinion that to obtain an accurate indication of exposure because each of the detectors are different that you had to average the values. I could be wrong in this matte but it seems plausible on the surface.
it's not impressive really.
If all the numbers are less than 0.22 mg/day and you take an average, will your average be:
greater than 0.22?
less than 0.22?
We must agree to disagree but I think the graph would work against you if it was logarithmic.
So it is recap time once again.If this set of statements is your admission that yes Apollo missions occurred as recorded. Further you participated in two forums and have had you head handed to you and finally an admission of error is really good.
1. I am wrong in believing Apollo 11"s reported mission daily dose does not represent of an actual lunar transit.
2. I am wrong in believing the lunar surface is radioactive.
3. I am wrong in believing that GCR levels have never been recorded lower than .2mgy/day
4. I am wrong in believing that a transit of 4 hours through the VAB following any path will add a significant radiation dose.
5. I am wrong in believing that a lunar orbit is a higher exposure rate than travel in deep space and cislunar space.
6. Finally, I am wrong in believing no lunar mission can have a dose rate less than background radiation of cislunar space.
Did I cover everything?
We must agree to disagree but I think the graph would work against you if it was logarithmic.
What are you saying? The graph doesn't represent the actual data? Tell me it isn't so.
This graph is clearly logarithmic.I have looked at the numbers and I cannot begin to imagine how you believe Apollo 11 could have operated in cislunar space, transited the VAB and landed on the moon and have received only .22 mgy/day.
Thag is NOT what I asked. Do you acknowledge that GCR rates less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded in the data you presented to us or not?
Show me on this graph where you see a dose rate of less than .2 mgy/day. I blew it up and still don't see it. I would have used the graph from 1969 but it was expended when the astronauts ran out of toilet paper.
What are you saying? The graph doesn't represent the actual data? Tell me it isn't so. How can we trust scientist if they can used a spreadsheet to reproduce a graph. Preposterous!
...
What you need to understand about this forum is that you will be questioned in a Socrastic manner by some members to determine your level of expertise.
...
...
What you need to understand about this forum is that you will be questioned in a Socrastic manner by some members to determine your level of expertise.
...
Ahh ... the rare sarcastic, Socratic method ... :)
This graph is clearly logarithmic.I have looked at the numbers and I cannot begin to imagine how you believe Apollo 11 could have operated in cislunar space, transited the VAB and landed on the moon and have received only .22 mgy/day.
Thag is NOT what I asked. Do you acknowledge that GCR rates less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded in the data you presented to us or not?
Show me on this graph where you see a dose rate of less than .2 mgy/day. I blew it up and still don't see it. I would have used the graph from 1969 but it was expended when the astronauts ran out of toilet paper.
The simple test is to check for linearity. If the data is linear then it is not a logarithmic graph.We must agree to disagree but I think the graph would work against you if it was logarithmic.
How, exactly? SHow me, precisely, how that y-axis is anyhting but logarithmic. Considering that there are two sets of dotted lines, one corresponding to x-axis divisions and one to y-axis. Especially note the posiition of the horizontal line where the 10^0 y-axis value is.
Now tell me why I should interpret that graph as anything other than an industry standard logaithmic scale, and the answer the question I have asked you half a dozen times now. WHy will you not look at the numbers?
The simple test is to check for linearity. If the data is linear then it is not a logarithmic graph.
The simple test is to check for linearity. If the data is linear then it is not a logarithmic graph.
I do but it is important to note that the graph we speak of is summation graph where the detector outputs were added and averaged. The graph is derived from the very data that you laud before me. How can you doubt the authenticity of the graph. I didn't make it, they did.The simple test is to check for linearity. If the data is linear then it is not a logarithmic graph.
Tim, do you or do you not acknowledge that data is recorded in that set that clearly shows levels of less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded?
Secondly, here's a simple test for you. Download that data into Excel and plot the graph. It just took me all of five minutes to do that, and when I put the y-axis to a log scale lo and behold it looks just like that graph.
Ah, the joys of being in a different time zone... ;DAh, I wasn't expecting a return to the debate!!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?
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 relevance to the Apollo missions is that the data used for shielding, design of rad-hard electronics etc. is based on the measurements over many years, starting pre-Apollo. The published, currently available data, which has been used for many, many missions, shows that the environment outside LEO and the VAB is not as hostile as you claim, and certainly not enough to prevent manned lunar missions.
You're claiming that this data, used by engineers in many countries, is incorrect, and misrepresents the actual environment, but the success and reliability of missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond, to Lagrange points etc. says otherwise.
Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with spacecraft reliability and failure data, because radiation damage is not the primary cause of missions failures (even ignoring launch failure and human errors).
Why would I. I have made no claims about mission survivability. I don't even claim that the radiation hazards are insurmountable. The only claim I make and am willing to defend is the mission doses of Apollo 11 do not represent realistic values in light of current data. Anything else is yours.
Sure it is, a logarithmic graph is plotted using the log of the data points and not the data points themselvesThe simple test is to check for linearity. If the data is linear then it is not a logarithmic graph.
No, that's not how it works. ???
I do but it is important to note that the graph we speak of is summation graph where the detector outputs were added and averaged.
The graph is derived from the very data that you laud before me. How can you doubt the authenticity of the graph. I didn't make it, they did.
Ah, the joys of being in a different time zone... ;DAh, I wasn't expecting a return to the debate!!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?
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 relevance to the Apollo missions is that the data used for shielding, design of rad-hard electronics etc. is based on the measurements over many years, starting pre-Apollo. The published, currently available data, which has been used for many, many missions, shows that the environment outside LEO and the VAB is not as hostile as you claim, and certainly not enough to prevent manned lunar missions.
You're claiming that this data, used by engineers in many countries, is incorrect, and misrepresents the actual environment, but the success and reliability of missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond, to Lagrange points etc. says otherwise.
Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with spacecraft reliability and failure data, because radiation damage is not the primary cause of missions failures (even ignoring launch failure and human errors).
Why would I. I have made no claims about mission survivability. I don't even claim that the radiation hazards are insurmountable. The only claim I make and am willing to defend is the mission doses of Apollo 11 do not represent realistic values in light of current data. Anything else is yours.
Speaking from a non-expert in this field, no, no you are not willing to defend. Hand-waving, deflection, insults, those are your 'debate' method of choice. You have not made any argument that I find remotely convincing. On the other hand, I have read about all of the missions around: Apollo, Gemini, Mercury, Space-X, the Space Shuttle, and even what I can about various Russian (pre- and post- Cold War), and Chinese space missions. What I can say is this (obviously from a very layman's' perspective):
All these missions all occurred as recorded and the data around them is irrefutable. The experts on this forum have bent over backwards to steer you in the direction of a correct diagnosis of the data.
Instead you choose to ignore the information presented, instead you repeat your incorrect assumptions, demand they offer something (I am not sure what) to refute you (which they have repeatedly done. You then, when you don't get the answer you demand, begin insulting them. You have proven post after post that you do not understand what you are reading, bluster about your military experience (which sounds to me like a standard certificate course the military provides - I have one for my Security Police training, that doesn't make me a lawyer), and refusal to admit that your initial diagnoses and determinations were simply wrong.
Please stop being obtuse and either admit your are wrong or just go back to your sycophantic forums.
Let us assume you are correct. The graph is logarithmic and it shows what a minimum GCR background level of what?I do but it is important to note that the graph we speak of is summation graph where the detector outputs were added and averaged.
...and if you take the average of 2 points whose values are both less than 0.22 mGr/day, will your average be:
- less than 0.22 mGr/day
- greater than 0.22 mGr/day
QuoteThe graph is derived from the very data that you laud before me. How can you doubt the authenticity of the graph. I didn't make it, they did.
You brought the data here, and we don't doubt the authenticity of the graph. You did not read the scale correctly.
I do but it is important to note that the graph we speak of is summation graph where the detector outputs were added and averaged.
How can you doubt the authenticity of the graph.
Sure it is, a logarithmic graph is plotted using the log of the data points and not the data points themselves
Let us assume you are correct. The graph is logarithmic and it shows what a minimum GCR background level of what?
Sure it is, a logarithmic graph is plotted using the log of the data points and not the data points themselves
I do but it is important to note that the graph we speak of is summation graph where the detector outputs were added and averaged. The graph is derived from the very data that you laud before me. How can you doubt the authenticity of the graph. I didn't make it, they did.The simple test is to check for linearity. If the data is linear then it is not a logarithmic graph.
Tim, do you or do you not acknowledge that data is recorded in that set that clearly shows levels of less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded?
Secondly, here's a simple test for you. Download that data into Excel and plot the graph. It just took me all of five minutes to do that, and when I put the y-axis to a log scale lo and behold it looks just like that graph.
Consider this article from a Nasa web site.
Consider this article from a Nasa web site.
I recognize that I can't change your mind and I will leave you with your interpretation. I am moving on.Sure it is, a logarithmic graph is plotted using the log of the data points and not the data points themselves
I think I see the confusion. Your confusing two things here. A log scale and a log graph related to monomials. If I have data that I think has the form y = axk, I will take a log of the data. If the data has this form then
log y = log a + k.log x
will fit to a straight line.
If I have data that changes by orders of magnitudes, I plot that data on a log scale, so the variation of the small numbers show up as well as the large number. I don't take the logs of my data when I choose a log scale.
The data on your graph is represented by a log scale as the data changes by orders of magnitude for the SPE events.
I recognize that I can't change your mind and I will leave you with your interpretation. I am moving on.
I recognize that I can't change your mind and I will leave you with your interpretation. I am moving on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_scale
Ah, the joys of being in a different time zone... ;DAh, I wasn't expecting a return to the debate!!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?
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 relevance to the Apollo missions is that the data used for shielding, design of rad-hard electronics etc. is based on the measurements over many years, starting pre-Apollo. The published, currently available data, which has been used for many, many missions, shows that the environment outside LEO and the VAB is not as hostile as you claim, and certainly not enough to prevent manned lunar missions.
You're claiming that this data, used by engineers in many countries, is incorrect, and misrepresents the actual environment, but the success and reliability of missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond, to Lagrange points etc. says otherwise.
Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with spacecraft reliability and failure data, because radiation damage is not the primary cause of missions failures (even ignoring launch failure and human errors).
Why would I. I have made no claims about mission survivability. I don't even claim that the radiation hazards are insurmountable. The only claim I make and am willing to defend is the mission doses of Apollo 11 do not represent realistic values in light of current data. Anything else is yours.
Speaking from a non-expert in this field, no, no you are not willing to defend. Hand-waving, deflection, insults, those are your 'debate' method of choice. You have not made any argument that I find remotely convincing. On the other hand, I have read about all of the missions around: Apollo, Gemini, Mercury, Space-X, the Space Shuttle, and even what I can about various Russian (pre- and post- Cold War), and Chinese space missions. What I can say is this (obviously from a very layman's' perspective):
All these missions all occurred as recorded and the data around them is irrefutable. The experts on this forum have bent over backwards to steer you in the direction of a correct diagnosis of the data.
Instead you choose to ignore the information presented, instead you repeat your incorrect assumptions, demand they offer something (I am not sure what) to refute you (which they have repeatedly done. You then, when you don't get the answer you demand, begin insulting them. You have proven post after post that you do not understand what you are reading, bluster about your military experience (which sounds to me like a standard certificate course the military provides - I have one for my Security Police training, that doesn't make me a lawyer), and refusal to admit that your initial diagnoses and determinations were simply wrong.
Please stop being obtuse and either admit your are wrong or just go back to your sycophantic forums.
Sycophantic? I am an island in a sea of like minded people and you speak to me of sycophants. There is as much separation in the collective thought pattern of this forum as there is space between the protons and neutrons of a helium atom. Not an original thought exist in the lot of you.
A log scale makes it easy to compare values that cover a large range, such as in this map
A logarithmic scale is a nonlinear scale used when there is a large range of quantities. Common uses include earthquake strength, sound loudness, light intensity, and pH of solutions.
It is based on orders of magnitude, rather than a standard linear scale, so the value represented by each equidistant mark on the scale is the value at the previous mark multiplied by a constant.
Logarithmic scales are also used in slide rules for multiplying or dividing numbers by adding or subtracting lengths on the scales.
Consider this article from a Nasa web site.
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.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm
I am not sure but I think 1 millirad/hour is equal to .24 mgy/day. Correct me if I am wrong. This article was written back in the seventies.
At first you didn't want to use CraTer data and now you don't want to use Apollo era data?
A log scale makes it easy to compare values that cover a large range, such as in this map
A logarithmic scale is a nonlinear scale used when there is a large range of quantities. Common uses include earthquake strength, sound loudness, light intensity, and pH of solutions.
At first you didn't want to use CraTer data and now you don't want to use Apollo era data? You wanted to compare apples to apples. Well eat you apple my hearty.
But you claimed it was not valid because it was a different solar cycle but now it is valid?At first you didn't want to use CraTer data and now you don't want to use Apollo era data? You wanted to compare apples to apples. Well eat you apple my hearty.
... but we did use the CRaTER data, it was you that did not look at it, so that's rather an hollow accusation to make.. You brought it here, you made the premise, then it was pointed out that data did not support your premise by us. We used the data.
We've now got to the crux of the problem: You interpreted the graph incorrectly, you won't actually look at the data to perform a rudimentary analysis to support your hypothesis, you think a quick inspection of graphs is sufficient to carry out science, once that data was finally presented to you on a plate, you do not understand averages and representing data in graphs.
You are dealing with engineers and scientists at this forum. Your assertion did not stand scrutiny as you hand waved and dodged. So why should we dance around again with new data?
But you claimed it was not valid because it was a different solar cycle but now it is valid?
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.
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.
Interesting. It would appear that the dose is less on your highly radioactive surface than in cisluanr space. Any comments?
Now let's take a key point about this data and the CRaTER data. See that word in bold - average. Let's investigate the idea of an average and actual dosimeter readings. Let's say that we have 15 days in a row and the dose rate in millirads measured by a detector in space each day follows the sequence.
1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
What is the average daily dose for the 15 days?
What would you average dose read for a mission that occurred during the first 5 days?
Now compare your received dose for the mission with the average daily dose recorded by the detector in space. What can you say about the notion of average dose and actual measured dose over a mission?
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.
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.
Interesting. It would appear that the dose is less on your highly radioactive surface than in cisluanr space. Any comments?
Now let's take a key point about this data and the CRaTER data. See that word in bold - average. Let's investigate the idea of an average and actual dosimeter readings. Let's say that we have 15 days in a row and the dose rate in millirads measured by a detector in space each day follows the sequence.
1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
What is the average daily dose for the 15 days?
What would you average dose read for a mission that occurred during the first 5 days?
Now compare your received dose for the mission with the average daily dose recorded by the detector in space. What can you say about the notion of average dose and actual measured dose over a mission?
Accumulated total dose divided by mission duration is the way to go. I see nothing wrong. Stay with me. How can Apollo 11 have less dosage than cislunar background radiation? How does that work?
Why are we considering variation in mission duration or even daily radiation dose? The mission was eight days and that is a given and it matter not wath the daily dose was. It is the accumulated dose that is biologically important. I am missing your point.
Something has to be wrong.
Why are we considering variation in mission duration or even daily radiation dose? The mission was eight days and that is a given and it matter not wath the daily dose was. It is the accumulated dose that is biologically important. I am missing your point.
I agree with you, that accumulated dose is important, but as we are dealing with mission doses that are no more than a chest x-ray or CT scan; we can work within acceptable parameters of accumulated dose. Now, let me remind you:
You introduced the notion of daily dose of <0.22 mGr/day and then comparing this to cislunar daily levels.
You told me mission accumulated dose / mission duration was the way to go. I'm using your assumptions.
You now want to move on to data that is representative of 1969 and you cited an average dose of 1 mrad/day. I can only deal with your assumptions of dose / day and the data you present.
So let's go through this again. I have a satellite in space that records the daily dose thus:
1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
What is the average daily dose? Please answer.
What is the average daily dose for an astronaut of they fly a mission on the first five days of the profile above.
What's the problem with using your new data of average dose without understanding fluctuation in the background GCR.
one.Something has to be wrong.
You have 15 coins of value 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
What is the average value of the 15 coins?
What is the average value of the first five coins in the sequence?
You want to pretend daily fluctuation occured and sometimes they got less and other times they got more? Does it matter. Dosimeters measure accumulated dose. Where are we going with this?
Show me some love and concede.
Nothing wrong with being on the wrong side of the truth as long as you learn from the experience.
Sure I do and trust me, you don't want to integrate SPE's into your equation. It is better to pretend there were none.Show me some love and concede. Nothing wrong with being on the wrong side of the truth as long as you learn from the experience.
Do you understand what the term integrated flux?
Sure I do and trust me, you don't want to integrate SPE's into your equation.
I wouldn't because including SPE flux would certainly yield a much higher mission dose rate proving beyond doubt that Apollo 11 was an LEO mission.Sure I do and trust me, you don't want to integrate SPE's into your equation.
What equation? Explain, I'm interested. How would you integrate SPEs into my equation?
I wouldn't because including SPE flux would certainly yield a much higher mission dose rate proving beyond doubt that Apollo 11 was an LEO mission.
He doesn't know calculus, Luke.
Right, so when you say "integrate" he thinks you mean to incorporate or include. He doesn't know the concept of a time-integrated flux.
Right, so when you say "integrate" he thinks you mean to incorporate or include. He doesn't know the concept of a time-integrated flux.
I captured that interpretation, hence why I asked how he 'would integrate' SPEs into my sampling example. ;)
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.
Care to comment on your this point, that you brought to the forum. It's your information.
I'll be back tomorrow to check for concession speeches. Be vigilant and seek truth no matter the cost. Live long and prosper.
In all fairness, GCRs HAVE become a serious concern for LONG-TERM exposures (months and years) due to the scientific measurements/analysis performed since that report (note how your quote says the effect is unknown). This still doesn't affect the short-term risks of missions such as Apollo 11.
So is there no one willing to embrace the possibility that they have been deceived?
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.
Interesting. It would appear that the dose is less on your highly radioactive surface than in cisluanr space. Any comments?
Now let's take a key point about this data and the CRaTER data. See that word in bold - average. Let's investigate the idea of an average and actual dosimeter readings. Let's say that we have 15 days in a row and the dose rate in millirads measured by a detector in space each day follows the sequence.
1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
What is the average daily dose for the 15 days?
What would you average dose read for a mission that occurred during the first 5 days?
Now compare your received dose for the mission with the average daily dose recorded by the detector in space. What can you say about the notion of average dose and actual measured dose over a mission?
Accumulated total dose divided by mission duration is the way to go. I see nothing wrong. Stay with me. How can Apollo 11 have less dosage than cislunar background radiation? How does that work?
So is there no one willing to embrace the possibility that they have been deceived?
Are you willing to embrace the possibility that you're wrong?
So is there no one willing to embrace the possibility that they have been deceived?
So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive. Let's consider the implications of that finding. There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface. The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters. The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing. Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive? Why wouldn't that be public knowledge? Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?
So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive. Let's consider the implications of that finding. There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface. The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters. The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing. Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive? Why wouldn't that be public knowledge? Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?
Again, my printed book, printed and publicly available to a world-wide audience, refutes you.
Conspiracy believers ALWAYS think that because information is new to them, it must be new to everyone else as well.
A log scale makes it easy to compare values that cover a large range, such as in this map
A logarithmic scale is a nonlinear scale used when there is a large range of quantities. Common uses include earthquake strength, sound loudness, light intensity, and pH of solutions.
It is based on orders of magnitude, rather than a standard linear scale, so the value represented by each equidistant mark on the scale is the value at the previous mark multiplied by a constant.
Logarithmic scales are also used in slide rules for multiplying or dividing numbers by adding or subtracting lengths on the scales.
So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive. Let's consider the implications of that finding. There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface. The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters. The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing. Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive? Why wouldn't that be public knowledge? Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?
Again, my printed book, printed and publicly available to a world-wide audience, refutes you.
Conspiracy believers ALWAYS think that because information is new to them, it must be new to everyone else as well.
Your book points out moon dust is radioactive?
You can't blame me if people don't know the difference between an exponential graph and a logarithmic graph. I am forced to work with what I am presented.
A log scale makes it easy to compare values that cover a large range, such as in this map
A logarithmic scale is a nonlinear scale used when there is a large range of quantities. Common uses include earthquake strength, sound loudness, light intensity, and pH of solutions.
It is based on orders of magnitude, rather than a standard linear scale, so the value represented by each equidistant mark on the scale is the value at the previous mark multiplied by a constant.
Logarithmic scales are also used in slide rules for multiplying or dividing numbers by adding or subtracting lengths on the scales.
...such as plotting the positions of solar-system bodies on a single sheet (which I was doing back in high school, for our Traveller games), and for damn near everything involving sound levels -- dB matches pretty closely the perception of sound -- which I've been working with over the 30-odd something years since.
Again typical. Assume you are the only smart person in the room -- it is sure to make conversation go so much slower as you insist on lecturing on the basics while others are trying to move on to step #2 -- you know, the step where you started making errors.
Bremsstrahlung is the release of electromagnetic energy (i.e. photons) while radioactivity is the decay of an unstable isotope into a stable one. So your book doesn't claim moon dust is radioactive?So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive. Let's consider the implications of that finding. There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface. The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters. The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing. Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive? Why wouldn't that be public knowledge? Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?
Again, my printed book, printed and publicly available to a world-wide audience, refutes you.
Conspiracy believers ALWAYS think that because information is new to them, it must be new to everyone else as well.
Your book points out moon dust is radioactive?
That's your gloss. Not anyone else's.
I've never heard this effect described as high-energy cosmic rays creating unstable isotopes which then sit around being "radioactive" for years. That's just a really weird way of looking at it. Better to think of it as analogous to bremsstrahlung. Or the shower of pions that occurs high in our atmosphere when primary cosmic rays arrive there. There's a better explanation upthread (sorry, too tired to scroll back up and credit it properly).
But then, you are the guy who insists on lumping all ionizing radiation under the name "GCR" for ease of calculation. It really grates when you take something like this secondary neutron radiation and lump it in as a bigger number for GCR. Even I know better than that.
You are making this more complex than it has to be. If you consider the fact that the only thing that had to be faked is the manned portion of it. If an unmanned lander had been sent to the moon while the astronauts faked their portion then the deception would have involved less than fifty people.
The only thing that is important is the fact that there is an incongruency in the data.
I, personally have scoured the internet looking for any record of GCR level low enough to compensate for the transit through the VAB and the lunar landing. I can find nothing that would allow a combined dosage of .22 mgy/day. Everything I read indicates that the VAB passage alone would bring the mission dosage above .2 mgy/day.Quote
And yet, the answer is right there in front of you, in the data YOU linked!
On a logarithmic scale a third is slightly more than half (.522). Why? because the log of 3.3333 is .523. It is basic stuff but it must be said.
On a logarithmic scale a third is slightly more than half (.522). Why? because the log of 3.3333 is .523. It is basic stuff but it must be said.
Do you understand the difference between a linear scale with an exponential axis and a logarithmic scale?
Radiation is the transfer of energy by particle are photons and radioactive is the decay of unstable isotopes.
On a logarithmic scale a third is slightly more than half (.522). Why? because the log of 3.3333 is .523. It is basic stuff but it must be said.
On a logarithmic scale a third is slightly more than half (.522). Why? because the log of 3.3333 is .523. It is basic stuff but it must be said.
On any scale 3.333 is not a third. When a graph uses manipulated data the axis is labelled accordingly. The label on the y-axis states it is the dose in cGy/day, and that is the same unit as the data provided with the graph. If it was a plot of the log of the data the y-axis would say that. Now, either you believe the graph is wrong or the data is misleading, because the data states quite clearly what the dose rates recorded are and huge swathes of them drop below 0.2mGy/day.
Tim, for the umpteenth time, why will you not take five minutes out of your day to download the data set and simply plot the graph on a log scale and see for yourself?
India launched a lunar mission to the moon (Chandrayaan-1) in 2008 and the 5 day transit recorded a 1.2 millirem/hr transit. Chandrayaan-1 was in 200 km lunar orbit, where the flux and dose rate measured ~2.8 particles cm-2 s-1 and ~11 µGy h-1 (2.645 mgy/day). .
Ok, I'll play along. Accumulated dose = 30 over 15 days the average dose is 2 units/day. So is that the tactic? You want to pretend daily fluctuation occured and sometimes they got less and other times they got more?
Dosimeters measure accumulated dose.
You remind me of Michael Gove when he was minster for education demanding more than 50% of schools should get an 'above average' grading during the Ofsted inspections. Mathematics wasn't his strong suit either...
Chandrayaan data cited by timfinch:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.2014.pdf
If anyone cares to translate.
Tim, for the umpteenth time, why will you not take five minutes out of your day to download the data set and simply plot the graph on a log scale and see for yourself?
You are making this more complex than it has to be. If you consider the fact that the only thing that had to be faked is the manned portion of it. If an unmanned lander had been sent to the moon while the astronauts faked their portion then the deception would have involved less than fifty people. I digress. It is unimportant to me if they faked it. The only thing that is important is the fact that there is an incongruency in the data. If the stated NASA values are correct then it is impossible for the the Apollo mission to have left ELO. You don't have to prove all of the conditions to prove the deceit, you only have to prove one point. If that one point is proven then by default all the other points are false. I.e. if you prove Apollo 11 never left LEO then it follows that all the Apollo missions were faked. The fundamental question that begs to be answered is can a transit through the VAB, cislunar space and a lunar landing be accomplished with a mission dose of .22 mgy/day. If the answer is yes then the is an academic exercise with no value. If under any and all realistic parameters it can not then it is definitive proof that the moon landing is a hoax. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. I, personally have scoured the internet looking for any record of GCR level low enough to compensate for the transit through the VAB and the lunar landing. I can find nothing that would allow a combined dosage of .22 mgy/day. Everything I read indicates that the VAB passage alone would bring the mission dosage above .2 mgy/day. When you consider the elevated neutron dosage on the surface of the moon and in lunar orbit it would be hard to imagine a a mission dosage of less than .4 mgy/day. Everything I read indicates the lowest recorded GCR level is 2.0 mgy/day at solar maximum, and the minimum dosage possible in a VAB transit, the lowest possible lunar transit must be at least .6 mgy/day assuming you were lucky and had not a single SPE to complicate matters. India launched a lunar mission to the moon (Chandrayaan-1) in 2008 and the 5 day transit recorded a 1.2 millirem/hr transit. Chandrayaan-1 was in 200 km lunar orbit, where the flux and dose rate measured ~2.8 particles cm-2 s-1 and ~11 µGy h-1 (2.645 mgy/day). I am not a rocket scientist but I am not an idiot either. The math does not work for me. Somebody is lying. Maybe it is India....
dose rate in the inner radiation belt, ~1.3×104 μGy h-1.
I predict he will continue along in the same vein (or should I say "vain") and re-arrange his verbage just to say the same things over and over all the while ignoring all the facts and reasoning that disprove his assertions. He is just trying to yank our chains, but I am sure everyone realizes that. One thing he doesn't understand is that we (if I am not being too presumptuous) find his antics amusing once he has shown himself to be deliberately unreasonable.
Everything I read indicates the lowest recorded GCR level is 2.0 mgy/day at solar maximum,
~11 µGy h-1 (2.645 mgy/day).11 µGy/h is 0.264 mGy/day
If you consider the fact that the only thing that had to be faked is the manned portion of it. If an unmanned lander had been sent to the moon while the astronauts faked their portion then the deception would have involved less than fifty people.
Now let's add those pesky minor units on a log scale. Same data as previous post, note I have not taken a log of the data, just adjusted my y-axis scale on a log.
So same data, but plotted on graphs that have been scaled in different ways. You can verify that the original data still had its integrity, namely that it has the same values when read off a y-scale in either of the graphical representations.
So you need to do this with the CRaTER data. Should take you, erm, 5 minutes.
LO: There might look as though there are some Shenanigans with edits and deletions there. I managed to reply to myself rather than edit, edited my reply to myself, then thought I had deleted my original message after removing the quotes in my edited reply, realised I had not, so edited my original message and removed my edited reply :o. If that makes sense?
You are making this more complex than it has to be. If you consider the fact that the only thing that had to be faked is the manned portion of it.
If an unmanned lander had been sent to the moon while the astronauts faked their portion then the deception would have involved less than fifty people.
The only thing that is important is the fact that there is an incongruency in the data.
If the stated NASA values are correct then it is impossible for the the Apollo mission to have left ELO. You don't have to prove all of the conditions to prove the deceit, you only have to prove one point.
The fundamental question that begs to be answered is can a transit through the VAB, cislunar space...
Luke would you plese post a link to the CRaTER data that you have graphed (again?)?
Chandrayaan-1 was in 200 km lunar orbit, where the flux and dose rate measured ~2.8 particles cm-2 s-1 and ~11 µGy h-1 (2.645 mgy/day). I am not a rocket scientist but I am not an idiot either. The math does not work for me.It certainly doesn't. But just think of all the science Chandrayaan-1 would have been able to get done during those 240-hour days. ;)
Something has to be wrong. Either NASA got the GCR radiation of cislunar space wrong or the recorded the mission dose wrong. Of course there is the possibility it is all right and mission dose represents a stay in LEO and not a lunar transit but who am I to cast stones?
Chandrayaan data cited by timfinch:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.2014.pdf
I don't know how to respond to you guys. You have little understanding of the basic math to process this information.
I don't know how to respond to you guys.
You have little understanding of the basic math to process this information.
It does not matter what point or if you average all of the points of the CraTer Data the numbers are too high to make the math work.
The transit through the VAB
The fact of the matter is you cannot make a lunar transit under any conditions and not exceed .22 mgy/day.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3682b3245e3515ae6d5ec10ef357c2b1-c)
I don't assume I am right. I am not a Conspiracy Theorist. I have worked for the government most of my life and I think it is to inept to conduct a conspiracy. I simply can't make the numbers work and I was hoping you guys might provide some insight. Rather than consider the data on its merit, you guys raise shields and establish a defensive posture. I will follow the truth wherever it leads and if it leads to a conspiracy then so be it. I am interested in protecting nothing but the truth.Ask the question again. I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.
You've missed the most important question of all.
Why do you assume you're right? Why don't you think that you might possibly be misunderstanding something, since you're talking about something that you admit isn't your field? Surely people working in the field might know things that you don't, right?
And as to why no one is leaping to respond to you, did you not consider that maybe people have something to do on Easter? Easter isn't even a holiday in my religion, and I had plans yesterday.
You are making this more complex than it has to be. If you consider the fact that the only thing that had to be faked is the manned portion of it. If an unmanned lander had been sent to the moon while the astronauts faked their portion then the deception would have involved less than fifty people. I digress. It is unimportant to me if they faked it. The only thing that is important is the fact that there is an incongruency in the data. If the stated NASA values are correct then it is impossible for the the Apollo mission to have left ELO. You don't have to prove all of the conditions to prove the deceit, you only have to prove one point. If that one point is proven then by default all the other points are false. I.e. if you prove Apollo 11 never left LEO then it follows that all the Apollo missions were faked. The fundamental question that begs to be answered is can a transit through the VAB, cislunar space and a lunar landing be accomplished with a mission dose of .22 mgy/day. If the answer is yes then the is an academic exercise with no value. If under any and all realistic parameters it can not then it is definitive proof that the moon landing is a hoax. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. I, personally have scoured the internet looking for any record of GCR level low enough to compensate for the transit through the VAB and the lunar landing. I can find nothing that would allow a combined dosage of .22 mgy/day. Everything I read indicates that the VAB passage alone would bring the mission dosage above .2 mgy/day. When you consider the elevated neutron dosage on the surface of the moon and in lunar orbit it would be hard to imagine a a mission dosage of less than .4 mgy/day. Everything I read indicates the lowest recorded GCR level is 2.0 mgy/day at solar maximum, and the minimum dosage possible in a VAB transit, the lowest possible lunar transit must be at least .6 mgy/day assuming you were lucky and had not a single SPE to complicate matters. India launched a lunar mission to the moon (Chandrayaan-1) in 2008 and the 5 day transit recorded a 1.2 millirem/hr transit. Chandrayaan-1 was in 200 km lunar orbit, where the flux and dose rate measured ~2.8 particles cm-2 s-1 and ~11 µGy h-1 (2.645 mgy/day). I am not a rocket scientist but I am not an idiot either. The math does not work for me. Somebody is lying. Maybe it is India....
I feel for you' Rub some dirt on your ego and let's move on. The truth needs it's warriors. Regulators, mount up!
Luke has shown you values lower and in a period that would have a greater flux than during all of the Apollo missions.
A little tidbit of information for you to totally disregard. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.2014.pdf
Luke has shown you values lower and in a period that would have a greater flux than during all of the Apollo missions.
In fairness it was MBDK who posted the initial example. I just made the numbers look pretty to try and help Tim.
Chandrayaan-1 was in 200 km lunar orbit, where the flux and dose rate measured ~2.8 particles cm-2 s-1 and ~11 µGy h-1 (2.645 mgy/day). I am not a rocket scientist but I am not an idiot either.Simple multiplication eludes you, so I think you have amply answered the question of whether you are a rocket scientist or an idiot.
A little tidbit of information for you to totally disregard. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.2014.pdf
Did you disregard the fact that Chandrayaan has photographed human activity on the lunar surface?
And the Chandrayan data was not disregarded. It relates to 2008. Solar max was 2012-2013, where the GCR rate was correspondingly lower, as has been pointed out numerous times. Along with the fact that solar cycle 20 was more active than solar cycle 24, therefore the GCR flux would be even lower during the Apollo missions than was recorded during solar cycle 24.
Do you even understand that this GRC flux is not constant, and that averages mean by definition that some short time periods will have lower flux and some higher than average?
Did you disregard the fact that Chandrayaan has photographed human activity on the lunar surface?
I asked Tim that question (twice) on about Page 5 of this thread, along with similar questions about lunar orbit photography from the Soviet Zond program. I haven't looked through all the 50 subsequent pages of comments, but I don't think he ever gave an answer.
I don't know how to respond to you guys. You have little understanding of the basic math to process this information. That logarithmic thing was just embarrassing. In your desperation you grasp any straw that can to save you. It does not matter what point or if you average all of the points of the CraTer Data the numbers are too high to make the math work. The transit through the VAB and the lunar orbit and landing by themselves will give you a value greater than the .22 mgy/day. The fact of the matter is you cannot make a lunar transit under any conditions and not exceed .22 mgy/day. You couldn't do it if the VAB disappeared and there was nothing but cislunar space. Wake up and smell the disappointment. You have been duped and that sucks. I feel for you' Rub some dirt on your ego and let's move on. The truth needs it's warriors. Regulators, mount up!
I don't know how to respond to you guys. You have little understanding of the basic math to process this information. That logarithmic thing was just embarrassing. In your desperation you grasp any straw that can to save you. It does not matter what point or if you average all of the points of the CraTer Data the numbers are too high to make the math work. The transit through the VAB and the lunar orbit and landing by themselves will give you a value greater than the .22 mgy/day. The fact of the matter is you cannot make a lunar transit under any conditions and not exceed .22 mgy/day. You couldn't do it if the VAB disappeared and there was nothing but cislunar space. Wake up and smell the disappointment. You have been duped and that sucks. I feel for you' Rub some dirt on your ego and let's move on. The truth needs it's warriors. Regulators, mount up!
Again, I have to ask - why do you think the CRaTER data from solar cycle 24 can be applied meaningfully to solar cycle 20 without adjustment?
Chandrayaan-1 was in 200 km lunar orbit, where the flux and dose rate measured ~2.8 particles cm-2 s-1 and ~11 µGy h-1 (2.645 mgy/day). I am not a rocket scientist but I am not an idiot either. The math does not work for me.It certainly doesn't. But just think of all the science Chandrayaan-1 would have been able to get done during those 240-hour days. ;)
Tim after starting this thread I have been quietly monitoring it. why are you continuing. surely you must do what Jason has asked quite a few times now or not. if not why not.
so why don't you just do it. it took Jason 5 minutes. it will take you just as long. just do it.probably for the same reason I don't pick my nose and eat the buggers....
What is your take on the negative one exponent?
And the Chandrayan data was not disregarded. It relates to 2008. Solar max was 2012-2013, where the GCR rate was correspondingly lower, as has been pointed out numerous times. Along with the fact that solar cycle 20 was more active than solar cycle 24, therefore the GCR flux would be even lower during the Apollo missions than was recorded during solar cycle 24.
Do you even understand that this GRC flux is not constant, and that averages mean by definition that some short time periods will have lower flux and some higher than average?
You people are confusing me. You rejected the CraTer data because it represents a whole different solar cycle and is not applicable to the conditions that existed during the Apollo missions. I concurred. I provide data from solar cycle 20 and now you won't shut up about the CraTer data. If I submitted and played along, in the end you would reject it because it is not applicable. Why should I waste valuable time that could be used solving other deceptions the misinformed are to disinterested to look at? I did the hard part now you do the easy part and open your eyes and your mind.
You people are confusing me. You rejected the CraTer data because it represents a whole different solar cycle and is not applicable to the conditions that existed during the Apollo missions. I concurred.
I provide data from solar cycle 20 and now you won't shut up about the CraTer data.
Did you not read my response as to why not? It would be disregarded because it represents a different solar cycle. They would simply claim that it has no bearing on 1969.
Ben, the website graphs the data for you. You select the parameters and it produces the graph. Why is it necessary in your mind to re-invent the wheel when the shelves are stocked with wheels? 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
There is no "take" to have. "h-1" means 1/h, i.e. "per hour", as in the common units km h-1 (kilometres per hour), or m s-1 (metres per second), or even just s-1 (per second, better known as hertz).
My bad. In my unschooled approach I was under the impression the units were in tenths of an hour. that negative one exponent through me off. What is your take on the negative one exponent?
And the Chandrayan data was not disregarded. It relates to 2008. Solar max was 2012-2013, where the GCR rate was correspondingly lower, as has been pointed out numerous times. Along with the fact that solar cycle 20 was more active than solar cycle 24, therefore the GCR flux would be even lower during the Apollo missions than was recorded during solar cycle 24.
Do you even understand that this GRC flux is not constant, and that averages mean by definition that some short time periods will have lower flux and some higher than average?
You people are confusing me. You rejected the CraTer data because it represents a whole different solar cycle and is not applicable to the conditions that existed during the Apollo missions. I concurred. I provide data from solar cycle 20 and now you won't shut up about the CraTer data. If I submitted and played along, in the end you would reject it because it is not applicable. Why should I waste valuable time that could be used solving other deceptions the misinformed are to disinterested to look at? I did the hard part now you do the easy part and open your eyes and your mind.
It isn't the CraTer data that are being rejected, it is your interpretation of them.
What is your take on the negative one exponent?
Our take is that it is the standard mathematical alternative way of writing 'per hour' SImple maths, Tim. 1uGyhr-1 = 1uGy/hr.
And do you reject NASA's position that GCR minimum was .2 mgy/day for the Apollo missions. Why are you not wrapping your mind around that?
Couldn't you scroll back through the thread? I posted it numerous times.And do you reject NASA's position that GCR minimum was .2 mgy/day for the Apollo missions. Why are you not wrapping your mind around that?
Where exactly is NASA's stated position that the minimum was 0.2mGy/day for the Apollo missions?
Ben, the website graphs the data for you. You select the parameters and it produces the graph. Why is it necessary in your mind to re-invent the wheel when the shelves are stocked with wheels? 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&sYes, it plots the graph for you. Can you not see that the level is below 0.2 mGy/day (i.e. 2 x 10-2 cGy/day on the scale) for the majority of the time?
Couldn't you scroll back through the thread? I posted it numerous times.And do you reject NASA's position that GCR minimum was .2 mgy/day for the Apollo missions. Why are you not wrapping your mind around that?
Where exactly is NASA's stated position that the minimum was 0.2mGy/day for the Apollo missions?
Do you understand how the logarithmic scale on the vertical axis works? 2 x 10-2 will be log2/log10, or just over 30%, of the way up from 10-2 to 10-1.
Consider this article from a Nasa web site.
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.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm
I am not sure but I think 1 millirad/hour is equal to .24 mgy/day. Correct me if I am wrong. This article was written back in the seventies.
Ben, the website graphs the data for you. You select the parameters and it produces the graph. Why is it necessary in your mind to re-invent the wheel when the shelves are stocked with wheels? 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&sYes, it plots the graph for you. Can you not see that the level is below 0.2 mGy/day (i.e. 2 x 10-2 cGy/day on the scale) for the majority of the time?
(http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/plots/2017085/doserates_combined_2017085_alldays_allevents.png)
Do you understand how the logarithmic scale on the vertical axis works? 2 x 10-2 will be log2/log10, or just over 30%, of the way up from 10-2 to 10-1.
Consider this article from a Nasa web site.
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.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm
I am not sure but I think 1 millirad/hour is equal to .24 mgy/day. Correct me if I am wrong. This article was written back in the seventies.
The axis is exponential and not logarithmic. There is a subtle difference recognizable only by high school graduates.
So he quotes the average at solar maximum and solar minimum and you are claiming what, the Apollo missions dodged the rain drops? We must deal in averages because anything else would not be possible and we are talking about accumulated dose which is essentially an average.Consider this article from a Nasa web site.
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.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm
I am not sure but I think 1 millirad/hour is equal to .24 mgy/day. Correct me if I am wrong. This article was written back in the seventies.
Oh how many times? That article quotes an average, NOT the minimum. If you cannot even grasp the difference between those two terms what really is the point?
There is literally no way to soundly and logically interpret that statement to say that minimum GCR flux during Apollo was 0.2mGy/day.
It really isn't...
Here you go Tim. The blue line is the data, the reddy-brown data is the threshold value of 0.22 mGr day-1.
What you can you say about most the blue data, other than SPE events? Plotted on a log graph for you. I've done nothing with the data.
We must deal in averages because anything else would not be possible and we are talking about accumulated dose which is essentially an average.
What human activity remains exist that a machine could not have been the source of?
So he quotes the average at solar maximum and solar minimum and you are claiming what, the Apollo missions dodged the rain drops?
We must deal in averages because anything else would not be possible
and we are talking about accumulated dose which is essentially an average.
I am like a proud father. You have grown so much in the last 3 days. Now that is a logarithmic graph. Good job.
Here you go Tim. The blue line is the data, the reddy-brown data is the threshold value of 0.22 mGr day-1.
What you can you say about most the blue data, other than SPE events? Plotted on a log graph for you. I've done nothing with the data.
I am like a proud father. You have grown so much in the last 3 days. Now that is a logarithmic graph. Good job.
Well, I'm a high-school and university graduate, and I can plainly see that the axis is logarithmic, as you can tell by the fact that the difference between the bottom two horizontal marks (10-4 and 10-3) is 0.0009 cGy/day, whereas the difference between the top two horizontal marks (104 and 103) is 9,000 cGy/day!
The axis is exponential and not logarithmic. There is a subtle difference recognizable only by high school graduates.
I have never heard of an "exponential scale" as applied to a graph axis, and neither has the internet, other than as a synonym for logarithmic scale!
So he quotes the average at solar maximum and solar minimum and you are claiming what, the Apollo missions dodged the rain drops?
I am claiming nothing. I am pointing out where you are making mistakes in interpretation. You claim that article states a minimum. It absolutely does not. And no, Apollo did not 'dodge' anything, because what that doesn't actually provide is any indication of the range of the data used to generate that average.QuoteWe must deal in averages because anything else would not be possible
That is categorically untrue.Quoteand we are talking about accumulated dose which is essentially an average.
How is accumulated anything an average? You calculate an average from the accumulated dose by dividing it over time.
Have you noticed what happens if you actually look at the daily dose rates for each Apollo mission with this in mind? SOme are higher, some are lower (as expected mathematically), and the avergae daily dose rate across all those missions is higher than the average GCR flux quoted in that article.
if the axis is in exponents then it is an exponential scale. Maybe we should define scale while we are at it.I have never heard of an "exponential scale" as applied to a graph axis, and neither has the internet, other than as a synonym for logarithmic scale!
No, me neither.
Here you go Tim. The blue line is the data, the reddy-brown data is the threshold value of 0.22 mGr day-1.I am a little confused by why the data don't seem to match - are you using a subset?
What you can you say about most the blue data, other than SPE events? Plotted on a log graph for you. I've done nothing with the data.
If the axis is in exponents then it is an exponential scale. Maybe we should define scale while we are at it.
Here you go Tim. The blue line is the data, the reddy-brown data is the threshold value of 0.22 mGr day-1.I am a little confused by why the data don't seem to match - are you using a subset?
What you can you say about most the blue data, other than SPE events? Plotted on a log graph for you. I've done nothing with the data.
In your graph it dips below the 0.1 mGy/day line (10-2 cGy/day), whereas the original CRaTER graph has it somewhat higher.
(http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1444.0;attach=559;image)
versus
(http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/plots/2017085/doserates_combined_2017085_alldays_allevents.png)
if the axis is in exponents then it is an exponential scale. Maybe we should define scale while we are at it.I have never heard of an "exponential scale" as applied to a graph axis, and neither has the internet, other than as a synonym for logarithmic scale!
No, me neither.
So, is there no data from the Apollo mission that you re willing to use? Nasa tells you the Mission operated in a background Cislunar radiation of 1 mrem/hr to 2.5 times that and that is not good enough for you? What number do you want to use. Provide one.
I am a little confused by why the data don't seem to match - are you using a subset?
Just curious about the discrepancy in the figures (edit - which Luke has explained in the next post). Nothing to do with the scale, which is logarithmic on both graphs. Perhaps relabelling the axis with long-form numbers instead of the powers of ten would make it clearer to you that this is a logarithmic scale?
Robb, I am starting to like you. You are obviously thinking about this...
So, is there no data from the Apollo mission that you re willing to use? Nasa tells you the Mission operated in a background Cislunar radiation of 1 mrem/hr to 2.5 times that and that is not good enough for you? What number do you want to use. Provide one.
NASA tells me no such thing. WHat that article says is that the average was 0.24mGy/day. That's an average taken over the Apollo missions, the lunar ones of which took place over a period of 4 years from December 1968 to December 1972. You cannot apply an average over 4 years to a two week period and conclude that because the data show it was lower in that two week period there is something fishy going on. It is mathematically certain that some two week periods will be lower and some will be higher. That is the very definition of 'average'. By your logic something fishy is happening because the average temperature in March in the UK is about 8 degrees C, but last weekend it dropped to -9 degrees in my location.
You are still determined to find some way of interpreting any statement to mean there is some constant background minimum GCR flux that all Apollo missions must be higher than, but the simple fact is there is NO mathematical justification for that whatsoever.
I am a little confused by why the data don't seem to match - are you using a subset?
The CRaTER graph plots an average of detectors 1 and 2, 3 and 4 and 5 and 6, and that ground my machine down as ExCel throws a wobbly after 20000 data points. I plotted data for detector 1 only.
If you look closely at the CRaTER graph, there are some other colours. This is because one subset of CRaTER data blots out another. ExCel points are quite large with huge amounts of data points, so that is an artefact. I can plot detector 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 if it pleases. It makes the same point that there are swathes of data below the line.
Do you accept this explanation, or do I have to retract and go away to the drawing board? I could plot an average of all 6 detectors?
And the Chandrayan data was not disregarded. It relates to 2008. Solar max was 2012-2013, where the GCR rate was correspondingly lower, as has been pointed out numerous times. Along with the fact that solar cycle 20 was more active than solar cycle 24, therefore the GCR flux would be even lower during the Apollo missions than was recorded during solar cycle 24.
Do you even understand that this GRC flux is not constant, and that averages mean by definition that some short time periods will have lower flux and some higher than average?
You people are confusing me. You rejected the CraTer data because it represents a whole different solar cycle and is not applicable to the conditions that existed during the Apollo missions. I concurred. I provide data from solar cycle 20 and now you won't shut up about the CraTer data. If I submitted and played along, in the end you would reject it because it is not applicable. Why should I waste valuable time that could be used solving other deceptions the misinformed are to disinterested to look at? I did the hard part now you do the easy part and open your eyes and your mind.
It isn't the CraTer data that are being rejected, it is your interpretation of them.
And do you reject NASA's position that GCR minimum was .2 mgy/day for the Apollo missions. Why are you not wrapping your mind around that?
There is certainly a range with defined limits that GCR's operate withing. If there were not then we certainly could not leave earth because without limits radiation could be any value. The observed band that existed during the Apollo era was .24 mgy/day to .6 mgy/day, modulated by solar activity. You can argue range in minutes or seconds but the averages play out over days and weeks. Deal with it.
There is certainly a range with defined limits that GCR's operate withing.
The observed band that existed during the Apollo era was .24 mgy/day to .6 mgy/day, modulated by solar activity.
You can argue range in minutes or seconds but the averages play out over days and weeks
That makes sense. Presumably the values for detector 1 are lower than for detector 2, such that the blue line on the CRaTER chart (1 & 2) is higher than that for detector 1 alone.
You are making this more complex than it has to be.
If an unmanned lander had been sent to the moon while the astronauts faked their portion then the deception would have involved less than fifty people.
I am not a rocket scientist...
I digress.
The only thing that is important is the fact that there is an incongruency in the data.
If the stated NASA values are correct then it is impossible for the the Apollo mission to have left ELO.
You don't have to prove all of the conditions to prove the deceit, you only have to prove one point. If that one point is proven then by default all the other points are false.
I.e. if you prove Apollo 11 never left LEO then it follows that all the Apollo missions were faked.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
The math does not work for me.
Somebody is lying.
That makes sense. Presumably the values for detector 1 are lower than for detector 2, such that the blue line on the CRaTER chart (1 & 2) is higher than that for detector 1 alone.
I could go away and represent the data in numerous ways, but its kind of academic given what we are dealing with. Any figures are approximate and only serve to give typical values. I could invest more time, but it's really up to Tim to do the donkey work.
Since Tim wants to work with averages, here's some numbers, using the Apollo recorded daily dose rates in mGy
Apollo 8 0.26
Apollo 10 0.60
Apollo 11 0.22
Apollo 12 0.57
Apollo 13 0.40
Apollo 14 1.27
Apollo 15 0.24
Apollo 16 0.46
Apollo 17 0.44
Average: 0.50mGy/day
So on average the lunar Apollo missions got twice as much than the 0.24mGy/day average GCR flux stated in the article. Some more, some less. Tell me again why this is a problem, Tim?
That makes sense. Presumably the values for detector 1 are lower than for detector 2, such that the blue line on the CRaTER chart (1 & 2) is higher than that for detector 1 alone.
I could go away and represent the data in numerous ways, but its kind of academic given what we are dealing with. Any figures are approximate and only serve to give typical values. I could invest more time, but it's really up to Tim to do the donkey work.
To get a more manageable data file I set it to just one year in the middle of the range. This is the resulting text file: http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/data/2013085/doserates_standard_2013085_366days_allevents.txt
And yes, as suspected, the values for detector 1 are always (in so far as I have checked) considerably lower than those for detector 2, which explains why your chart (detector 1 only) showed lower figures than the combined chart (which only plotted the average of d1 & d2).
Screenshot to show what I mean:
(https://i.imgur.com/GMoMnSE.png)
Compare the two highlighted columns.
Since Tim wants to work with averages, here's some numbers, using the Apollo recorded daily dose rates in mGy
Apollo 8 0.26
Apollo 10 0.60
Apollo 11 0.22
Apollo 12 0.57
Apollo 13 0.40
Apollo 14 1.27
Apollo 15 0.24
Apollo 16 0.46
Apollo 17 0.44
Average: 0.50mGy/day
So on average the lunar Apollo missions got twice as much than the 0.24mGy/day average GCR flux stated in the article. Some more, some less. Tell me again why this is a problem, Tim?
There certainly is. We would not send astronauts into space if didn't have a level of expectation of the hazards and the radiation doses they would receive. NASA's prediction fell way off and the question one must ask is the reason why the fact that the mission never left LEO? Are the mission dose rates representative of LEO mission dose rates?Are the mission doses approximately what we calculate for a lunar transit? In asking these questions the possibility of a deception becomes apparent.
Dude, Tim has moved on. He is content with the built in plotter.
Since Tim wants to work with averages, here's some numbers, using the Apollo recorded daily dose rates in mGy
Apollo 8 0.26
Apollo 10 0.60
Apollo 11 0.22
Apollo 12 0.57
Apollo 13 0.40
Apollo 14 1.27
Apollo 15 0.24
Apollo 16 0.46
Apollo 17 0.44
Average: 0.50mGy/day
So on average the lunar Apollo missions got twice as much than the 0.24mGy/day average GCR flux stated in the article. Some more, some less. Tell me again why this is a problem, Tim?
There certainly is. We would not send astronauts into space if didn't have a level of expectation of the hazards and the radiation doses they would receive. NASA's prediction fell way off and the question one must ask is the reason why the fact that the mission never left LEO? Are the mission dose rates representative of LEO mission dose rates?Are the mission doses approximately what we calculate for a lunar transit? In asking these questions the possibility of a deception becomes apparent.
There certainly is. We would not send astronauts into space if didn't have a level of expectation of the hazards and the radiation doses they would receive. NASA's prediction fell way off
Compare the two highlighted columns.
So you accept that the chart is (a) correct, (b) logarithmic and (c) shows values comfortably below 0.2 mGy/day most of the time?
Since Tim wants to work with averages, here's some numbers, using the Apollo recorded daily dose rates in mGy
Apollo 8 0.26
Apollo 10 0.60
Apollo 11 0.22
Apollo 12 0.57
Apollo 13 0.40
Apollo 14 1.27
Apollo 15 0.24
Apollo 16 0.46
Apollo 17 0.44
Average: 0.50mGy/day
So on average the lunar Apollo missions got twice as much than the 0.24mGy/day average GCR flux stated in the article. Some more, some less. Tell me again why this is a problem, Tim?
There certainly is. We would not send astronauts into space if didn't have a level of expectation of the hazards and the radiation doses they would receive. NASA's prediction fell way off and the question one must ask is the reason why the fact that the mission never left LEO? Are the mission dose rates representative of LEO mission dose rates?Are the mission doses approximately what we calculate for a lunar transit? In asking these questions the possibility of a deception becomes apparent.
Wait - are you now saying that because the doses are higher than the average stated GCR flux, they must have never left LEO? I can't quite follow the logic here... I thought your problem was that the Apollo doses were too low, so that means it had to be faked? Now they're too high, which means it had to be faked? :oQuoteDude, Tim has moved on. He is content with the built in plotter.
So you accept that the chart is (a) correct, (b) logarithmic and (c) shows values comfortably below 0.2 mGy/day most of the time?
No. I am absolutely sure they are not logarithmic. I am unsure about your ability to understand the difference between a logarithmic scale and and exponential scale. I even have some concern about your ability to read a graph.So you accept that the chart is (a) correct, (b) logarithmic and (c) shows values comfortably below 0.2 mGy/day most of the time?
;)
I think you guys don't understand the difference between Exponential and Logarithmic but that is just my opinion.
I even have some concern about your ability to read a graph.
Hey, I've never operated a submarine before, but I think I could do it better than you. But that's just my opinion.
I think you guys don't understand the difference between Exponential and Logarithmic but that is just my opinion.
Indeed, I've only used those concepts and the associated data visualization methods every day of my professional life for the past 30 years. Hey, I've never operated a submarine before, but I think I could do it better than you. But that's just my opinion.
To get a more manageable data file I set it to just one year in the middle of the range.
Hey, I've never operated a submarine before, but I think I could do it better than you. But that's just my opinion.
Easy, make sure the lid is tight and then drive it around under water. There's no traffic lights or interchanges. There's not a great deal of traffic under the sea. Pfffft, how can it be hard. Any moron can do it when you think about it.
Luke has shown you values lower and in a period that would have a greater flux than during all of the Apollo missions.
In fairness it was MBDK who posted the initial example. I just made the numbers look pretty to try and help Tim.
My bad and do apologize to MBDK.
I don't think you could have passed the entrance requirement as you had to know a logarithmic scale does not have equal distant points and that seems to have eluded you
Can you explain the difference, then? What would you call a scale with consecutive tick marks at 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100, 1000...? I would call it logarithmic.
No. I am absolutely sure they are not logarithmic. I am unsure about your ability to understand the difference between a logarithmic scale and and exponential scale. I even have some concern about your ability to read a graph.
There can be no question the doses reported by the lunar missions are well within the expected LEO dose profiles.
I think you guys don't understand the difference between Exponential and Logarithmic but that is just my opinion.
Only 10% of those who apply are accepted and a third of those that are accepted complete the rigorous training regimen.
I have never operated a submarine either. I have supervised the operation of a Nuclear Power Plant and I don't think you could have passed the entrance requirement as you had to know a logarithmic scale does not have equal distant points and that seems to have eluded you
the problem is tim at the end of the day quite a few people have contributed here and from reading it it seems they are correct. I say this because you keep switching topics. however, and I would too in their shoes, it wont be long before your account Is revoked I suspect
I don't think you could have passed the entrance requirement as you had to know a logarithmic scale does not have equal distant points and that seems to have eluded you
Please compute the ordinate values on the CRaTER graph, 10-4, 10-3, 10-2, 10-1, 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104 and then explain to me how they can be equidistant.
OK, I'll do that for you.
10-4 = 0.0001
10-3 = 0.001
10-2 = 0.01
10-1 = 0.1
100 = 1
101 = 10
102 =100
103 =1000
104 =1000
They're not equidistant are they? What is the common factor between each ordinate. OK, I'll do that for you.
10.
There you go, it's a log scale... tada!!!!
If he were on cosmoquest's forum, he would have been suspended multiple times and eventually banned long ago. This forum is more lenient, as at least some of those who stay the course find his childish obstinance amusing, and allows them (me, too) to practice their debating and critical thinking skills.
Sycophants like listening to the sound of their own voices don't they. Your arguments are without substance so your only recourse is to expel the one who sings out of tune with the other sheeple?the problem is tim at the end of the day quite a few people have contributed here and from reading it it seems they are correct. I say this because you keep switching topics. however, and I would too in their shoes, it wont be long before your account Is revoked I suspect
If he were on cosmoquest's forum, he would have been suspended multiple times and eventually banned long ago. This forum is more lenient, as at least some of those who stay the course find his childish obstinance amusing, and allows them (me, too) to practice their debating and critical thinking skills.
Your arguments are without substance...
...so your only recourse is to expel the one who sings out of tune with the other sheeple?
Why would you call it a log scale if you were not using logs in the scale?
Luke, Luke, Luke.... Now deep in your heart you know that each mark in a grid represents a tenth of that grid. Now if the spacings of these marks are equidistant then it is a linear grid.
If they are spaced as a log function then it is a logarithmic scale. Why would you call it a log scale if you were not using logs in the scale?
Now if the spacings of these marks are equidistant then it is a linear grid.
Only 10% of those who apply are accepted and a third of those that are accepted complete the rigorous training regimen. I am not sure you have the right stuff.
The fact remains, however, that you still can't tell the difference between an average and a minimum...
I am going to timidly toss this out there for your consideration. That is an exponential scale using exponents in the axis. It is different than a logarithmic scale. The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.Why would you call it a log scale if you were not using logs in the scale?
You actually think you need to take logs to scale the axis, really, really? That's what you think a log scale is? really? Honestly? Really? Please don't tell me you think you take logs to make a log scale. Tell you what, you take log10 of the following numbers
1 000 000
100 000
10 000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
Then compute these exponents (not exponentials).
106
105
104
103
102
101
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
Then you might see the relationship between log10 and the reason for calling it a log scale.
The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.
I am going to timidly toss this out there for your consideration. That is an exponential scale using exponents in the axis. It is different than a logarithmic scale. The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.
I have never operated a submarine either. I have supervised the operation of a Nuclear Power Plant
I am going to timidly toss this out there for your consideration. That is an exponential scale using exponents in the axis. It is different than a logarithmic scale. The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.
The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.
Which is EXACTLY what that graph is. It just doesn't show the intermediate tick marks, for clarity!
See these two graphs? One generated by CRaTER (on the left) and one created by Luke. Luke's graph only shows the data for detector 1, which is the dark blue line on the CRaTER graph.
See how they are basically exactly the same? How the heights of the peaks is the same on both charts, on the logarithmic scale? The only difference is the labels, and the fact the one has the axis in centigrays per day and one in milligrays per day, so there is a factor of 10 difference. Both are logarithmic plots.
(https://i.imgur.com/mzrWVYX.png)
Can you really not see that the difference between 104 and 103 is bigger than the difference between 103 and 102? Or do you think that the gap between 10,000 and 1,000 is the same as the gap between 1,000 and 100? Or between 0.1 and 0.01?
I am going to timidly toss this out there for your consideration. That is an exponential scale using exponents in the axis. It is different than a logarithmic scale. The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.
Exponential pertains to natural logs, base e, as in 2.718... so exponential graph (if it existed) would be scaled on the major unit according to
e-4, e-3, e-3, e-1, e0, e1, e2...
Logarithmic graphs pertain to log 10, base 10. The major unit is scaled
10-4, 10-3, 10-2, 10-1, 100, 101, 102...
As in the CRaTER graph.
Would you find it easier to comprehend if we added in the intermediate tick marks on the CRaTER graph, as I have done here between the 102 and 103 lines? I think you can see why the default is not to do that: because it is very cluttered (even allowing for the thick minimum line width on my screenshot program!)
(https://i.imgur.com/CsrZ1lA.png)
Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question. You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right. You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?
Definition of exponent
Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question. You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right. You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?
On the subject of the stringent selection criteria Tim refers to, given that we are talking about nuclear subs, how much of 'the cut' is determined by availability of positions versus applicant numbers, how much by technical skill, and how much by stringent background security and medical checks? I ask because if Tim wishes to use them as a bolster to his credibility he is being disingenuous if he implies it's all skills and intelligence that scuppered the rest of them.
As he insisted on using the term 'the right stuff', I'll point out that as it pertains to the Mercury astronauts, hundreds applied, dozens were selected, 7 made the cut. The selection criteria were based on a wide variety of things. Pete Conrad didn't make the first cut because he was flippant in a psych test but was clearly a competent astronaut given his later history.
Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question. You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right. You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?
Oh for the love of...
YES, we all know this, which is why we suggested you go and do this yourself. I have plotted the data on a LOG scale, and get EXACTLY the same curve as the graph on the CraTer web page. EXACTLY.
But again, the shape of the curve does not matter. The NUMBERS tell you what you need to know. You just want to keep going on about this graph because you can't admit to the numbers showing you to be wrong.
I ask because if Tim wishes to use them as a bolster to his credibility...
Did you not read my response as to why not? It would be disregarded because it represents a different solar cycle. They would simply claim that it has no bearing on 1969.
Stop playing games. You know damn well that is not true. You have been asked repeatedly why you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the data, in simple black and white, contradicts your claim that the GCR rate is never lower than 0.22uGy/day. It's there, and you can see it and plot the graph that you insisted shows it is always above that value.
You refuse because you would have to admit that all that obfuscation is just your way of refusing to acknowledge your error.
ANd the relevance to cycle 20 has also been explained. Cycle 20 was a more active solar cycle, therefor the GCR flux would be even lower than in cycle 24, where it already falls below your stated minimum GCR levels.
Why don't you apply and see if you have the right stuff?
The before and after curves cannot be the same. You did something wrong.
Would you find it easier to comprehend if we added in the intermediate tick marks on the CRaTER graph, as I have done here between the 102 and 103 lines? I think you can see why the default is not to do that: because it is very cluttered (even allowing for the thick minimum line width on my screenshot program!)
(https://i.imgur.com/CsrZ1lA.png)
Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question. You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right. You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?
Yes of course. Try plotting the values on a linear plot and you will see that the shape of the curve is nothing like this one!
Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question. You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right. You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?
Oh for the love of...
YES, we all know this, which is why we suggested you go and do this yourself. I have plotted the data on a LOG scale, and get EXACTLY the same curve as the graph on the CraTer web page. EXACTLY.
But again, the shape of the curve does not matter. The NUMBERS tell you what you need to know. You just want to keep going on about this graph because you can't admit to the numbers showing you to be wrong.
The before and after curves cannot be the same. You did something wrong.
This is incredibly basic maths, literally multiplying by 10. My six-year-old daughter can multiply by 10, without a pencil and paper.
ANd yu have failed to plot the linear one with the same range as the log one. Why? Your log graph goes from 0.01 to 1. Plot the linear one with the same range.
ANd yu have failed to plot the linear one with the same range as the log one. Why? Your log graph goes from 0.01 to 1. Plot the linear one with the same range.
Try this. In excel plot the raw data. Right click on the vertical axis and select format axis. Click in the Logarithmic scale box and then compare the two data sets.
I have noticed that no one wants to embrace the fact that NASA claims a cislunar GCR background range of .24 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day. Is it that we believe that all 9 lunar missions fell through the gaps on this and managed to transit the VAB, lunar surface and cislunar space on a beautiful and quiet space week? No one finds this even remotely curious? Just me?
Have we finally got to the bottom of this?
Tim, do you think that because changing the scale of a graph changes the appearance of the graph, different conclusions can be drawn from the data depending on how we draw the graph scale? Are conclusions sensitive to our choose of scaling? Is this what you think?
I have noticed that no one wants to embrace the fact that NASA claims a cislunar GCR background range of .24 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.
Is it that we believe that all 9 lunar missions fell through the gaps on this and managed to transit the VAB, lunar surface and cislunar space on a beautiful and quiet space week?
the problem is tim at the end of the day quite a few people have contributed here and from reading it it seems they are correct. I say this because you keep switching topics. however, and I would too in their shoes, it wont be long before your account Is revoked I suspect
If he were on cosmoquest's forum, he would have been suspended multiple times and eventually banned long ago. This forum is more lenient, as at least some of those who stay the course find his childish obstinance amusing, and allows them (me, too) to practice their debating and critical thinking skills.
No one finds this even remotely curious? Just me?
Have we finally got to the bottom of this?
Tim, do you think that because changing the scale of a graph changes the appearance of the graph, different conclusions can be drawn from the data depending on how we draw the graph scale? Are conclusions sensitive to our choose of scaling? Is this what you think?
No, I don't. I simply don't think the concept of a logarithmic graph has been fully grasped and this is a way to reach the unbelieving.
No, I don't. I simply don't think the concept of a logarithmic graph has been fully grasped and this is a way to reach the unbelieving.
It sure is lonely up here in the stratified air of open mind mountains. I could use a little company. Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?No response to the repeated requests to acknowledge that the numbers disagree with you then?
It sure is lonely up here in the stratified air of open mind mountains. I could use a little company. Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?
I printed out the graphs as proof it doesn't. I don't understand how it works differently for me than it does you but I am forced to ask the question, Why is it reasonable in your mind that a plot of raw data does not change between a linear plot and a logarithmic plot? Why does that make sense to you?Have we finally got to the bottom of this?
Tim, do you think that because changing the scale of a graph changes the appearance of the graph, different conclusions can be drawn from the data depending on how we draw the graph scale? Are conclusions sensitive to our choose of scaling? Is this what you think?
No, I don't. I simply don't think the concept of a logarithmic graph has been fully grasped and this is a way to reach the unbelieving.
Tim, I will say again, plottting the data on an Excel graph and telling it to use a logarithmic y-axis is exactly what I did in the first place and exactly what I advised you to do, and it produces exactly the same curve a the very first one you showed from the CraTer website.
I printed out the graphs as proof it doesn't. I don't understand how it works differently for me than it does you but I am forced to ask the question, Why is it reasonable in your mind that a plot of raw data does not change between a linear plot and a logarithmic plot? Why does that make sense to you?Have we finally got to the bottom of this?
Tim, do you think that because changing the scale of a graph changes the appearance of the graph, different conclusions can be drawn from the data depending on how we draw the graph scale? Are conclusions sensitive to our choose of scaling? Is this what you think?
No, I don't. I simply don't think the concept of a logarithmic graph has been fully grasped and this is a way to reach the unbelieving.
Tim, I will say again, plottting the data on an Excel graph and telling it to use a logarithmic y-axis is exactly what I did in the first place and exactly what I advised you to do, and it produces exactly the same curve a the very first one you showed from the CraTer website.
Why is it reasonable in your mind that a plot of raw data does not change between a linear plot and a logarithmic plot? Why does that make sense to you?
I printed out the graphs as proof it doesn't. I don't understand how it works differently for me than it does you but I am forced to ask the question, Why is it reasonable in your mind that a plot of raw data does not change between a linear plot and a logarithmic plot? Why does that make sense to you?Have we finally got to the bottom of this?
Tim, do you think that because changing the scale of a graph changes the appearance of the graph, different conclusions can be drawn from the data depending on how we draw the graph scale? Are conclusions sensitive to our choose of scaling? Is this what you think?
No, I don't. I simply don't think the concept of a logarithmic graph has been fully grasped and this is a way to reach the unbelieving.
Tim, I will say again, plottting the data on an Excel graph and telling it to use a logarithmic y-axis is exactly what I did in the first place and exactly what I advised you to do, and it produces exactly the same curve a the very first one you showed from the CraTer website.
Where do you get this idea that I am saying a linear and logarithmic plot do not change?
You said you plotted the raw data and then converted it to logarithmic and the curve did not change. I read where you said that. I think...
Why is it reasonable in your mind that a plot of raw data does not change between a linear plot and a logarithmic plot? Why does that make sense to you?
If I have a data point 10 on a linear scale, what does it corresponds to on the y scale when read off the graph?
If I have a data point 10 on a log scale, what does it correspond to on the y scale when read off the graph?
You said you plotted the raw data and then converted it to logarithmic and the curve did not change. I read where you said that. I think...
No, I did not. I said I plotted the data and converted it to logarithmic and then it matched the CraTer graph. I said nothing about what the linear graph looked like.
You are making this more complex than it has to be.
No, we're facing the problem in its full complexity. You're making it "simple" by skipping the parts you don't have answers for and pretending that they therefore don't matter. A great way to get rid of fleas on a cat is to incinerate the cat. It's a great solution unless you "complicate" it by stipulating that the cat has to be alive after the process. In the real world you don't get to ignore the parts of the problem that don't fit your solution just because you really, really like your solution. The problem of determining Apollo authenticity is more complicated than you're making it, and you come off sounding rude and arrogant when you belittle people who are looking at the whole problem while you remain focused on one narrow piece.
...
If you had two sheets of graph paper, one linear and one logarithmic and you were plotting by had 20 data points on each sheet and assuming the same data points were used on each sheet, would the curves be identical?
Of course the linear and logarithmic curves were different. I didn't show any data sets and I didn't need to. I urged you to go and look for yourself. The point was, and remains, the logartihmic curve generated in Excel matches the one on the CraTer website, showing that this is also a logartihmic curve. If you can't comprehend that then you really must just be trolling now.
Of course the linear and logarithmic curves were different. I didn't show any data sets and I didn't need to. I urged you to go and look for yourself. The point was, and remains, the logartihmic curve generated in Excel matches the one on the CraTer website, showing that this is also a logartihmic curve. If you can't comprehend that then you really must just be trolling now.
My confusion arises from the fact, early in the discussion when you insisted the raw data did not have to converted to logarithms.
You said that was not how it worked and I assume then you continued to insist the plot of raw data looked like the plot of logarithmic data and I couldn't understand how that was possible. I understand now.
So why didn't you show both data sets?
OKSo why didn't you show both data sets?
I have posted twice (and now three times) a comparison of Luke's logarithmic plot and the CRaTER logarithmic plot (which you claimed was not logarithmic). They are the same, because both are logarithmic. If one of them was linear, they would look nothing alike, would they?
Here is the third time:
(https://i.imgur.com/mzrWVYX.png)
Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data. Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time. Can we make this work?
Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us
Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time. Can we make this work?
My confusion arises from the fact, early in the discussion when you insisted the raw data did not have to converted to logarithms. You said that was not how it worked and I assume then you continued to insist the plot of raw data looked like the plot of logarithmic data and I couldn't understand how that was possible. I understand now.
Ah, I think I see where your misunderstanding arises. You don't convert the data in order to plot it on a logarithmic graph. All you do is adjust the scale of the axes.
I said this about 103 pages back, or 1000 on a linear scale. I'm sure I did.
1-4...Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data. Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time. Can we make this work?
Which ones are outward facing?
That would cause the graph to look like a traditional logarithmic graph with logarithmic spacing. To achieve the CraTer graph with linear spacing you would have to convert the raw data to logs.
My confusion arises from the fact, early in the discussion when you insisted the raw data did not have to converted to logarithms. You said that was not how it worked and I assume then you continued to insist the plot of raw data looked like the plot of logarithmic data and I couldn't understand how that was possible. I understand now.
Ah, I think I see where your misunderstanding arises. You don't convert the data in order to plot it on a logarithmic graph. All you do is adjust the scale of the axes.
A value of 0.2 is still 0.2 whether you plot it on a linear scale or a logarithmic one. All that differs is that on a linear scale, it will be 20% of the way between the 0 mark and the 1 mark, whereas on a logarithmic scale, it will be (log 2 / log 10) = ~30% of the way between the 0.1 mark and the 1 mark. Get it?
1-4...Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data. Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time. Can we make this work?
Which ones are outward facing?
To achieve the CraTer graph with linear spacing you would have to convert the raw data to logs.The CRaTER graph doesn't have linear spacing. Look at the scale. It is logarithmic!
I said this about 103 pages back, or 1000 on a linear scale. I'm sure I did.
You did.
1-4...Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data. Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time. Can we make this work?
Which ones are outward facing?
Here you go... what can you say about the dose data compared to your threshold?
Here are the individual detector data. I have drawn a line at the 0.2 mGy/day level.there are definitely points lower than .1, go figure tim.
(https://i.imgur.com/bBHMHBB.png)
Here are the individual detector data. I have drawn a line at the 0.2 mGy/day level.
(https://i.imgur.com/bBHMHBB.png)
The CraTer graph does not have linear spacing. We've been over this. It is a traditional log graph with no conversion of the data. Why are you so insistent that it is not?
This should highlight to Tim that detectors on board the same vehicle given different values for the dose...
...the figures are well within tolerances or equipment and sampling errors. There is the issue of using averages too, which ash been discussed at length.
This only serves to illustrate the complexity of the problem, which seems quite wasted on our friend with his broad statements of whataboutery.
The CraTer graph does not have linear spacing. We've been over this. It is a traditional log graph with no conversion of the data. Why are you so insistent that it is not?
It is probably because each of the little tick marks are equidistantly spaced and not logarithmically spaced.
Some of those points appear to be approximately .1 which is significantly lower the AVERAGE dose during A11, and for your bonus this was in a period of lower flux.
It is probably because each of the little tick marks are equidistantly spaced and not logarithmically spaced.
Here are the individual detector data. I have drawn a line at the 0.2 mGy/day level.
(https://i.imgur.com/bBHMHBB.png)
What is beautiful about this graph is the consistency in recording the SPEs, but the slight variation in dose. This should highlight to Tim that detectors on board the same vehicle given different values for the dose, so why should the dose monitoring equipment on board another vehicle give different values.
In respect of this observation I look at the recent figure of 0.24 mGy/day he cited and the Apollo 11 data of 0.22 mGy/day. There is a discrepancy for the lower value in the Apollo dosimetery and the figure he cited from the literature, but the figures are well within tolerances or equipment and sampling errors. There is the issue of using averages too, which ash been discussed at length.
This only serves to illustrate the complexity of the problem, which seems quite wasted on our friend with his broad statements of whataboutery.
It is probably because each of the little tick marks are equidistantly spaced and not logarithmically spaced.
The point that you all continue to gloss over is that GCR is the lowest radiation area the lunar vehicle will see.
It probably makes up a third of the total exposure.
Yep, those are the one that would logarithmically spaced on a logarithmic graph. The fact that they are spaced linearly tells you it is not a logarithmic graph rather it is a linear plot of logarithmic data. Haven't we spent enough time hashing this out? The guys are going to get away with the deception if we don't get back to sleuthing.
It is probably because each of the little tick marks are equidistantly spaced and not logarithmically spaced.
Tim, there are no 'little tick marks' on the y-axis. The only grduations on the y-axis are the major log scale graduations that go up in powers of 10. The intermediate values are not marked. Look at the zoomed in axis posted earlier. The dots corrspond to the x-axis graduations, not the y-axis.
pick any range you would like from the data set and we will use it as a base line for a lunar transit. be conservative and I will hold fast to what ever range you select.The point that you all continue to gloss over is that GCR is the lowest radiation area the lunar vehicle will see.
No-one is glossing over it. THe only issue is your quantification of it. The point you keep glossing over is that loads of it is below what you said was the minimum level.QuoteIt probably makes up a third of the total exposure.
How do you arrive at that figure?
Yep, those are the one that would logarithmically spaced on a logarithmic graph.
pick any range you would like from the data set and we will use it as a base line for a lunar transit.
Yep, those are the one that would logarithmically spaced on a logarithmic graph.
No. Just no. Look at the axis on your own log graph. The equidistant points increase in multiples of 10. Seriously, you just did this and you still can't see it? Look at your own example you posted earier. 0.01 and 0.1 are equally spaced as 0.1 and 1.
If the equidistant numbers go up in multples of 10 that is a log scale. End of discussion.
Yep, those are the one that would logarithmically spaced on a logarithmic graph.
The fact that they are spaced linearly tells you it is not a logarithmic graph rather it is a linear plot of logarithmic data.
Haven't we spent enough time hashing this out?
The guys are going to get away with the deception if we don't back to sleuthing.
Yep, those are the one that would logarithmically spaced on a logarithmic graph.
No. Just no. Look at the axis on your own log graph. The equidistant points increase in multiples of 10. Seriously, you just did this and you still can't see it? Look at your own example you posted earier. 0.01 and 0.1 are equally spaced as 0.1 and 1.
If the equidistant numbers go up in multples of 10 that is a log scale. End of discussion.
Jay, take this opportunity to disengage. You don't have to include yourself in this discussion. You have brought nothing to the table anyway and it is not like your input will be missed. I'm sure you have neighbors you can berate. Have at it.
Tim, I've plotted the average for detectors 1-4. Do you agree that your initial premise that the CRaTER data did not fall below your base threshold is incorrect?
I am of the mind that we cannot include any of the region with the SPE spikes
If you sent a moon mission out during a time in which SPE events were occurring regularly do you think your baseline would be set by GCR or SPE's? If you were planning such a trip what would you use for an estimate?I am of the mind that we cannot include any of the region with the SPE spikes
Why? The GCR data without SPE events is availabe to be analysed too.
Ah, but this way you can ignore that the GCR baseline is actually lower than you insist it must be...
Ah, but this way you can ignore that the GCR baseline is actually lower than you insist it must be...
If you sent a moon mission out ding a time in which SPE events were occurring regularly do you think your baseline would be set by GCR or SPE's?
No, but one could use a range with a safety margin to calculate expected exposure.Ah, but this way you can ignore that the GCR baseline is actually lower than you insist it must be...
...and isn't a single number. The notion that any such physical phenomenon would be represented by a single number for all times and places is just daft. You couldn't do any meaningful science or engineering under that assumption.
The remaining area looks pretty close to about .2 mgy/day wouldn't you say?
If you sent a moon mission out during a time in which SPE events were occurring regularly...
...do you think your baseline would be set by GCR or SPE's?
If you were planning such a trip what would you use for an estimate?
No, but one could use a range with a safety margin to calculate expected exposure.
If you sent a moon mission out ding a time in which SPE events were occurring regularly do you think your baseline would be set by GCR or SPE's?
I can almost hear those goalposts shifting. You were the one who insisted the GCR was the baseline. That's literally the whole foundation of your discussion.
If you sent a moon mission out during a time in which SPE events were occurring regularly do you think your baseline would be set by GCR or SPE's?
I standby my assertion. I propose nothing radical. The assumption is 4 hours in the VAB,
a few hours on the lunar surface
and a couple days in lunar orbit.
The bulk of the time is spent in cislunar space. It just happens that cislunar space is the lowest radiation area of the whole trip.
The problem with picking a average
One , you probably wouldn't have sent me there at that time in the first place.
Two the SPE's will raise your exposure considerably.
If you sent a moon mission out during a time in which SPE events were occurring regularly do you think your baseline would be set by GCR or SPE's?
Jay may correct me, but they took a risk with SPEs. They quite literally did. Having said this, do you know the occurence of SPEs occur in a solar cycle that afford a biological hazard to astronauts?
The reason for that is that you can inform the risk involved. But yes, they took a risk.
If you sent a moon mission out during a time in which SPE events were occurring regularly do you think your baseline would be set by GCR or SPE's?
Jay may correct me, but they took a risk with SPEs. They quite literally did. Having said this, do you know the occurence of SPEs occur in a solar cycle that afford a biological hazard to astronauts?
The reason for that is that you can inform the risk involved. But yes, they took a risk.
Personally, I don't think they did. We know the Russians didn't. The whole point of this discussion is whether or not they actually risked the lives of the astronauts on an unproven venture realizing a single SPE could have killed the entire crew. It chills my bones to think the government would be so callous with the lives of the men who dedicated their service to them. I don't believe it happened. I think they did what I would have done. Protected my men and lied to everyone else. But that is just me. I'm like that.
Tim, why do you assume that you're right? You must be assuming that, because otherwise, you would be taking the opportunity to learn. I could have explained to my four-year-old by now what a logarithmic chart is. (He'd rather I go get him some milk and let him watch Underdog, but there we are.) You also note that I provided a list of exactly what it would take to convince me that Apollo was faked, and calling me a sherson for not believing your bluster was, strangely, not one of the things that would convince me.
Jay may correct me, but they took a risk with SPEs.
Personally, I don't think they did. We know the Russians didn't. The whole point of this discussion is whether or not they actually risked the lives of the astronauts on an unproven venture realizing a single SPE could have killed the entire crew. It chills my bones to think the government would be so callous with the lives of the men who dedicated their service to them. I don't believe it happened. I think they did what I would have done. Protected my men and lied to everyone else. But that is just me. I'm like that.
As far a Logarithmic Plot, I will have to take your word on it because I am not convinced full comprehension has been achieved by the masses.
...realizing a single SPE could have killed the entire crew.
It chills my bones to think the government would be so callous with the lives of the men who dedicated their service to them.
I don't believe it happened. I think they did what I would have done. Protected my men and lied to everyone else. But that is just me. I'm like that.
As far a Logarithmic Plot, I will have to take your word on it because I am not convinced full comprehension has been achieved by the masses.
The only person lacking comprehension on this matter is you. If the equidistant graduations on the axis go up by factors of of 10 it is a log scale. End of story. Seriously, why do you keep arguing this point wth people who do this stuff for a living?
I am curious. Is there anyone on this site that believes in any conspiracy theory at all? Kennedy assassination? 9/11. Sandy Hook, Titanic? Anything?
It is merely a thing of curiosity. Is there harm in asking?I am curious. Is there anyone on this site that believes in any conspiracy theory at all? Kennedy assassination? 9/11. Sandy Hook, Titanic? Anything?
Why would such a thing matter?
if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.
It is merely a thing of curiosity.
Is there harm in asking?
No, I don't see how the divisions between 1 and ten are evenly spaced. They are spaced as a function of the logarithm.if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.
See how the divisions between 1, 10 and 100 are equally spaced. That's called a log scale. The ones that are equally spaced - the major tick marks - increase by factors of 10.
Just because the minor marks are omitted, it does not mean you have a log linear scale - or whatever daft name you want to call it - it just means the minor tick marks are omitted for clarity.
It's linked to log of base 10 and use of exponents in standard form. I'm glad you've dropped the exponential aspect of this now. That much is a relief.
It is merely a thing of curiosity. Is there harm in asking?
No, I don't see how the divisions between 1 and ten are evenly spaced. They are spaced as a function of the logarithm.
if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.
It is merely a thing of curiosity.
Then it won't matter if no one answers you.QuoteIs there harm in asking?
All the other conspiracy theorists who come here and ask the same question have had one of a small number of ulterior motives in asking it. So you tell me what harm you might intend by asking it.
No, I don't see how the divisions between 1 and ten are evenly spaced. They are spaced as a function of the logarithm.if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.
See how the divisions between 1, 10 and 100 are equally spaced. That's called a log scale. The ones that are equally spaced - the major tick marks - increase by factors of 10.
Just because the minor marks are omitted, it does not mean you have a log linear scale - or whatever daft name you want to call it - it just means the minor tick marks are omitted for clarity.
It's linked to log of base 10 and use of exponents in standard form. I'm glad you've dropped the exponential aspect of this now. That much is a relief.
if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.
The entirety of mathematics and my 20 years of professional experience supports my position. Have you ever noticed when you plot the graphs in Excel that whether you include the minor gridlines or not the scale remains the same? Even your own examples actually support what I and everyone else has been saying, with the powers of 10 being equidistant in every single example. The CraTer graph ONLY calls out those powers on 10 on the y-axis. The fact that it leaves out the minor graduations of values like 2,3,4 etc doesn't alter the scaling. So either they have plotted their graph with no modifications to the data using a standard mathematical graphical presentation, or they have done some conversion that they have not described (because if the numbers had been changed the y-axis labelling would have to reflect that or else the graph is fraudulent) to make it fit your version of what you think that graph is. For some reason you are unable tp grasp the idea of standard methodology when it comes to presentation of data.
Now if you could provide other exmaples of any kind of graph following the pattern you talk about I might be more prone to discssing this further, but I suspect this is just your lack of mathematical skill at work. Still no comment about your failure to recongise the standard practice that mGy per hour = mGy/hr = mGyhr-1 either I see....
You are confusing an exponential scale with a log scale. If the scale is in logs then it is a log scale. If the scale is in exponents then it is an exponential scale. the terms are not interchangeable and they don't mean the same thing. If you are plotting on a logarithmic scale then you don't convert the data to a log. Scaling accomplishes that. if you are plotting to an exponential scale then you have to convert the data to a log first.No, I don't see how the divisions between 1 and ten are evenly spaced. They are spaced as a function of the logarithm.if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.
See how the divisions between 1, 10 and 100 are equally spaced. That's called a log scale. The ones that are equally spaced - the major tick marks - increase by factors of 10.
Just because the minor marks are omitted, it does not mean you have a log linear scale - or whatever daft name you want to call it - it just means the minor tick marks are omitted for clarity.
It's linked to log of base 10 and use of exponents in standard form. I'm glad you've dropped the exponential aspect of this now. That much is a relief.
Oh for crying out loud, will you read? It is not the divisions between 1 and 10 that matter, it is the space between 1 and 10, which is equal to the space between 10 and 100, which is equal to the space between 100 and 1000, which is equal to the space between 0.00001 and 0.0001. That is what defines a log scale.
My, my, we are defensive.
I am just trying to get a feel for the nature of the group.
Putting up the same picture won't change the reality here, tim. It is the space between the 1 and 10, the 10 and 100, the 0.1 and 1 that defines the log scale. Even if you leave off all the other numbers between them.
Do you insist that a linear axis must include every number on it, or do you accept that if it goes up 0, 10, 20, 30 then all the other numbers between fit the same linear scale without actually having to be drawn in?
My, my, we are defensive.
How so? I'm acting according to the learned wisdom that "innocent" questions of that type almost never turn out to be purely innocent. You said your interest in the answer was only casual. In that case it wouldn't matter if anyone answered it. But now look at you pressing for answers. Not quite so casual after all, then.QuoteI am just trying to get a feel for the nature of the group.
And I assume that's so you can continue to make spurious, categorical ad hominem arguments. Am I close? It's not like it's hard to find posts where you describe in what low regard you hold people here. My guess is that you seem to be trying to find an empirical excuse to keep doing that, now that you appear to be out of actual arguments. Justifying one's dismissal of the group as a whole is one of the small handful of historically attempted ulterior motives I mentioned.
You are confusing an exponential scale with a log scale. If the scale is in logs then it is a log scale. If the scale is in exponents then it is an exponential scale.
It sure is lonely up here in the stratified air of open mind mountains. I could use a little company. Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?
Obvious troll is obvious.
I come from a time of graph paper and slide rules. When plotting data, if you plotted it on logarithmic graphing paper it was actually a logarithmic conversion process. If you wanted to see your data in a linear plot you could first convert it into logarithms and then plot it on regular graph paper. It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.You are confusing an exponential scale with a log scale. If the scale is in logs then it is a log scale. If the scale is in exponents then it is an exponential scale.
Tell me then how you determine the difference between a logarithmic scale and an 'exponential' scale when the only numbers included on the axis are the powers of 10. And tell me exactly where such a scale is used and why you would convert the data to fit it on such a scale rather than just plotting it on a log scale.
Your argument fails for lack of any evidence that such a scaling method is ever actually used.
And, as I already pointed out, when the CraTer data is plotted in Excel on a log scale it looks exactly like the graph on the website that you first introduced. Why should we not conclude that the CraTer graph is a log scale?
No you are not close at all. I need no impetus to make remarks. They just happen.
I am one of those kind of people that likes to put everything in its place. I place people into categories and deal with them according to their placement. It is highly efficient.
This is incredibly basic maths, literally multiplying by 10. My six-year-old daughter can multiply by 10, without a pencil and paper.
OK, we can do the after graph in cGy day-1. Same, the data falls below the line.
LO: I broke my promise.
No you are not close at all. I need no impetus to make remarks. They just happen.
I didn't say you were looking for an impetus. I said you were looking for a justification. I have no doubt you'll keep making categorical ad hominem remarks. Your efforts to socially engineer your way past the debate -- which certainly have not gone unnoticed -- would fare better if you could rely on something stronger than assumption for their basis. You wouldn't be the first to try to use belief in conspiracy theories as a proxy for open-mindedness. You have no problem accusing everyone here of having a closed mind. You've already done it several times. But those accusations would work better for you for avoiding real debate if you could point to data supplied by other people that seemed to support them.QuoteI am one of those kind of people that likes to put everything in its place. I place people into categories and deal with them according to their placement. It is highly efficient.
Yeah, that would be the categorical ad hominem arguments I mentioned. It's disappointing that you think that's how adults should manage a discussion.
No, I won't be answering your question. You'll have to continue assuming without evidence that everyone is ideologically set against you, rather than their just pointing out that you're factually wrong.
I come from a time of graph paper and slide rules. When plotting data, if you plotted it on logarithmic graphing paper it was actually a logarithmic conversion process. If you wanted to see your data in a linear plot you could first convert it into logarithms and then plot it on regular graph paper. It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.
So why didn't you show both data sets?
if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.
The entirety of mathematics and my 20 years of professional experience supports my position. Have you ever noticed when you plot the graphs in Excel that whether you include the minor gridlines or not the scale remains the same? Even your own examples actually support what I and everyone else has been saying, with the powers of 10 being equidistant in every single example. The CraTer graph ONLY calls out those powers on 10 on the y-axis. The fact that it leaves out the minor graduations of values like 2,3,4 etc doesn't alter the scaling. So either they have plotted their graph with no modifications to the data using a standard mathematical graphical presentation, or they have done some conversion that they have not described (because if the numbers had been changed the y-axis labelling would have to reflect that or else the graph is fraudulent) to make it fit your version of what you think that graph is. For some reason you are unable tp grasp the idea of standard methodology when it comes to presentation of data.
Now if you could provide other exmaples of any kind of graph following the pattern you talk about I might be more prone to discssing this further, but I suspect this is just your lack of mathematical skill at work. Still no comment about your failure to recongise the standard practice that mGy per hour = mGy/hr = mGyhr-1 either I see....
The graph on the CraTer web site was self explanatory but for some strange reason you had to download the data convert it and rechart it. Logic is weak in this one.So why didn't you show both data sets?
What the flying...!
There's one data set. It doesn't matter if you graph it linearly, by some power law, or as a bluidy pie chart!
I say again, graphs are useful to visualize data. That means grasp at underlying patterns. How you graph it doesn't change the data set (not if you did it right...!)
Could we do it in...hrm, what's a non-standard unit for ionizing radiation? Oh, of course. BED's per, um, Luau. If you can come up with a standard duration for a luau.
Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data. Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time. Can we make this work?
It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.
Ah, I think I see where your misunderstanding arises. You don't convert the data in order to plot it on a logarithmic graph. All you do is adjust the scale of the axes.
I said this about 103 pages back, or 1000 on a linear scale. I'm sure I did.
Intellectual cowardice is such an ugly thing to watch...
I come from a time of graph paper and slide rules. When plotting data, if you plotted it on logarithmic graphing paper it was actually a logarithmic conversion process. If you wanted to see your data in a linear plot you could first convert it into logarithms and then plot it on regular graph paper. It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.
It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.
No, this is not just another way in which you are superior to your critics. I also come from the slide-rule and graph-paper world. Yes, if you have graph paper with a linear scale only, you have to first compute the logarithm of the data and then plot that on the linear scale. That's because the equally-spaced gradations on the linear graph paper correspond to degrees of magnitude when those degrees are expressed as logarithms. Back when I drafted graphs on actual vellum using india ink and a forceps ruling pen, I had no problem understanding this. That's why I have no problem looking at a logarithmic scale and seeing those evenly spaced major gradations as orders of magnitude in the data, as whole numbers in the logarithms, and as the proper place for data to live.
I come from a time of graph paper and slide rules.
When plotting data, if you plotted it on logarithmic graphing paper it was actually a logarithmic conversion process. If you wanted to see your data in a linear plot you could first convert it into logarithms and then plot it on regular graph paper.
It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.
Why would you call a scale logarithmic if there are no logarithms used in the scale?
We have something in common. We are both old. The difference is I am a war hero and you are not.
I come from a time of graph paper and slide rules. When plotting data, if you plotted it on logarithmic graphing paper it was actually a logarithmic conversion process. If you wanted to see your data in a linear plot you could first convert it into logarithms and then plot it on regular graph paper. It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.
That is not answering my question. How do you tell the difference bwtween the two types of scale you are discussing when the only numbers on the axis are the powers of 10?
You can also tell me what the difference is between plotting the raw data on a log scale and taking the logs of the data and plotting on a inear scale.
And you haven't provided any evidence for any kind of 'exponential' scale that works the way you described.
The graph on the CraTer web site was self explanatory but for some strange reason you had to download the data convert it and rechart it. Logic is weak in this one.
We have something in common. We are both old. The difference is I am a war hero and you are not.
You'll find no one here diminishes your service to your country, and that we hold those that are prepared to sacrifice their lives for our freedoms in high regard.
"No, no, no! Don't do that! Just look at the graph and believe what I tell you about it!" That's always been the right way to approach learning, right?
We have something in common. We are both old. The difference is I am a war hero and you are not.
You'll find no one here diminishes your service to your country, and that we hold those that are prepared to sacrifice their lives for our freedoms in high regard.
I was just pulling your leg to get a rise out of you but thank you. It was a kind thing to say.
I am curious. Is there anyone on this site that believes in any conspiracy theory at all? Kennedy assassination? 9/11. Sandy Hook, Titanic? Anything?
I was just pulling your leg to get a rise out of you...
A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God. After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't. So he turned around and walked away. I ask you gentlemen and lady. Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convinced you that you have been deceived?
Easy enough....A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God. After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't. So he turned around and walked away. I ask you gentlemen and lady. Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convinced you that you have been deceived?
Yes, you could show me the CRaTER graph and tell me you interpreted the scale correctly. That would make me feel deceived given your complete lack of basic mathematical understanding while claiming expertise on complex matters of ionising radiation. So yes, you could show me that with your claims, that would invoke feelings of deception on my part.
It was a kind thing to say.
I have analyzed this correctly.
A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God. After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't. So he turned around and walked away. I ask you gentlemen and lady. Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convinced you that you have been deceived?
Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convince you that you have been deceived?
YEs. Better than it has ever been analyzed before. I used the keen intellect honed in the neutron flux of a raging reactor aboard a fast attack killing machine. My ability to analyze data is enhanced in a similar way to the hulk's strength is increased by gamma radiation.I have analyzed this correctly.
No.
I have analyzed this incorrectly.
YEs. Better than it has ever been analyzed before. I used the keen intellect honed in the neutron flux of a raging reactor aboard a fast attack killing machine. My ability to analyze day is enhanced in a similar way to the hulk's strength is increased by gamma radiation.
Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convince you that you have been deceived?
Evidence of deception, not just a default conclusion of deception when one bit of data, misinterpreted by a layman, fails to meet naive expectations.
YEs. Better than it has ever been analyzed before. I used the keen intellect honed in the neutron flux of a raging reactor aboard a fast attack killing machine. My ability to analyze day is enhanced in a similar way to the hulk's strength is increased by gamma radiation.
And I see you're back to arguing like a six-year-old.
Occasionly, in the absence of humour I self excite.
Exactly what evidence would be required to convince you?
A death bed confession. Footage of studio, A government acknowledgement? What would work for you?
Exactly what evidence would be required to convince you?
Fairly comprehensive, and direct.
You've punted on the comprehensive part. You admit you can't provide it. You make the entire decision on one bit of evidence and then disregard all the rest with the hope that it will somehow just work out. And you don't have direct evidence. You have a default conclusion you draw when things don't work out exactly the way you think they should. You've relied on a mystery writer to give you pointers on reasoning.QuoteA death bed confession. Footage of studio, A government acknowledgement? What would work for you?
None of that, really. That's because all the evidence still has to be explained. Faced with, say, a deathbed confession it's still more parsimonious to belief the confession was false unless all the other evidence can be explained by it. You seem to be insisting on a smoking gun. That's not how it works.
I was doomed from the start.
I was doomed from the start.
No, just wrong from the start. Don't give up. I'm sure the local college run elementary math classes. Averages, you need to work on averages, then logs and exponential functions. I suggest you take note in the class on logs to base 10 and natural logs.
So essentially your mind is made up and no amount of evidence will suffice. Interesting....
I am concerned that in my absence the group will lose focus and resort to needle work...
I was doomed from the start.
It has been almost fifty years since I mastered logarithms and graph paper and slide rules...
I have business with the government and will be out of the office for a couple of weeks. I need someone to stand in for me while I attend to matters of great importance to both me and the nation. I am concerned that in my absence the group will lose focus and resort to needle work and soap operas. Who can I trust to act in my behalf for the good of the group? Anyone?
My mission was to get you to look closer and I accomplished that.
My mission was to get you to look closer and I accomplished that.
Spare us the delusions of grandeur. You came here ill-prepared with the same unconvincing argument and the same arrogant attitude as nearly every other conspiracy theorist before you, made the same vague "Oooh, radiation!" arguments as about half of them do, failed to stand up to even a modicum of scrutiny, berated and belittled your critics, tried to gaslight them as much as possible, failed, and are now trying to rewrite the experience in your mind to make it seem like it's not a dismal failure.
You pretended to be something you aren't, and you got caught. That's all that's happened.
We have something in common. We are both old. The difference is I am a war hero and you are not.
You'll find no one here diminishes your service to your country, and that we hold those that are prepared to sacrifice their lives for our freedoms in high regard.
I was just pulling your leg to get a rise out of you but thank you. It was a kind thing to say.
A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God. After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't. So he turned around and walked away. I ask you gentlemen and lady. Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convince you that you have been deceived?
Something has to be wrong. Either NASA got the GCR radiation of cislunar space wrong or the recorded the mission dose wrong. Of course there is the possibility it is all right and mission dose represents a stay in LEO and not a lunar transit but who am I to cast stones?
Or you're understanding it wrong. Why is that not the most logical explanation?
Here's the deal, Tim. You want me to admit that Apollo was faked? Here's what you have to explain.
1. Why all people working in relevant fields agree that the Apollo data--not just in radiation, but in geology, physics, engineering, and so forth--meets their expectations.
2. Specifically how the footage was faked, given that it is literally impossible to do so in live action today.
3. How you'd avoid the fact that the Apollo capsules were naked-eye objects and could be seen if they'd just stayed in LEO.
4. How amateurs around the world, including in countries hostile to the US, were able to track the capsules on their way to and from the Moon.
5. How the soil samples were faked.
6. Why no government hostile to the US has ever revealed the "truth."
7. Why Nixon agreed to go along with the fake when revealing that his hated political rivals were defrauding the American public could have made his reputation--or possibly saved him from having to resign over Watergate.
And that's just to start with. If you can't explain all those things, the concept that you are mistaken is considerably more logical as an explanation when you can't understand how the data fits your expectations.
A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God. After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't. So he turned around and walked away. I ask you gentlemen and lady. Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convince you that you have been deceived?
Seriously, my work here is done. I knew I could never reach any of you directly. My mission was a bit more subtle than that. My mission was to get you to look closer and I accomplished that. In the near future things will happen and you will reflect back on this encounter. What you do not see now will clarify then. I am on Facebook. Shoot me a "You the man" when you see it. And like old Tim always says. Remain vigilant and stay thirsty. Peace.
A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God. After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't. So he turned around and walked away. I ask you gentlemen and lady. Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convince you that you have been deceived?
If you could back it with data, then yes. But you have provided no data, because there isn't any, quit trying to find them.
I've told you once and I'll repeat:
I don't believe in Apollo. Rather I know Apollo happened as recorded, because the data, paperwork, materials, hardware/software that went into the project are too enormous to hand wave away.
And like a good many here, I went to school with slide rules and graph paper. You have nothing on me and I understand logarithmic units and how to plot them. From you posts you don't understand and many are attempting to teach you, but you won't listen because you are right and the rest of are wrong.
Jay doesn't need anyone to stick up for him, but he has forgotten more Apollo information than you will ever know.
I didn't mean to ignore you as you are special in my mind. Few women dare venture into this realm and the ones that do garner my deepest respects. I was a teenager when Apollo 11 blasted off and i watched with profound admiration and respect for the courage the astronauts displayed. My parents didn't buy into it but I did. It was only recently that doubt crept into my mind. I do not think the Van Allen belts are much of an obstacle or that traveling to the moon is an insurmountable obstacle. I simply believe the danger it presented was an obstacle that they were not prepared to face. I believe President Nixon chose to take the safe path and ordered the deception. You remember Tricky Dick, right. I don't condemn him. I would have erred to the side of caution myself. The thing that set me on this path was the graph that showed the mission dosage of all the NASA missions. When I realized that the Lunar mission had mission dosages similar to the LEO missions, I became suspicious. I then began to research data to explain the similarities. My research led me to believe that it is not possible to have LEO dosages if you actually made a lunar transit so here I am. That is my story and I am sticking to it. Having rambled on, What it would take for me to believe the Apollo lunar landing happened is a return to the moon and back safely with similar exposure levels. If they are incapable of doing it or they kill and astronaut then my disbelief will blossom.A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God. After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't. So he turned around and walked away. I ask you gentlemen and lady. Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convince you that you have been deceived?
Hey, I know you're mostly ignoring me, but I literally already gave you a list. Pages back. Want to give me yours? Bet it isn't as comprehensive.
I am curious. Is there anyone on this site that believes in any conspiracy theory at all? Kennedy assassination? 9/11. Sandy Hook, Titanic? Anything?
I didn't mean to ignore you as you are special in my mind. Few women dare venture into this realm and the ones that do garner my deepest respects.
I am no expert like most of the fine people on this fine forum, you yourself even know much more about radiation within your field of nuclear reactors aboard submarines
again sorry guys. I speak with Tim on facebook but i'm not sure if i will continue. he has clearly trolled here. apologies
Fair enough. I certainly learned something I did not know before. I may be ignorant, but at least I'm willing to admit it.
I am no expert like most of the fine people on this fine forum, you yourself even know much more about radiation within your field of nuclear reactors aboard submarines
I doubt it. As a retired Radiological Control Technician (a.k.a. Physical Science Tech), I have dealt with many nuclear workers, both civilian and Navy. The Navy's personnel who performed functions similar to mine and had a fair amount of nuclear physics knowledge was an Engineering Laboratory Technician (ELT), but they were still less trained than personnel in my profession were. A nuclear electrician's knowledge of the actual physics of radiation is VERY limited. The "nuclear" in their title just allowed them to work in areas where radiation was present, and be monitored for their exposure. No detailed knowledge was required, and I think that is quite evident by Mr. Finch's ignorance regarding the subject. He just used that title to sound more qualified than he was.
On the contrary, I am personally glad you brought him here. Thanks to his trolling, the responses from our acknowledged experts, engineers and scientists on this forum has taught me a lot about the radiation environment around the earth and in cislunar space.
again sorry guys. I speak with Tim on facebook but i'm not sure if i will continue. he has clearly trolled here. apologies
Oh, I'd also point out that you know bugger all about filming if you think it wouldn't have taken easily a hundred people or more to manage the kind of special effects work that would have been required even if filming Apollo on Earth were possible, and that's without all the people in on the bits where you'd have to fake the rock and soil samples and so forth. Any hoax would have to be huge.
Essentially, if you don't tell the engineers it's all fake, they will provide you with working hardware which means you won't need to fake it anyway!
I come from a time of graph paper and slide rules. When plotting data, if you plotted it on logarithmic graphing paper it was actually a logarithmic conversion process. If you wanted to see your data in a linear plot you could first convert it into logarithms and then plot it on regular graph paper. It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.You are confusing an exponential scale with a log scale. If the scale is in logs then it is a log scale. If the scale is in exponents then it is an exponential scale.
Tell me then how you determine the difference between a logarithmic scale and an 'exponential' scale when the only numbers included on the axis are the powers of 10. And tell me exactly where such a scale is used and why you would convert the data to fit it on such a scale rather than just plotting it on a log scale.
Your argument fails for lack of any evidence that such a scaling method is ever actually used.
And, as I already pointed out, when the CraTer data is plotted in Excel on a log scale it looks exactly like the graph on the website that you first introduced. Why should we not conclude that the CraTer graph is a log scale?
In the CRaTER data that I downloaded, I have some errors in the download. They pertain to items starting around 64900, whereby the data is NaN. I am unfamiliar with this type of data so I'm asking what this means Not Available ??NaN means 'Not A Number' so there is probably a letter or symbol in that field.
In the CRaTER data that I downloaded, I have some errors in the download. They pertain to items starting around 64900, whereby the data is NaN. I am unfamiliar with this type of data so I'm asking what this means Not Available ??
In the CRaTER data that I downloaded, I have some errors in the download. They pertain to items starting around 64900, whereby the data is NaN. I am unfamiliar with this type of data so I'm asking what this means Not Available ??
"Not a Number"
For this particular practical purpose, yes it means the data are not available for whatever reason. In modern IEEE representations of floating-point data in a computer, a few patterns of bits are reserved to represent concepts like this, and are assigned customary labels when they are printed out. "NaN" means no value is set for that number. "Inf" means infinity, and so forth.
The errors are on all of the detectors not just one, would this be representative of a transmission error?
ETA:
And these lack of data points lasted for about 2 days (48 hourly) points.
The errors are on all of the detectors not just one, would this be representative of a transmission error?
ETA:
And these lack of data points lasted for about 2 days (48 hourly) points.
Lets be honest, it's rare that these people are ever swayed by facts.
Lets be honest, it's rare that these people are ever swayed by facts.
The facts they cite are not what led them to their beliefs. They arrived at their beliefs according to different lines of reasoning (e.g., "Don't ever trust the government") and then try to backfill with arguments that allude to the available facts. Or stated differently, they cherry-pick and misinterpret the facts to support a proposition they believe for wholly different reasons. It wasn't very hard to get Tim to tip his hand and reveal that his claims had more to do with ideology and worldview than with radiation. Toward the end, he wasn't even really trying to hide it. He made the ideology argument his major point.
To those that downloaded the CRaTER data: it would be interesting to find stretches of time where the dose rate (of at least one or even all six) detectors is always below the magic 0.22mGy/d. Are there continuous stretches longer than the Apollo 11 mission duration?
A little bit of Unix awk magic might not convince our hardcore math talent, but it would make for some cool facts to point at.
To those that downloaded the CRaTER data: it would be interesting to find stretches of time where the dose rate (of at least one or even all six) detectors is always below the magic 0.22mGy/d. Are there continuous stretches longer than the Apollo 11 mission duration?
A little bit of Unix awk magic might not convince our hardcore math talent, but it would make for some cool facts to point at.
And did so, as usual, without even really understanding human psychology...
Reviewing this thread, sometimes I think the better approach is to adopt the 'how could so many people be in on the hoax' tact immediately and ignore the initial claims.
I've looked back and realised that several people were posting in response, often with the same point, and the volume of posts could become confusing for the individual on the receiving end.
Having said this, the consistency of response from both sides of the debate provides a record Tim's ineptitude when faced with basic math, the concepts of using data correctly, and the difference between visual inspection and analytical processes. He arrived at the board with professed expertise and a smoking gun, elevated himself as the holder of privileged knowledge with a cast iron case, and was then quickly found wanting after 1000+ posts. I can see the merit of the approach followed last night too.
The issue with that from my point of view is threefold:
1: Their whole argument is usually 'I have found an issue that can only mean a hoax', and I would rather present alternatives and show where their understanding is wrong than sidestep their 'unanswerable' question.
2: It is hard to tell at the start whether someone is a dyed-in-the-wool hoax believer or just misguided, and I prefer to remain optimistic at least for the first few posts.
3: The question 'how could so many people be in on it' will end up in the same to and fro anyway, since they invariably cannot conceive of how reality actually works when it comes to things like Apollo. Tim already said he believes only about 50 people would be needed to pull it off. It's easier to drill down into specifics and give conrete examples of where someone is in error (such as showing that the numbers absolutely do not fit his argument) than to concoct what may appear to any spectators to be no more than 'you say, I say'. Plus the more they keep ignoring the specific simple questions and blustering the more they undermine their own arguments.
I honestly have no sympathy for them. If they come to a group forum they can expect a group response, and if they are not willing to take the time to consider the responses before replying again with more rubbish they earn everything they get.
Occam's razor unfortunately only works when someone is willing to consider they may be wrong as one possible answer to the problem they think they have found.
Thanks, that's unfogged my mind, particularly point 2. I've noticed that in your posts and those of others, the patient start until you've worked out the lie of the land. This is a good starting position, fair and welcoming, and at least giving the person chance with their claim.
I honestly have no sympathy for them.
The thing about Apollo is it is not simple, not intuitive, and yes, there's a lot about it that doesn't seem to make sense at first glance.
Lets be honest, it's rare that these people are ever swayed by facts.
The facts they cite are not what led them to their beliefs. They arrived at their beliefs according to different lines of reasoning (e.g., "Don't ever trust the government") and then try to backfill with arguments that allude to the available facts. Or stated differently, they cherry-pick and misinterpret the facts to support a proposition they believe for wholly different reasons. It wasn't very hard to get Tim to tip his hand and reveal that his claims had more to do with ideology and worldview than with radiation. Toward the end, he wasn't even really trying to hide it. He made the ideology argument his major point.
And did so, as usual, without even really understanding human psychology...
...and throwing in a bit of casual misogyny for good measure.
I have two different hats on when it comes to this stuff. One is as an amateur fan of science, technology, and the history of both. The Apollo Program continues to be a year-long Advent Calendar of new gifts, as every time I come back to it I discover some new and fascinating bit of the story.
I think the hoax is basically dead. It sort of got laughed out of the room. But even if the only vocal doubters are a futile minority, the underlying conflict is alive and well and growing new legs (and I have no idea where that metaphor is going). The hoaxies will rarely change their minds, the observers mostly don't care, but there's still a space where science itself can be and should be defended. Every unchallenged bit of lying and twisting, from Young Earth Creationist claims to the Ancient Aliens crap that continues to crawl all over the public face of archaeology will, if left to stand (or crawl...damned metaphors!) will add to the divide.
Ah, but I also have a second hat, and that one is on a brain that thinks story. Is there a plausible narrative in which the Apollo Program is faked? Hell no. But is there an amusing one that kinda sorta holds together in some limited way? I'm still waiting for that one. The best the hoaxies have ever been able to do, however, is unrelated incident. Plot is beyond them. An actual interesting story......
I'm seeing Flat Earth more often.
I guess what I meant was the classic Apollo Hoax 1.0 is mostly gone; the charmingly naive one that generally accepted (although rarely understood) astronomy and physics and the other sciences. "Apollo was impossible because of the temperatures. Here, let me explain from my poor understanding of thermodynamics."
Now it seems to be embedded in more generalized disbelief and conspiracy theory, and the argument format is a lot closer to; "Apollo was impossible because They are lying about the existence of Space."
Of course the typical hoaxie was always a Pringle eater. Like our recent guest, they could never bite on just one conspiracy theory.
But the focus on just Apollo, and the willingness to at least pretend to place it within an accepted framework of science and technology, is gone. I rarely see the Moon Hoax alluded to except in a wider context of disbelief in science itself.
I also want to look at any plausible claims it was faked. It is often fun to examine what appears to be plausible claim, finding out new details and then discover why the claim does not hold.
I have two different hats on when it comes to this stuff. One is as an amateur fan of science, technology, and the history of both. The Apollo Program continues to be a year-long Advent Calendar of new gifts, as every time I come back to it I discover some new and fascinating bit of the story.
I think the hoax is basically dead. It sort of got laughed out of the room. But even if the only vocal doubters are a futile minority, the underlying conflict is alive and well and growing new legs (and I have no idea where that metaphor is going). The hoaxies will rarely change their minds, the observers mostly don't care, but there's still a space where science itself can be and should be defended. Every unchallenged bit of lying and twisting, from Young Earth Creationist claims to the Ancient Aliens crap that continues to crawl all over the public face of archaeology will, if left to stand (or crawl...damned metaphors!) will add to the divide.
Ah, but I also have a second hat, and that one is on a brain that thinks story. Is there a plausible narrative in which the Apollo Program is faked? Hell no. But is there an amusing one that kinda sorta holds together in some limited way? I'm still waiting for that one. The best the hoaxies have ever been able to do, however, is unrelated incident. Plot is beyond them. An actual interesting story......
The hoax proponents now thrive in Ytube land go visit, unfortunately it is still alive.
Yes, there were aspects of the Manhattan Project that were compartmentalised where workers in industry made components for the bomb blissfully unaware of their function and final destination. Those making the explosive mechanisms and enriching the uranium and plutonium knew the destination of their labour. There is one difference. The Manhattan project was a strategic secret to end the most destructive war in history.
They present the notion of the numbers involved in the production of the EVAs as being numerous.
Nixon couldn't keep a lid on Watergate.
Now, there are those CT's that claim that the astronauts were launched into LEO, but the trans-lunar flight part was not possible. That still means all those people involved in the building the large rocket that we saw on our screens are going to know the other part of their rocket did not go.
I'm sure Jay can tell us more about the level or project integration, and if one part of the space vehicle did not work as advertised, then people in the other part of the project were very quickly going to know.
I dont know if anybody on here is on facebook but it is alive and well there. 1 particularly funny one is entitled 'Manned lunar landing hoax'
I dont know if anybody on here is on facebook but it is alive and well there. 1 particularly funny one is entitled 'Manned lunar landing hoax'
Please paste this link into the group:
the people who inhabit that group believe because they want to and use comments such as 'most people will never see the deception'
Our friend here showed his true colours in the end, the anti-government, sheeple argument finally surfaced.
Yes, there were aspects of the Manhattan Project that were compartmentalised where workers in industry made components for the bomb blissfully unaware of their function and final destination.
Our friend here showed his true colours in the end, the anti-government, sheeple argument finally surfaced.
It came in relatively early, before I commented for the first time certainly. I definitely noticed the "sheeple" in that section.
It is just darn hard to keep a secret, even under the strictest of conditions.
To those that downloaded the CRaTER data: it would be interesting to find stretches of time where the dose rate (of at least one or even all six) detectors is always below the magic 0.22mGy/d. Are there continuous stretches longer than the Apollo 11 mission duration?
A little bit of Unix awk magic might not convince our hardcore math talent, but it would make for some cool facts to point at.
Played around with this a little. Attached graph shows the daily combined D1&2 readings (blue dots), the average D1&2 reading over the entire set (grey horizontal line), and the .22 mGy/day threshold (gold line). Scale is logarithmic.
Will play around with the other columns, but I think this one graph pretty definitively destroy's Tim's arguments (and shows why you shouldn't apply the average readings over the entire data set against a one-week mission).
All so predictable. I do believe Fattydash and Awe130 ignored you too, so we could add that to the list of predictability. :P
All so predictable. I do believe Fattydash and Awe130 ignored you too, so we could add that to the list of predictability. :P
It does tend to happen. And you know, I freely admit that I'm not particularly versed in the science. It's not my area of expertise. But so many of the arguments fit within things that I do know a thing or two about, and they still don't listen to me.
Played around with this a little. Attached graph shows the daily combined D1&2 readings (blue dots), the average D1&2 reading over the entire set (grey horizontal line), and the .22 mGy/day threshold (gold line). Scale is logarithmic.
Will play around with the other columns, but I think this one graph pretty definitively destroy's Tim's arguments (and shows why you shouldn't apply the average readings over the entire data set against a one-week mission).
Unless I am being a bit thick here, the grey line is the average dose from 1 and 2 detectors which is above the 0.22 mGy/day threshold. Does the grey line include the SPE events in the average?
Note that most of the daily readings straddle the .22 mGy/day line. It's those spikes in 2014, 2015, and 2017 that skew the average way up.
I would have thought the median value would have been a lot more useful than the mean.
I digress. Of course, the predictability plays out as the 'science types' wade in, and the water become shark infested. Your voice of reason and alternative angle gets lost. I don't think its personal, as I've waded into these threads half way through, and I'm ignored. Usually the person that brings the claim becomes engrossed with those that they have debated heavily over the course of the thread. The other issue is the Jay obsession, and then we all get ignored.
I did see you made a comment about you 4 year old and log scales. Where has that time gone? I hope you are still enjoying motherhood.
Somewhat, yes. But Tim didn't compute the median, he computed the mean, and used that to argue his point.
The baby isn't a baby anymore; she turned fourteen months this week. Still not talking, but she's expressing herself quite clearly and let me know this afternoon that it was time to put her down for a nap, and I love it when that happens.
Somewhat, yes. But Tim didn't compute the median, he computed the mean, and used that to argue his point.
I wasn't aware Tim computed anything. He visually inspected the graph and misread the log scale. The issue being that Tim didn't accept the data once it was handed on a plate to him.
Amazed that they were just so lucky for instance with no threatening solar flares during the missions?
Driving buggies around not concerned with the density or the properties of the regolith?
Hitting golf balls, not concerned with static discharge?
Not knowing that the leading edges of craters could potentially have 100s of volts of electricity created by the solar wind, waiting to be discharged. Potentially damaging suits, buggies, shorting out equipment.
It's probable that a lot of the data from these instruments was inaccurate to begin with. It's amazing they picked all the right areas to avoid the dangerous affects of solar radiation.
The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years about craters on the moon using computer models and analyzing newer data. Many unknowns that they weren't aware of back then. Amazed that they were just so lucky for instance with no threatening solar flares during the missions? Driving buggies around not concerned with the density or the properties of the regolith? Hitting golf balls, not concerned with static discharge? Not knowing that the leading edges of craters could potentially have 100s of volts of electricity created by the solar wind, waiting to be discharged. Potentially damaging suits, buggies, shorting out equipment. It's probable that a lot of the data from these instruments was inaccurate to begin with. It's amazing they picked all the right areas to avoid the dangerous affects of solar radiation.
The thing that gets me about moon mission
are the unknowns that have come to light over the years about craters on the moon using computer models and analyzing newer data.
Amazed that they were just so lucky for instance with no threatening solar flares during the missions?
Driving buggies around not concerned with the density or the properties of the regolith?
Hitting golf balls, not concerned with static discharge?
Not knowing that the leading edges of craters could potentially have 100s of volts of electricity created by the solar wind, waiting to be discharged.
It's amazing they picked all the right areas to avoid the dangerous affects of solar radiation.
The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years about craters on the moon using computer models and analyzing newer data.
Amazed that they were just so lucky for instance with no threatening solar flares during the missions?
Driving buggies around not concerned with the density or the properties of the regolith?
Hitting golf balls, not concerned with static discharge?
Not knowing that the leading edges of craters could potentially have 100s of volts of electricity created by the solar wind, waiting to be discharged.
It's amazing they picked all the right areas to avoid the dangerous affects of solar radiation.
The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years....
The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years....
Well, microbursts were not identified as an aviation hazard until the mid 70's. All those decades before that with people flying about close to airports putting themselves at risk not knowing about the potential for disaster.
It feels weird that we only knew about that after we finished* landing humans on the moon.The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years....
Well, microbursts were not identified as an aviation hazard until the mid 70's. All those decades before that with people flying about close to airports putting themselves at risk not knowing about the potential for disaster.
Ah yes I remember AA flight 181 2 Aug 85 near DFW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_191
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.
The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years....
Well, microbursts were not identified as an aviation hazard until the mid 70's. All those decades before that with people flying about close to airports putting themselves at risk not knowing about the potential for disaster.
FYI.
KREEP
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.
The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.
KREEP is concentrated in the Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) and Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains) with a major concentration south of Crater Copernicus. This region covers about 40% of the Earth-facing side of the Moon. Based on the small number of lunar samples returned, low KREEP regions measure 8% or less of the radioactive elements in their dust compared to the high KREEP regions. With current technology, the entire high KREEP region is not acceptable for any long-term human settlement or manned mining operation.
The high KREEP region contains many sites of interest to science, particularly those of volcanic origin. Even short scientific expeditions there will require special procedures to prevent ingestion of dust and the removal of dust from all returning equipment.
Radon Gas
Another source of dangerous radiation is the radon gas that is created in the decay of trace amounts of uranium found naturally in lunar rocks. This gas is very heavy and concentrates in low areas. This type of radiation is easily stopped by even a thin layer of material, but radon is carcinogenic if ingested directly into the body.
Even though sensitive scientific equipment has been able to detect radon on Luna, the quantity of radon gas is such that it can be ignored. The lunar atmosphere is so thin that the most massive component, Argon, is present in only 30,000 particles per cubic centimeter, that is 2 trillionths of a gram per cubic meter. Radon is so scarce that it is not even mentioned in the list of components in the lunar atmosphere article. See the Moon Fact Sheet from NASA.
Radon has also been detected from lunar outgassing events.
http://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Radiation_Problem
FYI
In 1972, Apollo astronaut Harrison Schmitt sniffed the air in his Lunar Module, the Challenger. "[It] smells like gunpowder in here," he said. His commander Gene Cernan agreed. "Oh, it does, doesn't it?
FYIHi genius, is the attached a log or linear graph?
AbstractIrrelevant. You have been told why repeatedly.
A gross survey of data on Van Allen belt radiations, galactic cosmic radiation, and solar cosmic radiation is presented. On the basis of these data that are, in part, fragmentary and uncertain, upper and lower limits of rad doses under different amounts of mass shielding are estimated. The estimates are preliminary especially in the cases of chance encounter with solar flare protons. Generally, the relative biological effectiveness of the high energetic space radiations and their secondaries appear insufficiently known to give detailed biological or rem doses. The overall ionization dosage of the low level galactic cosmic radiation in free space is estimated to be even in solar minimum years equivalent to less than 50 rem/year or 1 rem/week. Mass shielding up to 80 g/cm2 would not reduce the ionization dosage but would shield against heavy primaries and heavy ionizing secondaries, thus reducing the biological dose. The flux of energetic protons in the maximum intensity zone of the inner Van Allen belt is by about four orders of magnitude higher, their energy and penetration power, of course, lower. A shield of 25 g/cm2 would reduce the dose rate from 20 rad/hour under 2 g/cm2 to 5 rad/hour. These proton dose rates and also the electron and X-radiation dose rates under some g/cm2 shielding of low z-number material will not constitute a radiation hazard for flights straight through the inner and outer belt in about two hours. Staying within the maximum of the inner belt for two days would, however, lead even within 25 g/cm2 depth of outer shield and body itself to a dose of 200 rad which is on the permissible limit. Extreme solar cosmic ray events or proton showers of high intensity and a duration of days occurred with a frequency of 1-4 per year during the last highly active cycle. For the penetrating, most intense high energy event of February 23, 1956, the dose within 25 g/cm2 is estimated to have been in the order of 50 rad. In most cases the dose decreased more rapidly with penetration depth and would have been even in multiple events with such high shielding below critical levels, especially on inner organs. On the surface of the body and in a lightly shielded space vehicle or protected by a space suit only the dose can, especially in multiple events, reach values of 1000 rad and more.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12056428
FYIHi genius, is the attached a log or linear graph?
Do tell.
I asked you, not wiki.FYIHi genius, is the attached a log or linear graph?
Do tell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_scale
I asked you, not wiki.FYIHi genius, is the attached a log or linear graph?
Do tell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_scale
Is that a log or linear graph?
You don't know, do you?
http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.htmlI asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.
Now, now. Let timfinch demonstrate his knowledge.I asked you, not wiki.FYIHi genius, is the attached a log or linear graph?
Do tell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_scale
Is that a log or linear graph?
You don't know, do you?
*Raises Hand Quickly*
I know, I know.
http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.htmlI asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.
What is YOUR answer?
That is NOT an answer. I didn't ask you to post other random graphs, I asked you about the one I posted.http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.htmlI asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.
What is YOUR answer?
In 1972, Apollo astronaut Harrison Schmitt sniffed the air in his Lunar Module, the Challenger. "[It] smells like gunpowder in here," he said. His commander Gene Cernan agreed. "Oh, it does, doesn't it?"
The two astronauts had just returned from a long moonwalk around the Taurus-Littrow valley, near the Sea of Serenity. Dusty footprints marked their entry into the spaceship. That dust became airborne--and smelly.
see caption
Right: Moonwalking astronaut Harrison Schmitt. [More]
Later, Schmitt felt congested and complained of "lunar dust hay fever." His symptoms went away the next day; no harm done. He soon returned to Earth and the anecdote faded into history.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/22apr_dontinhale
AbstractPublished in 1963, five years before the first mission beyond LEO, and, as it says in the title and notes in the abstract, is discussing estimates of likely doses. What additional information was available by the time Apollo 8 was launched, and what conclusions were drawn from it? Have you looked in detail at the refinement of measurements and modelling of the radiation environment since the beginning of space flight?
<snipped for conciseness>
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12056428
So now you're using quotations from astronauts that went to the Moon to support your claim that no astronauts went to the Moon. ::)
That was a bit of a drive by. :o
That is NOT an answer. I didn't ask you to post other random graphs, I asked you about the one I posted.http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.htmlI asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.
What is YOUR answer?
What is YOUR answer?
Timfinch cannot read graphs, cannot tell the difference between log and linear scales and cannot fathom 3D spatial reasoning.
Still not an answer, timfinch.That is NOT an answer. I didn't ask you to post other random graphs, I asked you about the one I posted.http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.htmlI asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.
What is YOUR answer?
What is YOUR answer?
LEO?
I thought it was obvious but let me spell it out for you. The lunar lander had no means of decontamination of the astronauts reentering the lander. It would not have been possible for them not to have inhaled lunar dust and been exposed to the alpha laden particles therein. They would have known of the dangers and would never expose the astronauts to such a risk if they had indeed landed on the moon.
It is definitive proof that they never landed on the moon. It is all a fabrication and a mental slip on their part. They would never openly admit to inhaling radioactive moon dust voluntarily.
You guys are being disingenuous. You have provided not a single fact or data to support your position that cislunar background radiation was low enough to justify Apollo 11's .22 mgy/day exposure level.
It is definitive proof that they never landed on the moon. It is all a fabrication and a mental slip on their part. They would never openly admit to inhaling radioactive moon dust voluntarily. If they had indeed taken samples of moon dust prior to the landing then they would have been aware that is was a radioactive hazard. You don't have to read between the lines. They spelled the deceit out in bold capitalized letters.When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified? i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions? And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...
It is definitive proof that they never landed on the moon. It is all a fabrication and a mental slip on their part. They would never openly admit to inhaling radioactive moon dust voluntarily. If they had indeed taken samples of moon dust prior to the landing then they would have been aware that is was a radioactive hazard. You don't have to read between the lines. They spelled the deceit out in bold capitalized letters.When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified? i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions? And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...
Also, what is the calculated risk from brief periods of inhaling dust, as in the typical stay of an Apollo mission, as opposed to long-term colonisation?
Do you not read these post. I did not say it. They did. They told you it was so high that it raised lunar orbit radiation above background levels by 30 to 40%. Why is that concept difficult to understand?
I have presented documented evidence. Do me the same courtesy. In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.
Really? That's such a lame excuse. If you've really looked into this, and consider short-term exposure to regolith dust to be extremely dangerous, then you should have the information readily to hand.It is definitive proof that they never landed on the moon. It is all a fabrication and a mental slip on their part. They would never openly admit to inhaling radioactive moon dust voluntarily. If they had indeed taken samples of moon dust prior to the landing then they would have been aware that is was a radioactive hazard. You don't have to read between the lines. They spelled the deceit out in bold capitalized letters.When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified? i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions? And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...
Also, what is the calculated risk from brief periods of inhaling dust, as in the typical stay of an Apollo mission, as opposed to long-term colonisation?
I have no interest in spoon feeding you and doing your homework for you. Google is your friend.
I have presented documented evidence. Do me the same courtesy. In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.Well, I'm glad I wasn't drinking my coffee when I read that!! ;D
Well, I'm glad I wasn't drinking my coffee when I read that!! ;D
This log graph thing is beyond your pay grade. You fail to read the definitions or embrace the concepts involved but it is not important because whatever number you derive from the graph is still too high to add to the VAB transit, lunar orbit and a lunar landing without exceeding .22 mgy/day. The logarithmic graph is a distraction that you are using to avoid the issue. Deal with the facts. Show some backbone and integrity.Given that you have demonstrated that you don't understand log graphs AT ALL, you have no standing to make any such statement.
I have presented documented evidence. Do me the same courtesy. In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.What is your opinion of the AP8/AE8 model?
Realizing radiation diminishes as a function of distance, it is safe to assume that the surface is indeed higher. In the articles that I have posted and reposted several times, states that the GCR and Solar flux is producing a neutron flux that is elevating lunar orbital radiation. They did not say it was from naturally occurring radioactive isotopes in moon rocks. Do yourself a favor and read the definition of a logarithmic graph. This is truly difficult watching you make a fool of yourself.Do you not read these post. I did not say it. They did. They told you it was so high that it raised lunar orbit radiation above background levels by 30 to 40%. Why is that concept difficult to understand?
So why do you keep reiterating the point of the moon being radioactive? On one hand you talk about radioactive dust, the next you talk about radiation levels. There is a difference between radioactive and radiation. Understand that point, and then try to school me.
The radiation levels may be rise by 30 to 40%, this does not mean activity of the moon due to radioisotope activity is raised by 40%. The radiation levels rise due to secondary mesonic, electromagnetic and neutron. No one every challenged you on this point.
The moon rocks and the soil will have natural radioactivity. Just like the soil and rocks of Earth, mars, Venus or any other rocket satellite. It's wrong for to suggest that they are prohibitively harmful. Even the CRaTER scientist have written that the levels are no more than a uranium miner or X-ray technician will receive in a year.
But eh? Go figure, some dude on the internet that cannot read a logarithmic scale has blown the whole shebang, but doe not know the difference between radioactivity and radiation.
I have presented documented evidence. Do me the same courtesy. In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.I could do that, but any such documentation would contain lots of graphs and we have already established that you are unable to read those.
You guys have nothing. Character assassination is the only tool you bring to the table. Not one single documented rebuttal. I would be ashamed of myself if I were in your shoes.Here you go.
I have presented documented evidence. Do me the same courtesy. In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.I could do that, but any such documentation would contain lots of graphs and we have already established that you are unable to read those.
Realizing radiation diminishes as a function of distance, it is safe to assume that the surface is indeed higher. In the articles that I have posted and reposted several times, states that the GCR and Solar flux is producing a neutron flux that is elevating lunar orbital radiation.
They did not say it was from naturally occurring radioactive isotopes in moon rocks.
Do yourself a favor and read the definition of a logarithmic graph. This is truly difficult watching you make a fool of yourself.
You posted that data yourself, you simply couldn't read it correctly.I have presented documented evidence. Do me the same courtesy. In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.I could do that, but any such documentation would contain lots of graphs and we have already established that you are unable to read those.
Show me the data that proves cislunar space was less than .22 mgy/day at anytime during solar cycle 20..
Show me the data that prove lunar orbit was less than cislunar space during anytime.Irrelevant.
Show me the data that proves there is a low radiation path through the VAB and include the expected dose rates for a lunar transit.Done, but you are incapable of understanding it.
Show me the data that indicates ingestion of moon dust is not an immediate health hazard.Wow. There is such a thing as a stupid question. Your claim is that lunar regolith is sufficiently toxic so as to cause instant death. We know that is a load of rot.
Here you go.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
Although it is extremely unlikely that you will understand it. It has graphs.
You guys have nothing. Character assassination is the only tool you bring to the table. Not one single documented rebuttal. I would be ashamed of myself if I were in your shoes.Here you go.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
Although it is extremely unlikely that you will understand it. It has graphs.
The light perhaps, but how long does it take for the particles to arrive? I know and you clearly do not.You guys have nothing. Character assassination is the only tool you bring to the table. Not one single documented rebuttal. I would be ashamed of myself if I were in your shoes.Here you go.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
Although it is extremely unlikely that you will understand it. It has graphs.
This is government produced propaganda that I have read thoroughly. Consider this statement from your referenced material ****If SPAN detected that a large solar flare was imminent, there was a few hours' advance notice of the particle flux. This was adequate time for the astronauts on the Moon to get back to the LM, take off, rendezvous with the CSM, and take cover as best they could. While in lunar orbit, the Moon would protect the astronauts for half of each orbit. At other times the spacecraft would be turned so the bulk of the service module was between the astronauts and the incoming particles. The astronauts had a handheld Geiger counter so they could find the safest spot in the command module cabin should they have to ride out a solar flare.**** Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth.
You guys have nothing. Character assassination is the only tool you bring to the table. Not one single documented rebuttal. I would be ashamed of myself if I were in your shoes.I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but I think you are wrong on all points. The major contributors to this thread have provided extensive information and corroborating data to refute your claims.
This is government produced propaganda that I have read thoroughly. Consider this statement from your referenced material ****If SPAN detected that a large solar flare was imminent, there was a few hours' advance notice of the particle flux. This was adequate time for the astronauts on the Moon to get back to the LM, take off, rendezvous with the CSM, and take cover as best they could. While in lunar orbit, the Moon would protect the astronauts for half of each orbit. At other times the spacecraft would be turned so the bulk of the service module was between the astronauts and the incoming particles. The astronauts had a handheld Geiger counter so they could find the safest spot in the command module cabin should they have to ride out a solar flare.**** Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth.
What is this but a damn lie?
You guys have nothing. Character assassination is the only tool you bring to the table. Not one single documented rebuttal. I would be ashamed of myself if I were in your shoes.I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but I think you are wrong on all points. The major contributors to this thread have provided extensive information and corroborating data to refute your claims.
There has been very little in the way of attacks on your character (as opposed to pointing out your lack of expertise, which is not "character assassination"!) while you have indulged in numerous ad-hom attacks on people.
Like many people here, I have strengths and weaknesses, and the reason I'm not getting into discussions about radiation levels, dose rates or the like is because I am not an expert. However, I'm willing to acknowledge that fact, and more than willing to learn. I can't obviously convince you that you're wrong, but it might be worth you actually considering that possibility, and taking the opportunity to learn from some of the people here who are experts in these areas.
What is this but a damn lie?Ummm, why do you think that?
What is this but a damn lie?3D spatial reasoning. You simply cannot figure it out, can you?
What is this but a damn lie?
Why is it a lie?
What is this but a damn lie?3D spatial reasoning. You simply cannot figure it out, can you?
Nope. I mean you are unable to figure out a three dimensional trajectory represented in a two dimensional illustration.What is this but a damn lie?3D spatial reasoning. You simply cannot figure it out, can you?
So the two graphs are different? and one shows a 3D rendering?
Realizing radiation diminishes as a function of distance, it is safe to assume that the surface is indeed higher. In the articles that I have posted and reposted several times, states that the GCR and Solar flux is producing a neutron flux that is elevating lunar orbital radiation.
Yet the same authors from the CRaTER team tell us that the levels at the surface are no more that that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technician in one year. Are you going to acknowledge this point?QuoteThey did not say it was from naturally occurring radioactive isotopes in moon rocks.
Yet you have been arguing the dust is radioactive, prohibitively so. Have you not? You are the one that presented this argument in context of GCR producing fission products. Did you not? If you cannot understand the distinction between radiation and radioactivity, don't lambaste others after the event.QuoteDo yourself a favor and read the definition of a logarithmic graph. This is truly difficult watching you make a fool of yourself.
And despite this, you've even computed the median data yourself, and found that the value fell below your threshold that you misread from the graph. I don't think you have a right to call anyone a fool seaman Tim.
I simply posted them.
I simply posted them.
No truer word said. You simply posted them, but have complete disregard, understanding or context for their content. You clearly don't understand the difference between radiation level, radioactivity and secondary radiation. You misread a graph which was the basis of your argument. Your argument was refuted very quickly based on your error. You've brought data to the table based on a less active cycle, yet fail to understand how you are making a fallacy or equivalence. You have cited average data, data that was taken prior to the missions, data from ground based monitors, and have had it carefully explained why you cannot use averages. The most laughable aspect of this whole thread, is the data you first brought to the table should illustrate this point to you when you presented your analysis earlier today.
The fact you are stubborn, inept at analysis, cannot interpret graphs and do not understand the source materiel you cut and paste, is your responsibility. It is for you to carry out your homework diligently. You fell short of that mark when pressed by people that have expertise.
Your moan that we refute your argument without presenting data ourselves. That is not how it science works. We are examining your case based on the scrutiny of your hypothesis and expertise. We can only make judgement based on the data you present and the way you present your understanding of the relevant science and engineering. That is the scientific process. You have presented an hypothesis, and we reject is based on your arguments. You cannot lay the burden of proof on others if your argument does not hold water.
Were you not the one that said Solar Cycle data was not applicable and was to be disregarded. Why is it such a point of contention?
You sir, are dishonest, disingenuous and an intellectual coward. I am done with you and will no longer respond to your comments.
He is getting so badly spanked I almost feel sorry for him. Almost.You sir, are dishonest, disingenuous and an intellectual coward. I am done with you and will no longer respond to your comments.
I thank you for partaking. I've managed to get to Uranus with this thread. I never thought I'd say those words in public.
He is getting so badly spanked I almost feel sorry for him. Almost.
You sir, are dishonest, disingenuous and an intellectual coward. I am done with you and will no longer respond to your comments.
I thank you for partaking. I've managed to get to Uranus with this thread. I never thought I'd say those words in public.
You guys are being disingenuous. You have provided not a single fact or data to support your position that cislunar background radiation was low enough to justify Apollo 11's .22 mgy/day exposure level. You insist they they found a low radiation path through the VAB but cannot provide any data to reflect such a path exist. You refuse to accept the verifiable data that proves the surface of the moon is more radioactive than cislunar space and that lunar orbit is more radioactive than cislunar space. You have all the evidence you need to arrive at a logical conclusion yet you distract yourself with the definition of log graphs and my technical competence. I expected better from you and I am sorely disappointed. I am embarrassed for you.
You guys are being disingenuous. You have provided not a single fact or data to support your position that cislunar background radiation was low enough to justify Apollo 11's .22 mgy/day exposure level. You insist they they found a low radiation path through the VAB but cannot provide any data to reflect such a path exist. You refuse to accept the verifiable data that proves the surface of the moon is more radioactive than cislunar space and that lunar orbit is more radioactive than cislunar space. You have all the evidence you need to arrive at a logical conclusion yet you distract yourself with the definition of log graphs and my technical competence. I expected better from you and I am sorely disappointed. I am embarrassed for you.
Ahem.
You refuse to accept the verifiable data that proves the surface of the moon is more radioactive than cislunar space and that lunar orbit is more radioactive than cislunar space.
You have all the evidence you need to arrive at a logical conclusion yet you distract yourself with the definition of log graphs and my technical competence.
It has been pointed out that is data is not applicable to the apollo missions
but I am willing to use it as the basis of my assertion
if you are willing to accept the consequences.
Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,
Show me the data that proves cislunar space was less than .22 mgy/day at anytime during solar cycle 20.
Show me the data that proves there is a low radiation path through the VAB and include the expected dose rates for a lunar transit.
Show me the data that indicates ingestion of moon dust is not an immediate health hazard.
That is NOT an answer. I didn't ask you to post other random graphs, I asked you about the one I posted.http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.htmlI asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.
What is YOUR answer?
What is YOUR answer?
I thought it was obvious but let me spell it out for you. The lunar lander had no means of decontamination of the astronauts reentering the lander. It would not have been possible for them not to have inhaled lunar dust and been exposed to the alpha laden particles therein. They would have known of the dangers and would never expose the astronauts to such a risk if they had indeed landed on the moon.
Ah. See attached. Timfinch posted a graph as an example of a log graph. I reposted the exact same graph with the minor divisions removed. Timfinch was bamboozled by that. He clearly has no clue what he is talking about.That is NOT an answer. I didn't ask you to post other random graphs, I asked you about the one I posted.http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.htmlI asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.
What is YOUR answer?
What is YOUR answer?
Tim, why are you entirely unable to grasp the point of this log scale business?
Where is your example of the 'exponential' scale you claim was used? The one that goes up like a log scale but with the numbers between the powers of ten equidistant? The one where the distance between 10 and 20 is the same as the distance between 300 and 400, or 8000 and 9000, or 0.005 and 0.006? That is what you were insisting the CraTer graph was, after all.
Or, prove that the CraTer graph is not a log scale. Show us exactly what makes you conclude that.
BWAHAHAHAHA. WTF?I thought it was obvious but let me spell it out for you. The lunar lander had no means of decontamination of the astronauts reentering the lander. It would not have been possible for them not to have inhaled lunar dust and been exposed to the alpha laden particles therein. They would have known of the dangers and would never expose the astronauts to such a risk if they had indeed landed on the moon.
"Alpha laden particles"? You don't know anything about the basic nature of alpha particles, do you?
"Alpha laden particles"? You don't know anything about the basic nature of alpha particles, do you?
Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,
The EM part yes, but the particle shower that is the real hazard, by definition, cannot travel at the speed of light. Why do you insist on ignoring this basic rule of physics?
(http://)Ah. See attached. Timfinch posted a graph as an example of a log graph. I reposted the exact same graph with the minor divisions removed. Timfinch was bamboozled by that. He clearly has no clue what he is talking about.That is NOT an answer. I didn't ask you to post other random graphs, I asked you about the one I posted.http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.htmlI asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.
What is YOUR answer?
What is YOUR answer?
Tim, why are you entirely unable to grasp the point of this log scale business?
Where is your example of the 'exponential' scale you claim was used? The one that goes up like a log scale but with the numbers between the powers of ten equidistant? The one where the distance between 10 and 20 is the same as the distance between 300 and 400, or 8000 and 9000, or 0.005 and 0.006? That is what you were insisting the CraTer graph was, after all.
Or, prove that the CraTer graph is not a log scale. Show us exactly what makes you conclude that.
Traveling over a million miles per hour, the hot material called plasma takes up to three days to reach Earth. The differences between the two types of explosions can be seen through solar telescopes, with flares appearing as a bright light and CMEs appearing as enormous fans of gas swelling into space.
KREEP
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.
The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.
KREEP is concentrated in the Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) and Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains) with a major concentration south of Crater Copernicus. This region covers about 40% of the Earth-facing side of the Moon. Based on the small number of lunar samples returned, low KREEP regions measure 8% or less of the radioactive elements in their dust compared to the high KREEP regions. With current technology, the entire high KREEP region is not acceptable for any long-term human settlement or manned mining operation.
The high KREEP region contains many sites of interest to science, particularly those of volcanic origin. Even short scientific expeditions there will require special procedures to prevent ingestion of dust and the removal of dust from all returning equipment.
Radon Gas
Another source of dangerous radiation is the radon gas that is created in the decay of trace amounts of uranium found naturally in lunar rocks. This gas is very heavy and concentrates in low areas. This type of radiation is easily stopped by even a thin layer of material, but radon is carcinogenic if ingested directly into the body.
Even though sensitive scientific equipment has been able to detect radon on Luna, the quantity of radon gas is such that it can be ignored. The lunar atmosphere is so thin that the most massive component, Argon, is present in only 30,000 particles per cubic centimeter, that is 2 trillionths of a gram per cubic meter. Radon is so scarce that it is not even mentioned in the list of components in the lunar atmosphere article. See the Moon Fact Sheet from NASA.
Radon has also been detected from lunar outgassing events.
http://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Radiation_Problem
Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,
The EM part yes, but the particle shower that is the real hazard, by definition, cannot travel at the speed of light. Why do you insist on ignoring this basic rule of physics?
There are many kinds of eruptions on the sun. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections both involve gigantic explosions of energy, but are otherwise quite different. The two phenomena do sometimes occur at the same time – indeed the strongest flares are almost always correlated with coronal mass ejections – but they emit different things, they look and travel differently, and they have different effects near planets.
Both eruptions are created when the motion of the sun’s interior contorts its own magnetic fields. Like the sudden release of a twisted rubber band, the magnetic fields explosively realign, driving vast amounts of energy into space. This phenomenon can create a sudden flash of light -- a solar flare. Flares can last minutes to hours and they contain tremendous amounts of energy. Traveling at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth. Some of the energy released in the flare also accelerates very high energy particles that can reach Earth in tens of minutes.
The magnetic contortions can also create a different kind of explosion that hurls solar matter into space. These are the coronal mass ejections, also known as CMEs. One can think of the explosions using the physics of a cannon. The flare is like the muzzle flash, which can be seen anywhere in the vicinity. The CME is like the cannonball, propelled forward in a single, preferential direction, this mass ejected from the barrel only affecting a targeted area. This is the CME—an immense cloud of magnetized particles hurled into space. Traveling over a million miles per hour, the hot material called plasma takes up to three days to reach Earth. The differences between the two types of explosions can be seen through solar telescopes, with flares appearing as a bright light and CMEs appearing as enormous fans of gas swelling into space.
With current technology, the entire high KREEP region is not acceptable for any long-term human settlement or manned mining operation.
Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,
The EM part yes, but the particle shower that is the real hazard, by definition, cannot travel at the speed of light. Why do you insist on ignoring this basic rule of physics?
There are many kinds of eruptions on the sun. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections both involve gigantic explosions of energy, but are otherwise quite different. The two phenomena do sometimes occur at the same time – indeed the strongest flares are almost always correlated with coronal mass ejections – but they emit different things, they look and travel differently, and they have different effects near planets.
Both eruptions are created when the motion of the sun’s interior contorts its own magnetic fields. Like the sudden release of a twisted rubber band, the magnetic fields explosively realign, driving vast amounts of energy into space. This phenomenon can create a sudden flash of light -- a solar flare. Flares can last minutes to hours and they contain tremendous amounts of energy. Traveling at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth. Some of the energy released in the flare also accelerates very high energy particles that can reach Earth in tens of minutes.
The magnetic contortions can also create a different kind of explosion that hurls solar matter into space. These are the coronal mass ejections, also known as CMEs. One can think of the explosions using the physics of a cannon. The flare is like the muzzle flash, which can be seen anywhere in the vicinity. The CME is like the cannonball, propelled forward in a single, preferential direction, this mass ejected from the barrel only affecting a targeted area. This is the CME—an immense cloud of magnetized particles hurled into space. Traveling over a million miles per hour, the hot material called plasma takes up to three days to reach Earth. The differences between the two types of explosions can be seen through solar telescopes, with flares appearing as a bright light and CMEs appearing as enormous fans of gas swelling into space.
You need to post your sources
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/the-difference-between-flares-and-cmes
and read them.
What is this but a damn lie?
Why is it a lie?
The deception is obvious. The Braeunig graph implies the path skirted the radiation area when in fact the path was <10^6 radiation for the entirety of the transit (or thereabouts)
I am confused. Are you implying the solar flares are harmless and it is the CME's that pose the greatest danger to astronauts?
What is this but a damn lie?
Why is it a lie?
The deception is obvious. The Braeunig graph implies the path skirted the radiation area when in fact the path was <10^6 radiation for the entirety of the transit (or thereabouts)
Actually, the only deception comes from you. The graph was presented as a general illustration to convey the mission's flight path as it circumvented the most intense portions of the VABs. Because you found a graph that contains more detail than the one provided has nothing to do with the actual information used for computation. You claim to have read the article thoroughly, yet seem to have missed, disregarded or completely whiffed at the understanding of this snippet prior to the table and graphs:
"There is no need to show all the data in this article. An abridged version is shown below, which includes electron fluxes for the first 30 minutes of flight following translunar injection (TLI). This is enough data to allow demonstration of the procedures used in this analysis. The actual analysis used matrices that contained a total of over 8,000 flux values."
P.S. He also has a link earlier that allows you to gather all the data he used.
So you can provide the mission dose of a lunar transit through the VAB that can be used as the basis of a claim that a low radiation path was traveled? I would love to see that calculation.
What is this but a damn lie?
Why is it a lie?
The deception is obvious. The Braeunig graph implies the path skirted the radiation area when in fact the path was <10^6 radiation for the entirety of the transit (or thereabouts)
Actually, the only deception comes from you. The graph was presented as a general illustration to convey the mission's flight path as it circumvented the most intense portions of the VABs. Because you found a graph that contains more detail than the one provided has nothing to do with the actual information used for computation. You claim to have read the article thoroughly, yet seem to have missed, disregarded or completely whiffed at the understanding of this snippet prior to the table and graphs:
"There is no need to show all the data in this article. An abridged version is shown below, which includes electron fluxes for the first 30 minutes of flight following translunar injection (TLI). This is enough data to allow demonstration of the procedures used in this analysis. The actual analysis used matrices that contained a total of over 8,000 flux values."
P.S. He also has a link earlier that allows you to gather all the data he used.
So you can provide the mission dose of a lunar transit through the VAB that can be used as the basis of a claim that a low radiation path was traveled? I would love to see that calculation.
It was provided in the Braeunig article. Total dose from the VABs were computed to be <1/10th of the total mission dose received. It helps if you can understand part of his article considered unshielded astronauts (outside any spacecraft with no suit) and then the SHIELDED dose due to the known composition of the spacecraft (with acknowledgement that many other components would only increase the shielding dependent on a variety of factors).
You guys are being disingenuous. You have provided not a single fact or data to support your position that cislunar background radiation was low enough to justify Apollo 11's .22 mgy/day exposure level. You insist they they found a low radiation path through the VAB but cannot provide any data to reflect such a path exist. You refuse to accept the verifiable data that proves the surface of the moon is more radioactive than cislunar space and that lunar orbit is more radioactive than cislunar space. You have all the evidence you need to arrive at a logical conclusion yet you distract yourself with the definition of log graphs and my technical competence. I expected better from you and I am sorely disappointed. I am embarrassed for you.
Ahem.
It has been pointed out that is data is not applicable to the apollo missions but I am willing to use it as the basis of my assertion if you are willing to accept the consequences.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
Thanks. That should keep Tim happy chewing through the calculations he would like to see.
What is this but a damn lie?
Why is it a lie?
The deception is obvious. The Braeunig graph implies the path skirted the radiation area when in fact the path was <10^6 radiation for the entirety of the transit (or thereabouts)
Actually, the only deception comes from you. The graph was presented as a general illustration to convey the mission's flight path as it circumvented the most intense portions of the VABs. Because you found a graph that contains more detail than the one provided has nothing to do with the actual information used for computation. You claim to have read the article thoroughly, yet seem to have missed, disregarded or completely whiffed at the understanding of this snippet prior to the table and graphs:
"There is no need to show all the data in this article. An abridged version is shown below, which includes electron fluxes for the first 30 minutes of flight following translunar injection (TLI). This is enough data to allow demonstration of the procedures used in this analysis. The actual analysis used matrices that contained a total of over 8,000 flux values."
P.S. He also has a link earlier that allows you to gather all the data he used.
So you can provide the mission dose of a lunar transit through the VAB that can be used as the basis of a claim that a low radiation path was traveled? I would love to see that calculation.
It was provided in the Braeunig article. Total dose from the VABs were computed to be <1/10th of the total mission dose received. It helps if you can understand part of his article considered unshielded astronauts (outside any spacecraft with no suit) and then the SHIELDED dose due to the known composition of the spacecraft (with acknowledgement that many other components would only increase the shielding dependent on a variety of factors).
https://srag.jsc.nasa.gov/Publications/TM104782/techmemo.htm
You guys are being disingenuous. You have provided not a single fact or data to support your position that cislunar background radiation was low enough to justify Apollo 11's .22 mgy/day exposure level. You insist they they found a low radiation path through the VAB but cannot provide any data to reflect such a path exist. You refuse to accept the verifiable data that proves the surface of the moon is more radioactive than cislunar space and that lunar orbit is more radioactive than cislunar space. You have all the evidence you need to arrive at a logical conclusion yet you distract yourself with the definition of log graphs and my technical competence. I expected better from you and I am sorely disappointed. I am embarrassed for you.
Ahem.
It has been pointed out that is data is not applicable to the apollo missions but I am willing to use it as the basis of my assertion if you are willing to accept the consequences.
And, just to make sure we are on the same page, your assertion is that the CRaTER data show that the cislunar radiation environment never gets below .22 mGy/day, correct?
Yet, when I take the average dose across all 6 detectors, and plot those readings against a .22 mGy/day reference, we can find large spans of time where the readings fall below that .22 mGy/day threshold (pretty much all of 2013, for example). I make that pretty explicit in the chart.
You don't like the non-linear y-axis, here's the same data plotted linearly (max capped at .5 mGy/day):
Let's work with 1/10th mission dosage. We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day. Now 1/10 of .22 mgy/day is .022. Now if we add 1.35 times .24 we get .324 mgy/day while in lunar orbit assuming they spent two days in lunar orbit or on the surface of the moon you can see the total mission dosage comes up short, don't you think?
Let's work with 1/10th mission dosage. We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day. Now 1/10 of .22 mgy/day is .022. Now if we add 1.35 times .24 we get .324 mgy/day while in lunar orbit assuming they spent two days in lunar orbit or on the surface of the moon you can see the total mission dosage comes up short, don't you think?
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.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm
I am not sure but I think 1 millirad/hour is equal to .24 mgy/day. Correct me if I am wrong. This article was written back in the seventies.
That is like defining a word by using the word. No, if you truly want to prove the deception you can't use the liars words. You have to corroborate the data external to the claim. Show me the corroborating data for the apollo claims.Let's work with 1/10th mission dosage. We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day. Now 1/10 of .22 mgy/day is .022. Now if we add 1.35 times .24 we get .324 mgy/day while in lunar orbit assuming they spent two days in lunar orbit or on the surface of the moon you can see the total mission dosage comes up short, don't you think?
No, let's work with the actual data. Your values for their exposures have been shown to be inconsistent with the data you did use, and irrelevant as they were from either average doses over a long time span, or taken from measurements of less intense solar cycle. Try again.
The actual data from Apollo is taken from their dosimeters. Their dosimeters (as long as they functioned properly, and they would know this during their read-out) are their official, legal record for the exposure received. An ex-nuc should already know this.
I have got to ask the question. Does it make sense that averaging in the SPE induced spikes would result in an average below 0.22 mgy/day?
The fact that they disregard all of the apollo data should tell you all you need to know.
No, that is your peculiar fantasy. It is risible that you attempt to foist your crankery on others. Please stop doing it.Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,
The EM part yes, but the particle shower that is the real hazard, by definition, cannot travel at the speed of light. Why do you insist on ignoring this basic rule of physics?
There are many kinds of eruptions on the sun. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections both involve gigantic explosions of energy, but are otherwise quite different. The two phenomena do sometimes occur at the same time – indeed the strongest flares are almost always correlated with coronal mass ejections – but they emit different things, they look and travel differently, and they have different effects near planets.
Both eruptions are created when the motion of the sun’s interior contorts its own magnetic fields. Like the sudden release of a twisted rubber band, the magnetic fields explosively realign, driving vast amounts of energy into space. This phenomenon can create a sudden flash of light -- a solar flare. Flares can last minutes to hours and they contain tremendous amounts of energy. Traveling at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth. Some of the energy released in the flare also accelerates very high energy particles that can reach Earth in tens of minutes.
The magnetic contortions can also create a different kind of explosion that hurls solar matter into space. These are the coronal mass ejections, also known as CMEs. One can think of the explosions using the physics of a cannon. The flare is like the muzzle flash, which can be seen anywhere in the vicinity. The CME is like the cannonball, propelled forward in a single, preferential direction, this mass ejected from the barrel only affecting a targeted area. This is the CME—an immense cloud of magnetized particles hurled into space. Traveling over a million miles per hour, the hot material called plasma takes up to three days to reach Earth. The differences between the two types of explosions can be seen through solar telescopes, with flares appearing as a bright light and CMEs appearing as enormous fans of gas swelling into space.
You need to post your sources
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/the-difference-between-flares-and-cmes
and read them.
I am confused. Are you implying the solar flares are harmless and it is the CME's that pose the greatest danger to astronauts?
That is like defining a word by using the word. No, if you truly want to prove the deception you can't use the liars words. You have to corroborate the data external to the claim. Show me the corroborating data for the apollo claims.Let's work with 1/10th mission dosage. We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day. Now 1/10 of .22 mgy/day is .022. Now if we add 1.35 times .24 we get .324 mgy/day while in lunar orbit assuming they spent two days in lunar orbit or on the surface of the moon you can see the total mission dosage comes up short, don't you think?
No, let's work with the actual data. Your values for their exposures have been shown to be inconsistent with the data you did use, and irrelevant as they were from either average doses over a long time span, or taken from measurements of less intense solar cycle. Try again.
The actual data from Apollo is taken from their dosimeters. Their dosimeters (as long as they functioned properly, and they would know this during their read-out) are their official, legal record for the exposure received. An ex-nuc should already know this.
It is not often that a chew toy is thrown.
(http://)Ah. See attached. Timfinch posted a graph as an example of a log graph. I reposted the exact same graph with the minor divisions removed. Timfinch was bamboozled by that. He clearly has no clue what he is talking about.That is NOT an answer. I didn't ask you to post other random graphs, I asked you about the one I posted.http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.htmlI asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.
What is YOUR answer?
What is YOUR answer?
Tim, why are you entirely unable to grasp the point of this log scale business?
Where is your example of the 'exponential' scale you claim was used? The one that goes up like a log scale but with the numbers between the powers of ten equidistant? The one where the distance between 10 and 20 is the same as the distance between 300 and 400, or 8000 and 9000, or 0.005 and 0.006? That is what you were insisting the CraTer graph was, after all.
Or, prove that the CraTer graph is not a log scale. Show us exactly what makes you conclude that.
Try reading this out loud, slowly. You can do it, I know you can.
Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,
The EM part yes, but the particle shower that is the real hazard, by definition, cannot travel at the speed of light. Why do you insist on ignoring this basic rule of physics?
There are many kinds of eruptions on the sun. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections both involve gigantic explosions of energy, but are otherwise quite different. The two phenomena do sometimes occur at the same time – indeed the strongest flares are almost always correlated with coronal mass ejections – but they emit different things, they look and travel differently, and they have different effects near planets.
Both eruptions are created when the motion of the sun’s interior contorts its own magnetic fields. Like the sudden release of a twisted rubber band, the magnetic fields explosively realign, driving vast amounts of energy into space. This phenomenon can create a sudden flash of light -- a solar flare. Flares can last minutes to hours and they contain tremendous amounts of energy. Traveling at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth. Some of the energy released in the flare also accelerates very high energy particles that can reach Earth in tens of minutes.
The magnetic contortions can also create a different kind of explosion that hurls solar matter into space. These are the coronal mass ejections, also known as CMEs. One can think of the explosions using the physics of a cannon. The flare is like the muzzle flash, which can be seen anywhere in the vicinity. The CME is like the cannonball, propelled forward in a single, preferential direction, this mass ejected from the barrel only affecting a targeted area. This is the CME—an immense cloud of magnetized particles hurled into space. Traveling over a million miles per hour, the hot material called plasma takes up to three days to reach Earth. The differences between the two types of explosions can be seen through solar telescopes, with flares appearing as a bright light and CMEs appearing as enormous fans of gas swelling into space.
The fact that they disregard all of the apollo data should tell you all you need to know.But wait, It is your claim that the Apollo data is faked and not data at all. Can you not see that there is a problem here? You cite Apollo data as real and then cite Apollo data as evidence of fakery.
KREEP
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.
The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.
KREEP is concentrated in the Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) and Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains) with a major concentration south of Crater Copernicus. This region covers about 40% of the Earth-facing side of the Moon. Based on the small number of lunar samples returned, low KREEP regions measure 8% or less of the radioactive elements in their dust compared to the high KREEP regions. With current technology, the entire high KREEP region is not acceptable for any long-term human settlement or manned mining operation.
The high KREEP region contains many sites of interest to science, particularly those of volcanic origin. Even short scientific expeditions there will require special procedures to prevent ingestion of dust and the removal of dust from all returning equipment.
Radon Gas
Another source of dangerous radiation is the radon gas that is created in the decay of trace amounts of uranium found naturally in lunar rocks. This gas is very heavy and concentrates in low areas. This type of radiation is easily stopped by even a thin layer of material, but radon is carcinogenic if ingested directly into the body.
Even though sensitive scientific equipment has been able to detect radon on Luna, the quantity of radon gas is such that it can be ignored. The lunar atmosphere is so thin that the most massive component, Argon, is present in only 30,000 particles per cubic centimeter, that is 2 trillionths of a gram per cubic meter. Radon is so scarce that it is not even mentioned in the list of components in the lunar atmosphere article. See the Moon Fact Sheet from NASA.
Radon has also been detected from lunar outgassing events.
http://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Radiation_Problem
Yes. Well. My humble apologies to LO, but there comes a time to call a moron a moron. I don't much like it, but reality intrudes.Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,
The EM part yes, but the particle shower that is the real hazard, by definition, cannot travel at the speed of light. Why do you insist on ignoring this basic rule of physics?
There are many kinds of eruptions on the sun. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections both involve gigantic explosions of energy, but are otherwise quite different. The two phenomena do sometimes occur at the same time – indeed the strongest flares are almost always correlated with coronal mass ejections – but they emit different things, they look and travel differently, and they have different effects near planets.
Both eruptions are created when the motion of the sun’s interior contorts its own magnetic fields. Like the sudden release of a twisted rubber band, the magnetic fields explosively realign, driving vast amounts of energy into space. This phenomenon can create a sudden flash of light -- a solar flare. Flares can last minutes to hours and they contain tremendous amounts of energy. Traveling at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth. Some of the energy released in the flare also accelerates very high energy particles that can reach Earth in tens of minutes.
The magnetic contortions can also create a different kind of explosion that hurls solar matter into space. These are the coronal mass ejections, also known as CMEs. One can think of the explosions using the physics of a cannon. The flare is like the muzzle flash, which can be seen anywhere in the vicinity. The CME is like the cannonball, propelled forward in a single, preferential direction, this mass ejected from the barrel only affecting a targeted area. This is the CME—an immense cloud of magnetized particles hurled into space. Traveling over a million miles per hour, the hot material called plasma takes up to three days to reach Earth. The differences between the two types of explosions can be seen through solar telescopes, with flares appearing as a bright light and CMEs appearing as enormous fans of gas swelling into space.
I know it takes 8 minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach earth. Why don't you comprehend the difference between the light and the particle shower? It has been explained many times already.
We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.
We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.
Tim, wat exactly do you understand by the word 'average'? You keep citing this range but the article you pulled it from only ever calls the 2.4mGy/day value an average. Why do you insist on referring to it as the minimum? Average and minimum are not synonyms. I am genuinely utterly at a loss to explain this. Can you tell us why you think they mean the same thing?
I think the dosimeters are accurate and reflect and LEO mission. If the apollo truly made a lunar transit then the available data external to the mission report should corroborate it. It doesn't. You could silence me by showing and NASA statement anywhere that calls out a cislunar background radiation of less than .24 mgy/day. Show me that one little piece of data and I will apologize to the lot of you and be on my merry way. Put your data where your mouth is.That is like defining a word by using the word. No, if you truly want to prove the deception you can't use the liars words. You have to corroborate the data external to the claim. Show me the corroborating data for the apollo claims.Let's work with 1/10th mission dosage. We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day. Now 1/10 of .22 mgy/day is .022. Now if we add 1.35 times .24 we get .324 mgy/day while in lunar orbit assuming they spent two days in lunar orbit or on the surface of the moon you can see the total mission dosage comes up short, don't you think?
No, let's work with the actual data. Your values for their exposures have been shown to be inconsistent with the data you did use, and irrelevant as they were from either average doses over a long time span, or taken from measurements of less intense solar cycle. Try again.
The actual data from Apollo is taken from their dosimeters. Their dosimeters (as long as they functioned properly, and they would know this during their read-out) are their official, legal record for the exposure received. An ex-nuc should already know this.
No, that is how things work. If you accept the instruments aboard the radiation probes are accurate, you need to also accept that the dosimeters are accurate. In fact they are considered more accurate overall, as this is why they are used for the legal tally of received dose. You cannot claim one instrument works and another does not with nothing more than your own ignorance as reasoning.
You are the one who thinks their doses were too low. Everything I have seen, INCLUDING your own source material, has not supported your position. The data we do have is consistent with every known factor that we know can modulate those dose rates. You refuse to accept this, and have offered NOTHING that has held up to scrutiny, but that is not my problem. YOU made the accusation. YOU support it, or just maybe have the integrity to admit you don't have any collaborating evidence.
You have no problem with using the averages of the dosimeter readings so why would you have a problem with NASA establishing an expected range of radiation based on averages?We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.
Tim, wat exactly do you understand by the word 'average'? You keep citing this range but the article you pulled it from only ever calls the 2.4mGy/day value an average. Why do you insist on referring to it as the minimum? Average and minimum are not synonyms. I am genuinely utterly at a loss to explain this. Can you tell us why you think they mean the same thing?
I think the dosimeters are accurate and reflect and LEO mission. If the apollo truly made a lunar transit then the available data external to the mission report should corroborate it. It doesn't. You could silence me by showing and NASA statement anywhere that calls out a cislunar background radiation of less than .24 mgy/day. Show me that one little piece of data and I will apologize to the lot of you and be on my merry way. Put your data where your mouth is.Let's work with 1/10th mission dosage. We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day. Now 1/10 of .22 mgy/day is .022. Now if we add 1.35 times .24 we get .324 mgy/day while in lunar orbit assuming they spent two days in lunar orbit or on the surface of the moon you can see the total mission dosage comes up short, don't you think?Your made up numbers are made up. What part of that do you not comprehend?No, let's work with the actual data.Sure and let's toss the whole cloth you simply made upYour values for their exposures have been shown to be inconsistent with the data you did use, and irrelevant as they were from either average doses over a long time span, or taken from measurements of less intense solar cycle. Try again.What, we should all chuck the actual measured values just on your sat so? get bent. The values were measured. Deal with it without your invented nonsense.The actual data from Apollo is taken from their dosimeters. Their dosimeters (as long as they functioned properly, and they would know this during their read-out) are their official, legal record for the exposure received. An ex-nuc should already know this.That is hilariously toast.
To rein in your Gish Gallop, have you changed your opinion? Or are you going to jump from topic to topic like all of the cranks before you? Are you conceding that you cannot refute the graph issue? or are you simply going to pretend it never happened?
Enquiring minds want to know.
That is like defining a word by using the word. No, if you truly want to prove the deception you can't use the liars words. You have to corroborate the data external to the claim. Show me the corroborating data for the apollo claims.
No, that is how things work. If you accept the instruments aboard the radiation probes are accurate, you need to also accept that the dosimeters are accurate. In fact they are considered more accurate overall, as this is why they are used for the legal tally of received dose. You cannot claim one instrument works and another does not with nothing more than your own ignorance as reasoning.
You are the one who thinks their doses were too low. Everything I have seen, INCLUDING your own source material, has not supported your position. The data we do have is consistent with every known factor that we know can modulate those dose rates. You refuse to accept this, and have offered NOTHING that has held up to scrutiny, but that is not my problem. YOU made the accusation. YOU support it, or just maybe have the integrity to admit you don't have any collaborating evidence.
Tim. What would it take to get you to say the actual words, "I don't understand"? About anything?I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale. I don't understand how anyone can believe you can make a lunar transit at .22 mgy/day and finally I don't understand why anyone could support the deception in face of such overwhelming evidence.
Really? So why can you not?Tim. What would it take to get you to say the actual words, "I don't understand"? About anything?I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.
I don't understand how anyone can believe you can make a lunar transit at .22 mgy/dayI cannot concieve of anyone who can display such ignorance.
and finally I don't understand why anyone could support the deception in face of such overwhelming evidence.Yet you have failed to present any evidence of such. Strange, no?
I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is. Come on, send the loud mouth packing. Put him in his place. Teach him humility. Produce the data!Lie.
But you clearly do not. Are we to conclude that you couldn't graduate high school? Are you that LCD?Tim. What would it take to get you to say the actual words, "I don't understand"? About anything?I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale. I don't understand how anyone can believe you can make a lunar transit at .22 mgy/day and finally I don't understand why anyone could support the deception in face of such overwhelming evidence.
I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[Lie. You simply didn't read anything.
Come on, send the loud mouth packing. Put him in his place. Teach him humility. Produce the data!Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.
I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[Lie. You simply didn't read anything.Come on, send the loud mouth packing. Put him in his place. Teach him humility. Produce the data!Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.
I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[Lie. You simply didn't read anything.Come on, send the loud mouth packing. Put him in his place. Teach him humility. Produce the data!Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.
What I really want is to be proven wrong. It is lonely be the smartest man in any group.
Or you could show me the error of my ways. It only takes one data point.I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[Lie. You simply didn't read anything.Come on, send the loud mouth packing. Put him in his place. Teach him humility. Produce the data!Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.
What I really want is to be proven wrong. It is lonely be the smartest man in any group.
Again, you need to cite your sources.
Super. You have been proven wrong.I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[Lie. You simply didn't read anything.Come on, send the loud mouth packing. Put him in his place. Teach him humility. Produce the data!Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.
What I really want is to be proven wrong. It is lonely be the smartest man in any group.
We did. You didn't care. By now, I am unsure if you could find your own butt.Or you could show me the error of my ways. It only takes one data point.I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[Lie. You simply didn't read anything.Come on, send the loud mouth packing. Put him in his place. Teach him humility. Produce the data!Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.
What I really want is to be proven wrong. It is lonely be the smartest man in any group.
Again, you need to cite your sources.
I am certain that such a thing has never happened.I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[Lie. You simply didn't read anything.Come on, send the loud mouth packing. Put him in his place. Teach him humility. Produce the data!Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.
What I really want is to be proven wrong. It is lonely being the smartest man in any group.
I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[Lie. You simply didn't read anything.Come on, send the loud mouth packing. Put him in his place. Teach him humility. Produce the data!Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.
What I really want is to be proven wrong. It is lonely being the smartest man in any group.
You are all talk and no data. Do you not know shame?LOL you funny.
You have no problem with using the averages of the dosimeter readings so why would you have a problem with NASA establishing an expected range of radiation based on averages?We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.
Tim, wat exactly do you understand by the word 'average'? You keep citing this range but the article you pulled it from only ever calls the 2.4mGy/day value an average. Why do you insist on referring to it as the minimum? Average and minimum are not synonyms. I am genuinely utterly at a loss to explain this. Can you tell us why you think they mean the same thing?
Long cut-and-paste omitted.
Impress me with the data and not your rhetoric. It merely takes a single data point to have me running with my tail between my legs. Either you have the data or you don't but guess what, neither does NASA because it would be damning.Long cut-and-paste omitted.
Oh, dear, dear. Do you not understand how bad it looks when you do this? When others in the thread are able to write extempore, summarizing an understanding in a way that makes it obvious they have years of study behind them, and you -- unable to even follow a statement with a citation -- can only paste in blocks of hastily-uncovered text?
Data has been presented, linked to, sorted, graphed, calculated, extrapolated...by over a half-dozen posters.I'm sorry did I miss where you posted an official or even not official statement that said cislunar GCR radiation was less than .24 mgy/day during anytime of the apollo missions? Maybe you could highlight and repost it because I am eager to move on.
Which also doesn't look good on you. You are squinting over a single graph, arguing over and over about how your non-standard interpretation is somehow the correct one -- OTHER people have grappled with the actual underlying data, showing their ability to create that graph, or subject it to other analysis.
Data has been presented, linked to, sorted, graphed, calculated, extrapolated...by over a half-dozen posters.I'm sorry did I miss where you posted an official or even not official statement that said cislunar GCR radiation was less than .24 mgy/day during anytime of the apollo missions? Maybe you could highlight and repost it because I am eager to move on.
Which also doesn't look good on you. You are squinting over a single graph, arguing over and over about how your non-standard interpretation is somehow the correct one -- OTHER people have grappled with the actual underlying data, showing their ability to create that graph, or subject it to other analysis.
Tim,I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest. I m the one that is being left unanswered. I have asked for one data point. A single one and yet no answers me.
It's clear that you're just trolling (ie. trying to provoke anger by refusing to acknowledge responses to your questions/claims), so I have issued a warning. That places you on the "watched" list. Continuing this behaviour may result in another warning, which will place you under moderation, requiring my approval before your posts can appear in the forum. A third warning may result in a temporary or permanent ban.
If you want to have a serious discussion then you're more than welcome to. But if you're only here to troll then you might as well just leave now.
What are alpha particles, Tim?
As much substance as smoke. You bandy your opinion around like a sledge hammer but as soon as something real and hard is asked for you have nothing. Not even a single data point to satisfy an inquiring mind.
I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest. I m the one that is being left unanswered. I have asked for one data point. A single one and yet no answers me.
I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest. I m the one that is being left unanswered. I have asked for one data point. A single one and yet no answers me.
Several people have repeated shown you how you're misinterpreting the radiation data. They have asked you to look at the data instead of the graph. They have asked you to import the data into Excel and generate a graph yourself, just like they have done. You have refused to do that. Why?
What are alpha particles, Tim?
Is this question designed to test the knowledge of an ex-nuke or are you actually in search of knowledge? It is a helium ion (no electrons, net positive charge).
What are alpha particles, Tim?
Is this question designed to test the knowledge of an ex-nuke or are you actually in search of knowledge? It is a helium ion (no electrons, net positive charge).
So how can there be "alpha laden particles" on lunar dust?
KREEP
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.
The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.
KREEP is concentrated in the Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) and Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains) with a major concentration south of Crater Copernicus. This region covers about 40% of the Earth-facing side of the Moon. Based on the small number of lunar samples returned, low KREEP regions measure 8% or less of the radioactive elements in their dust compared to the high KREEP regions. With current technology, the entire high KREEP region is not acceptable for any long-term human settlement or manned mining operation.
The high KREEP region contains many sites of interest to science, particularly those of volcanic origin. Even short scientific expeditions there will require special procedures to prevent ingestion of dust and the removal of dust from all returning equipment.
Radon Gas
Another source of dangerous radiation is the radon gas that is created in the decay of trace amounts of uranium found naturally in lunar rocks. This gas is very heavy and concentrates in low areas. This type of radiation is easily stopped by even a thin layer of material, but radon is carcinogenic if ingested directly into the body.
Even though sensitive scientific equipment has been able to detect radon on Luna, the quantity of radon gas is such that it can be ignored. The lunar atmosphere is so thin that the most massive component, Argon, is present in only 30,000 particles per cubic centimeter, that is 2 trillionths of a gram per cubic meter. Radon is so scarce that it is not even mentioned in the list of components in the lunar atmosphere article. See the Moon Fact Sheet from NASA.
Radon has also been detected from lunar outgassing events.
http://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Radiation_Problem
What are alpha particles, Tim?
Is this question designed to test the knowledge of an ex-nuke or are you actually in search of knowledge? It is a helium ion (no electrons, net positive charge).
So how can there be "alpha laden particles" on lunar dust?
Did you not read the post where the article stated that? I didn't say it, I simply posted and referenced the article.
KREEP
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.
The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.
KREEP is concentrated in the Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) and Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains) with a major concentration south of Crater Copernicus. This region covers about 40% of the Earth-facing side of the Moon. Based on the small number of lunar samples returned, low KREEP regions measure 8% or less of the radioactive elements in their dust compared to the high KREEP regions. With current technology, the entire high KREEP region is not acceptable for any long-term human settlement or manned mining operation.
The high KREEP region contains many sites of interest to science, particularly those of volcanic origin. Even short scientific expeditions there will require special procedures to prevent ingestion of dust and the removal of dust from all returning equipment.
Radon Gas
Another source of dangerous radiation is the radon gas that is created in the decay of trace amounts of uranium found naturally in lunar rocks. This gas is very heavy and concentrates in low areas. This type of radiation is easily stopped by even a thin layer of material, but radon is carcinogenic if ingested directly into the body.
Even though sensitive scientific equipment has been able to detect radon on Luna, the quantity of radon gas is such that it can be ignored. The lunar atmosphere is so thin that the most massive component, Argon, is present in only 30,000 particles per cubic centimeter, that is 2 trillionths of a gram per cubic meter. Radon is so scarce that it is not even mentioned in the list of components in the lunar atmosphere article. See the Moon Fact Sheet from NASA.
Radon has also been detected from lunar outgassing events.
http://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Radiation_Problem
I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest. I m the one that is being left unanswered. I have asked for one data point. A single one and yet no answers me.
Several people have repeated shown you how you're misinterpreting the radiation data. They have asked you to look at the data instead of the graph. They have asked you to import the data into Excel and generate a graph yourself, just like they have done. You have refused to do that. Why?
Maybe you should follow the thread. I have actually did that and posted the results.
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
Maybe you should be careful in how you accuse me. We wouldn't want everyone to think that you are not impartial and are trying to railroad me out of here now would we?I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest. I m the one that is being left unanswered. I have asked for one data point. A single one and yet no answers me.
Several people have repeated shown you how you're misinterpreting the radiation data. They have asked you to look at the data instead of the graph. They have asked you to import the data into Excel and generate a graph yourself, just like they have done. You have refused to do that. Why?
Maybe you should follow the thread. I have actually did that and posted the results.
Maybe you should be careful about the kind of attitude you direct at me. I'll let the people asking you the questions decide whether you responded adequately.
I am no help with comprehension. After school age it is irreparable.So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
I am no help with comprehension. After school age it is irreparable.So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
timfinch, I have provided data from the source you claimed as your evidence, and showed you exactly where that data from each and every detector was well below .22mGy/day, which is obviously less than .24mGy/day (I believe that was around post # 486). Since that data directly contradicts your claims, AND since it was during a solar cycle that is documented to be less intense than cycle 20, which was during Apollo 11's journey, it also directly correlates that the relative radiation levels were even lower for Apollo. You have yet to respond directly to this fact. I ask that you do so now. Do you accept that the data you provided shows time frames where the daily average dose rate was less than .22mGy/day. Do you understand the concept that that a more active solar cycle results in lower radiation levels in cislunar space? These are direct questions, please answer them in a like manner.Why you continue chasing after Crater data when you won't accept is as proof I can't imagine. Most assuredly you can find isolated patches but I am sure you are aware that the detectors are sensitized to different types of radiation and I am sure you are aware that only a compilation of data would reflect the biological damage an astronaut would be exposed to. Now if you can find a 10 day window that averages less than .22 mgy/day that would be interesting but it would mean nothing because you still have to account for the transit through the VAB, the lunar orbit and lunar surface radiation. To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in. If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA. But I digress as NASA stated a range of .24 to 6.0 for the apollo mission and we believe everything NASA say's don't we?
I am no help with comprehension. After school age it is irreparable.So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.
It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles. In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
I am no help with comprehension. After school age it is irreparable.
Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.
It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles. In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
I am no help with comprehension. After school age it is irreparable.So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.
It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles. In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but I believe an interstellar cloud of helium atoms stripped of their electrons could be considered to be "laden with Alpha particles".
Incidentally, I hope you aren't calling that gif table generated from Crater data a "graph," or claiming it is in any way substantial analysis of the data set.Do I need to explain the data table to you?
So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
I am no help with comprehension. After school age it is irreparable.
Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.
It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles. In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
I am starting to believe you are not reading these articles because the article specifically states the elements that decay to produce the alpha particles. Words do have meaning but they have less meaning when you don't read them or comprehend them.
Incidentally, I hope you aren't calling that gif table generated from Crater data a "graph," or claiming it is in any way substantial analysis of the data set.Do I need to explain the data table to you?
timfinch, I have provided data from the source you claimed as your evidence, and showed you exactly where that data from each and every detector was well below .22mGy/day, which is obviously less than .24mGy/day (I believe that was around post # 486). Since that data directly contradicts your claims, AND since it was during a solar cycle that is documented to be less intense than cycle 20, which was during Apollo 11's journey, it also directly correlates that the relative radiation levels were even lower for Apollo. You have yet to respond directly to this fact. I ask that you do so now. Do you accept that the data you provided shows time frames where the daily average dose rate was less than .22mGy/day. Do you understand the concept that that a more active solar cycle results in lower radiation levels in cislunar space? These are direct questions, please answer them in a like manner.Why you continue chasing after Crater data when you won't accept is as proof I can't imagine. Most assuredly you can find isolated patches but I am sure you are aware that the detectors are sensitized to different types of radiation and I am sure you are aware that only a compilation of data would reflect the biological damage an astronaut would be exposed to. Now if you can find a 10 day window that averages less than .22 mgy/day that would be interesting but it would mean nothing because you still have to account for the transit through the VAB, the lunar orbit and lunar surface radiation. To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in. If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA. But I digress as NASA stated a range of .24 to 6.0 for the apollo mission and we believe everything NASA say's don't we?
Actually, though...even without units or context that table is very interesting. Compare the median with the average. Then note the SD. Those three numbers alone describe a pattern of scattered high-magnitude spikes against a background of much lower activity.That must have hurt. Correct me if I am wrong but mean and average are the same thing and saying mean average is redundant to the point of stuttering. Aren't there three rows in that table, average, median and standard deviation?
Now if only someone here had chosen to calculate the mean average instead of the median....oh, wait. It's been done, but you can't read graphs.
Actually, though...even without units or context that table is very interesting. Compare the median with the average. Then note the SD. Those three numbers alone describe a pattern of scattered high-magnitude spikes against a background of much lower activity.That must have hurt. Correct me if I am wrong but mean and average are the same thing and saying mean average is redundant to the point of stuttering. Aren't there three rows in that table, average, median and standard deviation?
Now if only someone here had chosen to calculate the mean average instead of the median....oh, wait. It's been done, but you can't read graphs.
Actually, though...even without units or context that table is very interesting. Compare the median with the average. Then note the SD. Those three numbers alone describe a pattern of scattered high-magnitude spikes against a background of much lower activity.That must have hurt. Correct me if I am wrong but mean and average are the same thing and saying mean average is redundant to the point of stuttering. Aren't there three rows in that table, average, median and standard deviation?
Now if only someone here had chosen to calculate the mean average instead of the median....oh, wait. It's been done, but you can't read graphs.
I spelled it out to be sure you'd get it.
And, actually, no. All means are an average but not all averages are mean.
Actually, though...even without units or context that table is very interesting. Compare the median with the average. Then note the SD. Those three numbers alone describe a pattern of scattered high-magnitude spikes against a background of much lower activity.That must have hurt. Correct me if I am wrong but mean and average are the same thing and saying mean average is redundant to the point of stuttering. Aren't there three rows in that table, average, median and standard deviation?
Now if only someone here had chosen to calculate the mean average instead of the median....oh, wait. It's been done, but you can't read graphs.
I have said it before. Pick any 10 day window of your choice from the CraTer data and we will used it to set our minimum baseline. I am convinced that you can't find a group low enough to make a difference.
So what you are saying is the Kreep is safe if you hold it in your mouth for a couple of seconds?So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
I am no help with comprehension. After school age it is irreparable.
Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.
It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles. In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
So what you are saying is the Kreep is safe if you hold it in your mouth for a couple of seconds?So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
I am no help with comprehension. After school age it is irreparable.
Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.
It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles. In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
So you picked five days during solar peak and averaged all the detectors and came up with what value?timfinch, I have provided data from the source you claimed as your evidence, and showed you exactly where that data from each and every detector was well below .22mGy/day, which is obviously less than .24mGy/day (I believe that was around post # 486). Since that data directly contradicts your claims, AND since it was during a solar cycle that is documented to be less intense than cycle 20, which was during Apollo 11's journey, it also directly correlates that the relative radiation levels were even lower for Apollo. You have yet to respond directly to this fact. I ask that you do so now. Do you accept that the data you provided shows time frames where the daily average dose rate was less than .22mGy/day. Do you understand the concept that that a more active solar cycle results in lower radiation levels in cislunar space? These are direct questions, please answer them in a like manner.Why you continue chasing after Crater data when you won't accept is as proof I can't imagine. Most assuredly you can find isolated patches but I am sure you are aware that the detectors are sensitized to different types of radiation and I am sure you are aware that only a compilation of data would reflect the biological damage an astronaut would be exposed to. Now if you can find a 10 day window that averages less than .22 mgy/day that would be interesting but it would mean nothing because you still have to account for the transit through the VAB, the lunar orbit and lunar surface radiation. To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in. If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA. But I digress as NASA stated a range of .24 to 6.0 for the apollo mission and we believe everything NASA say's don't we?
I provided a 5 day window with the additional comment that it was a random sample during 2013 with similar data for long stretches before and after the data I quoted. Other people have graphed and analyzed the data in even more detail with the same conclusions my post came to. I didn't post more data as my point was made and verifiable and to prevent clutter. Would you feel better if I posted 30 days of consecutive data that falls within the range I noted?
I have already noted that the Apollo 11 mission (as well as the other Apollo missions, with Apollo 11 being closest to the peak) corresponded to the solar maximum of cycle 20, just as the data I picked from cycle 24 corresponds to the solar maximum of that cycle. You are making false statements while neglecting to recall the ones that were actually made.
Point blank. Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts? Either it is or it isn't. Why play the "laden" game? Call it what it is.So what you are saying is the Kreep is safe if you hold it in your mouth for a couple of seconds?So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
I am no help with comprehension. After school age it is irreparable.
Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.
It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles. In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
No, I'm saying that kreep is not LADEN with alpha particles.
Point blank. Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts? Either it is or it isn't. Why play the "laden" game? Call it what it is.So what you are saying is the Kreep is safe if you hold it in your mouth for a couple of seconds?So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
I am no help with comprehension. After school age it is irreparable.
Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.
It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles. In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
No, I'm saying that kreep is not LADEN with alpha particles.
So you picked five days during solar peak and averaged all the detectors and came up with what value?
Point blank. Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts? Either it is or it isn't. Why play the "laden" game? Call it what it is.So what you are saying is the Kreep is safe if you hold it in your mouth for a couple of seconds?So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
I am no help with comprehension. After school age it is irreparable.
Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.
It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles. In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
No, I'm saying that kreep is not LADEN with alpha particles.
Because words have meaning. Your words indicate a poor understanding of the subject you are discussing.
Point blank. Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts? Either it is or it isn't. Why play the "laden" game? Call it what it is.So what you are saying is the Kreep is safe if you hold it in your mouth for a couple of seconds?So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
I am no help with comprehension. After school age it is irreparable.
Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.
It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles. In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
No, I'm saying that kreep is not LADEN with alpha particles.
Because words have meaning. Your words indicate a poor understanding of the subject you are discussing.
Man up and answer the question. Is Moon dust (Kreep) radioactive and an ingestion hazard to astronauts? Stop deflecting and make a stand.
Point blank. Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts? Either it is or it isn't. Why play the "laden" game? Call it what it is.Over what time period? A coal miner doesn't develop coalworker's pneumoconiosis, commonly known as black lung, over only a couple shifts, but it's still a significant occupational hazard that kills thousands. Just because something might be a potential danger to ISS length stays or longer in a future manned base or colony does not mean it was a danger to the weekend camping trip stays on the lunar surface of Apollo.
I used it because it was appropriate but I don't have to. If it is a road block to you acknowledging that kreep is radioactive then by all means, I withdraw the term. Consider it unsaid. Now what have you got?Point blank. Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts? Either it is or it isn't. Why play the "laden" game? Call it what it is.So what you are saying is the Kreep is safe if you hold it in your mouth for a couple of seconds?So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
I am no help with comprehension. After school age it is irreparable.
Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.
It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles. In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
No, I'm saying that kreep is not LADEN with alpha particles.
Because words have meaning. Your words indicate a poor understanding of the subject you are discussing.
Man up and answer the question. Is Moon dust (Kreep) radioactive and an ingestion hazard to astronauts? Stop deflecting and make a stand.
"Alpha laden particles". That issue hasn't been settled yet. You haven't explained why you used that erroneous term.
Shouldn't you be asking about an amount of kreep? Is any amount not a carcinogen? How much would you be willing to ingest?Point blank. Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts? Either it is or it isn't. Why play the "laden" game? Call it what it is.Over what time period? A coal miner doesn't develop coalworker's pneumoconiosis, commonly known as black lung, over only a couple shifts, but it's still a significant occupational hazard that kills thousands. Just because something might be a potential danger to ISS length stays or longer in a future manned base or colony does not mean it was a danger to the weekend camping trip stays on the lunar surface of Apollo.
KREEP
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.
The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.
KREEP is concentrated in the Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) and Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains) with a major concentration south of Crater Copernicus. This region covers about 40% of the Earth-facing side of the Moon. Based on the small number of lunar samples returned, low KREEP regions measure 8% or less of the radioactive elements in their dust compared to the high KREEP regions. With current technology, the entire high KREEP region is not acceptable for any long-term human settlement or manned mining operation.
The high KREEP region contains many sites of interest to science, particularly those of volcanic origin. Even short scientific expeditions there will require special procedures to prevent ingestion of dust and the removal of dust from all returning equipment.
Radon Gas
Another source of dangerous radiation is the radon gas that is created in the decay of trace amounts of uranium found naturally in lunar rocks. This gas is very heavy and concentrates in low areas. This type of radiation is easily stopped by even a thin layer of material, but radon is carcinogenic if ingested directly into the body.
Even though sensitive scientific equipment has been able to detect radon on Luna, the quantity of radon gas is such that it can be ignored. The lunar atmosphere is so thin that the most massive component, Argon, is present in only 30,000 particles per cubic centimeter, that is 2 trillionths of a gram per cubic meter. Radon is so scarce that it is not even mentioned in the list of components in the lunar atmosphere article. See the Moon Fact Sheet from NASA.
Radon has also been detected from lunar outgassing events.
http://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Radiation_Problem
Man up and answer the question. Is Moon dust (Kreep) radioactive and an ingestion hazard to astronauts? Stop deflecting and make a stand.
Shouldn't you be asking about an amount of kreep? Is any amount not a carcinogen? How much would you be willing to ingest?Point blank. Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts? Either it is or it isn't. Why play the "laden" game? Call it what it is.Over what time period? A coal miner doesn't develop coalworker's pneumoconiosis, commonly known as black lung, over only a couple shifts, but it's still a significant occupational hazard that kills thousands. Just because something might be a potential danger to ISS length stays or longer in a future manned base or colony does not mean it was a danger to the weekend camping trip stays on the lunar surface of Apollo.
Maybe you can explain what they mean when they say "Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited."? Does that mean suck up as much as you can hold? You have no corroborating data from solar cycle 20. The data you do have list is as .24 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day. If you have something that you have concealed then please share it with the group. If you insist on using CraTer data then I am good with that also. I have said I will accept any 10 day averaged window that you are anyone else will choose.Man up and answer the question. Is Moon dust (Kreep) radioactive and an ingestion hazard to astronauts? Stop deflecting and make a stand.
This coming from a person who complained about semantics. The answer is yes. The relation to the Apollo missions is fairly innocuous. The radioactivity in lunar soil itself is too low to be considered a significant contributor to the total dose and/or dose rates on the surface. It is definitely too low to be considered a hazard on Earth (save for chance concentrations of materials naturally occurring, which has not been the case for any samples to date). The same low risk is associated with the Kreep (and not all Moon dust is Kreep). Your body contains arsenic right now, but not in quantities large enough to be a concern. There are carcinogens in fried foods, yet many people eat them regularly.
There are risks involved with every aspect of life. There were risks involved with every aspect of the Apollo missions. The ones you just brought up are minimal. You are just trying to change the subject, again. This time to even more ridiculous levels.
The facts remain that your original idea that Apollo 11 experienced constant radiation exposures of at least .22mGy/day has been shown to have no factual footing, and the data brought to this discussion actually supports the alternate conclusion. You are trying to dance away from that poorly thought-out strategy you originally had without admitting your failures. I don't expect you to, because that would take actual integrity. You can even fool yourself into thinking you are fooling people on this forum - that's your prerogative. But just like the data provided in your link - the truth is obvious to everyone else.
Lots of things are carcinogens. Some forms (https://www.westfraser.com/sites/default/files/certifications/Wood%20Dust%20SDS%202016_0.pdf) (see page 4 of 5 of the pdf) of sawdust are carcinogens or suspected carcinogens, but I swept out a wood working shop as part of a summer job with no protection, and I don't yet have lung cancer. Just because something is a carcinogen does not mean any level of exposure equals 'Gonna get Big C for certain like'.Shouldn't you be asking about an amount of kreep? Is any amount not a carcinogen? How much would you be willing to ingest?Point blank. Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts? Either it is or it isn't. Why play the "laden" game? Call it what it is.Over what time period? A coal miner doesn't develop coalworker's pneumoconiosis, commonly known as black lung, over only a couple shifts, but it's still a significant occupational hazard that kills thousands. Just because something might be a potential danger to ISS length stays or longer in a future manned base or colony does not mean it was a danger to the weekend camping trip stays on the lunar surface of Apollo.
So how do you think they should work in the presence of moon dust. Do you think they would enter into the people compartment and take dust "laden" space suits off without first decontaminating or removing them in a decontamination chamber? Or do you think that astronauts are expendable so they didn't worry about it?Lots of things are carcinogens. Some forms (https://www.westfraser.com/sites/default/files/certifications/Wood%20Dust%20SDS%202016_0.pdf) (see page 4 of 5 of the pdf) of sawdust are carcinogens or suspected carcinogens, but I swept out a wood working shop as part of a summer job with no protection, and I don't yet have lung cancer. Just because something is a carcinogen does not mean any level of exposure equals 'Gonna get Big C for certain like'.Shouldn't you be asking about an amount of kreep? Is any amount not a carcinogen? How much would you be willing to ingest?Point blank. Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts? Either it is or it isn't. Why play the "laden" game? Call it what it is.Over what time period? A coal miner doesn't develop coalworker's pneumoconiosis, commonly known as black lung, over only a couple shifts, but it's still a significant occupational hazard that kills thousands. Just because something might be a potential danger to ISS length stays or longer in a future manned base or colony does not mean it was a danger to the weekend camping trip stays on the lunar surface of Apollo.
I used it because it was appropriate but I don't have to. If it is a road block to you acknowledging that kreep is radioactive then by all means, I withdraw the term. Consider it unsaid. Now what have you got?Point blank. Is kreep a ingestion health hazard to astronauts? Either it is or it isn't. Why play the "laden" game? Call it what it is.So what you are saying is the Kreep is safe if you hold it in your mouth for a couple of seconds?So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?
Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?
I am no help with comprehension. After school age it is irreparable.
Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.
It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles. In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.
No, I'm saying that kreep is not LADEN with alpha particles.
Because words have meaning. Your words indicate a poor understanding of the subject you are discussing.
Man up and answer the question. Is Moon dust (Kreep) radioactive and an ingestion hazard to astronauts? Stop deflecting and make a stand.
"Alpha laden particles". That issue hasn't been settled yet. You haven't explained why you used that erroneous term.
You could silence me by showing and NASA statement anywhere that calls out a cislunar background radiation of less than .24 mgy/day.
You have no problem with using the averages of the dosimeter readings so why would you have a problem with NASA establishing an expected range of radiation based on averages?
I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.
level of 0.24mGy/day exists there must by definition have been periods below and above that level?You could silence me by showing and NASA statement anywhere that calls out a cislunar background radiation of less than .24 mgy/day.
In a reasoned debate with educated people, why should I have to show you data lower than 0.24mGy/day to prove the point that if an average
To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in. If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA.
This thing just won't die. The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used. In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced. The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph. I hope this puts an end to this. As an aside, back in the day a log graph was used to convert data to logarithms.I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.
Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
The article cited a range of 1 rem/day at solar maximum to 2.5 times that at solar minimum. Although it is reasonable to expect to go below that range in some instances it also reasonable that you would go above that limit occasionally.
It all smoothes out over the averages.
If perchance there existed an article that stated a measured reading below this value during the apollo 11 mission then I might be able to justify the low mission dosages.
You did take note that I established a solar maximum GCR as the minimum mission dose possible didn't you?To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in. If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA.
It has already been pointed out by several people, including the document you cited to keep pulling out your average GCR lelevs, that the Apollo missions happened during solar max.
Things like this don't help your case either.
This thing just won't die. The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used. In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced. The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph.I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.
Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
Does it make a difference? It is the cumulative dose that interest us or otherwise we wouldn't record mission dosage rather they would be minute or second doses. If it is the cumulative dose that is important then average is the way to go.The article cited a range of 1 rem/day at solar maximum to 2.5 times that at solar minimum. Although it is reasonable to expect to go below that range in some instances it also reasonable that you would go above that limit occasionally.
In fact it is reasonable to concude that half the data would be above and half below. That is how these calculations work, after all.QuoteIt all smoothes out over the averages.
Yes, it does, but the point you seem determined to miss is that no information is given about the actual recorded range or the time over which any data above or below the average was recorded, or the time over which the average was calculated.
In simpler terms, you have no information as to whether the data looked like this:
0.22, 0.26, 0.21, 0.27, 0.24, 0.10, 0.38, 0.20, 0.28, 0.24, 0.25, 0.23, 0.21
Or this:
0.38, 0.28, 0.27, 0.26, 0.25, 0.24, 0.24, 0.23, 0.22, 0.21, 0.21, 0.20, 0.1
Same average, totally different impacts in terms of when you fly the mission.QuoteIf perchance there existed an article that stated a measured reading below this value during the apollo 11 mission then I might be able to justify the low mission dosages.
You're the one making the claims about what the average actually means, so you're the one responsible for providing the data. And no matter how many time you say it, you have absolutely not done so. What you're asking us to do is rovide data to disprove your baseless interpretation.
You did take note that I established a solar maximum GCR as the minimum mission dose possible didn't you?To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in. If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA.
It has already been pointed out by several people, including the document you cited to keep pulling out your average GCR lelevs, that the Apollo missions happened during solar max.
Things like this don't help your case either.
This thing just won't die. The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used. In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced. The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph.I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.
Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
That is just nonsensical. How have you determined that it is an arithmetically scaled graph? The only vaues called out on the axis are the powers of ten, which are equidistantly spaced on a log scale but not an arithmetic one. You cannot have your cake and eat it. It is one or the other. The key difference is where you think the values, say, 20,, 30, 40, 50 etc fall between the 10 and 100 labels on the axis. Where is your evidence to answer that question?
Does it make a difference? It is the cumulative dose that interest us or otherwise we wouldn't record mission dosage rather they would be minute or second doses. If it is the cumulative dose that is important then average is the way to go.The article cited a range of 1 rem/day at solar maximum to 2.5 times that at solar minimum. Although it is reasonable to expect to go below that range in some instances it also reasonable that you would go above that limit occasionally.
In fact it is reasonable to concude that half the data would be above and half below. That is how these calculations work, after all.QuoteIt all smoothes out over the averages.
Yes, it does, but the point you seem determined to miss is that no information is given about the actual recorded range or the time over which any data above or below the average was recorded, or the time over which the average was calculated.
In simpler terms, you have no information as to whether the data looked like this:
0.22, 0.26, 0.21, 0.27, 0.24, 0.10, 0.38, 0.20, 0.28, 0.24, 0.25, 0.23, 0.21
Or this:
0.38, 0.28, 0.27, 0.26, 0.25, 0.24, 0.24, 0.23, 0.22, 0.21, 0.21, 0.20, 0.1
Same average, totally different impacts in terms of when you fly the mission.QuoteIf perchance there existed an article that stated a measured reading below this value during the apollo 11 mission then I might be able to justify the low mission dosages.
You're the one making the claims about what the average actually means, so you're the one responsible for providing the data. And no matter how many time you say it, you have absolutely not done so. What you're asking us to do is rovide data to disprove your baseless interpretation.
Two ways to be sure. You don't convert the data to log on a logarithmic graph. The graph does that.
The second is if you look at the CraTer graph each grid has 10 equally spaced tick marks.
This thing just won't die. The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used. In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced. The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph. I hope this puts an end to this. As an aside, back in the day a log graph was used to convert data to logarithms.
I'll catch you guys tomorrow. It is late and I require beauty sleep to maintain my dashing good looks.
Does it make a difference? It is the cumulative dose that interest us or otherwise we wouldn't record mission dosage rather they would be minute or second doses. If it is the cumulative dose that is important then average is the way to go.
So how do you think they should work in the presence of moon dust. Do you think they would enter into the people compartment and take dust "laden" space suits off without first decontaminating or removing them in a decontamination chamber? Or do you think that astronauts are expendable so they didn't worry about it?
why don't you admit either they didn't know it was radioactive at the time or they never went.
The same people insisted that the data was inapplicable because it was in a different solar cycle
This attitude is very odd from someone who claims to have worked with nuclear vessels, but, yes, it's literally impossible avoid all radiation, given that the food we eat and therefore our bodies contains traces of radioactive isotopes. If my boyfriend spends the night, I am exposed to more radiation than if I sleep alone. Sure doesn't stop me from wanting that as frequently as feasible, and I certainly don't fear any health risks as a result.why don't you admit either they didn't know it was radioactive at the time or they never went.
False dilemma. Why don't you admit the possibility they knew and it was considered acceptably low risk?
You just don't seem to get risk analysis, do you? Eliminate if possible, control if not possible to eliminate, consider tolerability of residual risk. No activity in life is risk-free. Radiation risks aren't some special category where all exposure must be avoided, because this is simply impossible.
KREEP was first discovered on Apollo 12
While we're discussing KREEP:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_14/samples/QuoteKREEP was first discovered on Apollo 12
Think about that Tim.
...what Tim is offering is another tired variant on the old, threadbare "NASA can do anything, even the impossible, except land men on the Moon and return them as described in the historical canon"
...what Tim is offering is another tired variant on the old, threadbare "NASA can do anything, even the impossible, except land men on the Moon and return them as described in the historical canon"
...and at the same time, are incompetent enough to have waving flags and C-Rocks all over the place and to lie about things such as radiation which can easily be checked up on by anyone.
Once again we try to distract from the real issue. The fact that the astronauts were breathing radioactive dust. Throw up all the smoke screens you want. Create any diversion you can. It won't alter the fact that it is proof of a hoax.
Yes you did miss it despite it being posted over and over and over.Data has been presented, linked to, sorted, graphed, calculated, extrapolated...by over a half-dozen posters.I'm sorry did I miss where you posted an official or even not official statement that said cislunar GCR radiation was less than .24 mgy/day during anytime of the apollo missions? Maybe you could highlight and repost it because I am eager to move on.
Which also doesn't look good on you. You are squinting over a single graph, arguing over and over about how your non-standard interpretation is somehow the correct one -- OTHER people have grappled with the actual underlying data, showing their ability to create that graph, or subject it to other analysis.
No, you are intentionally posting abject nonsense with no aim other than to get the crank badge of honour, a ban.Maybe you should be careful in how you accuse me. We wouldn't want everyone to think that you are not impartial and are trying to railroad me out of here now would we?I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest. I m the one that is being left unanswered. I have asked for one data point. A single one and yet no answers me.
Several people have repeated shown you how you're misinterpreting the radiation data. They have asked you to look at the data instead of the graph. They have asked you to import the data into Excel and generate a graph yourself, just like they have done. You have refused to do that. Why?
Maybe you should follow the thread. I have actually did that and posted the results.
Maybe you should be careful about the kind of attitude you direct at me. I'll let the people asking you the questions decide whether you responded adequately.
Then Howcome you were utterly unable to answer my question about a simple graph?This thing just won't die. The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used. In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced. The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph. I hope this puts an end to this. As an aside, back in the day a log graph was used to convert data to logarithms.I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.
Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
Jason, this is really getting embarrassing. Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph. Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches. Come on man!Two ways to be sure. You don't convert the data to log on a logarithmic graph. The graph does that.
And your proof of that is what? Show me any data point on that graph that is converted and not just plotted.QuoteThe second is if you look at the CraTer graph each grid has 10 equally spaced tick marks.
No, it doesn't. It has a bunch of dotted lines which line up with the major divisions on each axis. As has already been pointed out, you can see this is certainly true if you look at the 100 point on the y-axis. There are no minor divisions marked on the y-axis.
While we're discussing KREEP:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_14/samples/QuoteKREEP was first discovered on Apollo 12
Think about that Tim.
Did you not forget that at the first sign of CraTer Data rejection, I wanted to move on. It is others that insist we reinvent the wheel and break the chart down. I am a victim in this train wreck. I am willing to use the CraTer day but I don't think anyone will like the results I provide so let's let it go. OK?The same people insisted that the data was inapplicable because it was in a different solar cycle
Tim do you understand the following points:
1: GCR is modulated by slar flux: higher solar activity = lower GCR
2: Solar cycle 24 (the CraTer data) was less active than solar cycle 20
3: It therefore follows that whatever the lower values in cycle 24, cycle 20 would have experienced overall lower CGR because of the higher solar flux in cycle 20?
What is odd is you compare two unrelated things and arrive at what you believe is a sane conclusion. Now that is just strange.This attitude is very odd from someone who claims to have worked with nuclear vessels, but, yes, it's literally impossible avoid all radiation, given that the food we eat and therefore our bodies contains traces of radioactive isotopes. If my boyfriend spends the night, I am exposed to more radiation than if I sleep alone. Sure doesn't stop me from wanting that as frequently as feasible, and I certainly don't fear any health risks as a result.why don't you admit either they didn't know it was radioactive at the time or they never went.
False dilemma. Why don't you admit the possibility they knew and it was considered acceptably low risk?
You just don't seem to get risk analysis, do you? Eliminate if possible, control if not possible to eliminate, consider tolerability of residual risk. No activity in life is risk-free. Radiation risks aren't some special category where all exposure must be avoided, because this is simply impossible.
Really?This thing just won't die. The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used. In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced. The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph.I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.
Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
That is just nonsensical. How have you determined that it is an arithmetically scaled graph? The only vaues called out on the axis are the powers of ten, which are equidistantly spaced on a log scale but not an arithmetic one. You cannot have your cake and eat it. It is one or the other. The key difference is where you think the values, say, 20,, 30, 40, 50 etc fall between the 10 and 100 labels on the axis. Where is your evidence to answer that question?
Two ways to be sure.
You don't convert the data to log on a logarithmic graph.Correct.
The graph does that.Wrong.
The second is if you look at the CraTer graph each grid has 10 equally spaced tick marks.Oops, utterly wrong.
If it had been a logarithmic graph then the tick marks would have been spaced at logarithmic intervalsWrong.
No, you are intentionally posting abject nonsense with no aim other than to get the crank badge of honour, a ban.Maybe you should be careful in how you accuse me. We wouldn't want everyone to think that you are not impartial and are trying to railroad me out of here now would we?I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest. I m the one that is being left unanswered. I have asked for one data point. A single one and yet no answers me.
Several people have repeated shown you how you're misinterpreting the radiation data. They have asked you to look at the data instead of the graph. They have asked you to import the data into Excel and generate a graph yourself, just like they have done. You have refused to do that. Why?
Maybe you should follow the thread. I have actually did that and posted the results.
Maybe you should be careful about the kind of attitude you direct at me. I'll let the people asking you the questions decide whether you responded adequately.
That is all you are doing, no more, no less.
For your own reasons you are unaware that you are thus portraying yourself as an idiot. It is obviously an act. If, as it seems, you wish to be seen by everyone as an idiot, then have at it. Knock yourself out.
Really?This thing just won't die. The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used. In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced. The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph.I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.
Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
That is just nonsensical. How have you determined that it is an arithmetically scaled graph? The only vaues called out on the axis are the powers of ten, which are equidistantly spaced on a log scale but not an arithmetic one. You cannot have your cake and eat it. It is one or the other. The key difference is where you think the values, say, 20,, 30, 40, 50 etc fall between the 10 and 100 labels on the axis. Where is your evidence to answer that question?
Two ways to be sure.You don't convert the data to log on a logarithmic graph.Correct.The graph does that.Wrong.The second is if you look at the CraTer graph each grid has 10 equally spaced tick marks.Oops, utterly wrong.If it had been a logarithmic graph then the tick marks would have been spaced at logarithmic intervalsWrong.
What is your answer about my graph?
No tim, my question requires a single word answer. "Log" or "Linear".
My answer to your graph question is google up an image of a logarithmic graph and figure out why the CraTer graph does not look like that image. I have tried to spoon feed you but you won't swallow ;-)
Jason, this is really getting embarrassing. Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph. Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches. Come on man!
Here, I googled it for you. Does the CraTer graph look like this? This can't be has hard as you are making it seem.And this is what kind of graph?
Did you not forget that at the first sign of CraTer Data rejection, I wanted to move on. It is others that insist we reinvent the wheel and break the chart down. I am a victim in this train wreck. I am willing to use the CraTer day but I don't think anyone will like the results I provide so let's let it go. OK?
Here, I googled it for you. Does the CraTer graph look like this? This can't be has hard as you are making it seem.
Here, I googled it for you. Does the CraTer graph look like this? This can't be has hard as you are making it seem.
...Oh no!! Do you think my boss would accept it as a reasonable excuse for not going in to work, well, ever again? :o
Therefore, we can conclude, at least in one instance, that soils on Earth contain higher concentrations of Uranium and Thorium by mass. Looks like we are going to have to evacuate most of Cornwall and Dundee.
Tim, do you know how the moon was formed?Well, to quote Britain's answer to Elon Musk, after deep and careful analysis - "I don't know lad... it's like no cheese I've ever tasted..."
This thing just won't die. The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used. In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced. The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph. I hope this puts an end to this. As an aside, back in the day a log graph was used to convert data to logarithms.I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.
Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
Concentrations of Thorium and Uranium from Granitic Rocks in NW Spain
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969705002032
Uranium concentrations in the rock varied between 5.3 and 27.7 mg kg-1 and Thorium concentrations from 5.5 to 50.7 mg kg-1
Concentrations of radioactive elements in lunar materials
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/97JE03267
...
When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified? i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions? And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...Tim, you fobbed me off, suggesting I google the answers to these questions myself. I admit I haven't spent much time on it - at this time of year weekends are taken up more by boat maintenance than anything else - but I haven't found the information I wanted. Luke has provided some relevant information however.
Also, what is the calculated risk from brief periods of inhaling dust, as in the typical stay of an Apollo mission, as opposed to long-term colonisation?
Just for fun, let's compare the CraTer graph (top) with the one I made.
Step 1: download data
Step 2: plot the same data sets on a graph
Step 3: Format y-axis to logarithmic scale.
Step 4: Set the axis range to match the CraTer graph (0.0001 to 10000)
That is literally all I did, except change the colours to match. Now, Tim, I have done what you asked. Tell me again how the CraTer graph is not a log scale, given the near-identity observed here.
What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic data and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale. This is not a difficult concept to embrace. The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure. If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever. Why can't we let this go? It is like a toothache.Jason, this is really getting embarrassing. Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph. Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches. Come on man!
I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.
In a more serious vein, thanks for finding these Luke.Concentrations of Thorium and Uranium from Granitic Rocks in NW Spain
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969705002032
Uranium concentrations in the rock varied between 5.3 and 27.7 mg kg-1 and Thorium concentrations from 5.5 to 50.7 mg kg-1
Concentrations of radioactive elements in lunar materials
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/97JE03267
...
Returning to my previous question :When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified? i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions? And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...Tim, you fobbed me off, suggesting I google the answers to these questions myself. I admit I haven't spent much time on it - at this time of year weekends are taken up more by boat maintenance than anything else - but I haven't found the information I wanted. Luke has provided some relevant information however.
Also, what is the calculated risk from brief periods of inhaling dust, as in the typical stay of an Apollo mission, as opposed to long-term colonisation?
Since you apparently do have information on the risks and likely doses from short-term dust inhalation, as opposed to the dangers of long-stay colonisation, perhaps you can indulge me and at least post the references to it? If dust inhalation over a few days is extremely dangerous, then what medical effects would you expect to see in Apollo astronauts if they were on the moon?
The scale is defined by it's type and units of measure.
Oh no!! Do you think my boss would accept it as a reasonable excuse for not going in to work, well, ever again? :o
Lie.What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic dataJason, this is really getting embarrassing. Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph. Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches. Come on man!
I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.
and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.Lie.
This is not a difficult concept to embrace.Not for us, but apparently it is beyond your grasp.
The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure. If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever. Why can't we let this go? It is like a toothache.And all of a sudden when pressurized, you can't spell. Face it. You have no clue what you are talking about.
One other thing. You can set the scale of your graph to exponents but if you don't convert the data first to logarithmic data then you graph will not represent anything but arithmetic data, which is fine if that is what you want. Now should you convert the raw data into logarithmic data then you are simply doing what plotting on a logarithmic graph would do. I sometimes miss high school, don't you?
Okay, let's try this again, this time without the arrogance.I am truly at a loss to understand what you are going on about. I surely know that mean is the sum divided by the quantity while median is the middle data point when all data is arranged in numerical order. Where the distinct challenge lies in grasping the concept of a logarithmic graph and it's purpose which as an english major I am sure you did not spend a lot of time studying the concept but is is great to see you bring your journalistic prowess to bear on this sticky problem.
Tim. What would it get you to admit you don't understand an article you've Googled? That you do not have the relevant knowledge to understand why it proves you to be wrong? I mean, for heaven's sake, I learned the difference between mean and median in seventh grade, and I was an English major in college and have little to no scientific expertise!
What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data...
into logarithmic data and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.
I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged. Conduct a minor experiment for yourself. use any ten digits and plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve. if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?Lie.What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic dataJason, this is really getting embarrassing. Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph. Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches. Come on man!
I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.Lie.This is not a difficult concept to embrace.Not for us, but apparently it is beyond your grasp.The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure. If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever. Why can't we let this go? It is like a toothache.And all of a sudden when pressurized, you can't spell. Face it. You have no clue what you are talking about.
It isn't a "sticky" problem. You are simply wrongOkay, let's try this again, this time without the arrogance.I am truly at a loss to understand what you are going on about. I surely now that mean is the sum divided by the quantity while median is the middle data point when all data is arranged in numerical order. Where the distinct challenge lies in grasping the concept of a logarithmic graph and it's purpose which as an english major I am sure you did not spend a lot of time studying the concept but is is great to see you bring your journalistic prowess to bear on this sticky problem.
Tim. What would it get you to admit you don't understand an article you've Googled? That you do not have the relevant knowledge to understand why it proves you to be wrong? I mean, for heaven's sake, I learned the difference between mean and median in seventh grade, and I was an English major in college and have little to no scientific expertise!
One other thing. You can set the scale of your graph to exponents
but if you don't convert the data first to logarithmic data
Now should you convert the raw data into logarithmic data then you are simply doing what plotting on a logarithmic graph would do.
Is this a log or linear graph? You won't answer this simple elementary question because you are incapable of doing so.I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged. Conduct a minor experiment for yourself. use any en digits and plot it first regularly and plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve. if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?Lie.What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic dataJason, this is really getting embarrassing. Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph. Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches. Come on man!
I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.Lie.This is not a difficult concept to embrace.Not for us, but apparently it is beyond your grasp.The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure. If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever. Why can't we let this go? It is like a toothache.And all of a sudden when pressurized, you can't spell. Face it. You have no clue what you are talking about.
Conduct a minor experiment for yourself. use any ten digits and plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve. if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?
Plotting on a log graph is not at all changing the data itself, just how it is plotted.
Oh we all got it, Timfinch doesn't.Plotting on a log graph is not at all changing the data itself, just how it is plotted.
I thought we got part this 700 posts ago?
I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged. Conduct a minor experiment for yourself. use any ten digits and plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve. if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?
Is this a log or linear graph? You won't answer this simple elementary question because you are incapable of doing so.I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged. Conduct a minor experiment for yourself. use any en digits and plot it first regularly and plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve. if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?Lie.What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic dataJason, this is really getting embarrassing. Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph. Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches. Come on man!
I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.Lie.This is not a difficult concept to embrace.Not for us, but apparently it is beyond your grasp.The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure. If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever. Why can't we let this go? It is like a toothache.And all of a sudden when pressurized, you can't spell. Face it. You have no clue what you are talking about.
What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data...
No it's not. The numbers match the position on the log scale exactly. I can put the log divisions in and the graph is not changed.
But thank you for being exactly as predictable as expected. Asked me to plot in Excel on a log scale to prove you right, did it, proved you wrong, so you conclude Excel is doing something with the numbers that it absolutely is not.Quoteinto logarithmic data and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.
Really? See the attached graph where I've put in the log scale minor divisions too.
use any ten digits and plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve. if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?
Is this the Apollo Hoax site or the Math Hoax site. Why are we not discussing the improbability of the lunar landing and instead wrangling over semantics?
Is this the Apollo Hoax site or the Math Hoax site. Why are we not discussing the improbability of the lunar landing and instead wrangling over semantics?
RIght, let's do this again. Tim, look at the two graphs. Same data points, different scales. Arithmetic scale on the left, perfect straight line. Log scale on the right. Exactly the same numbers. The only difference is where the numbers lie on the axis. Look at the actual points and you can clearly see that in both cases y=x. The curve changes because of the different scales. That is all. No change to the numbers has been made, only how they are plotted.I cannot argue this. It is correct. The shape of the curves differ as I have contended all along. It is merely a point of perspective. if you keep an arithmetic scale then the data itself must be converted to log or if you have a log scale then the data is unchanged. This is not obvious to you but if you added the tick marks to your graph it would be painfully obvious.
If you still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this, or claim I have done some other weird conversion to the data, you are either incompetent or trolling.
RIght, let's do this again. Tim, look at the two graphs. Same data points, different scales. Arithmetic scale on the left, perfect straight line. Log scale on the right. Exactly the same numbers. The only difference is where the numbers lie on the axis. Look at the actual points and you can clearly see that in both cases y=x. The curve changes because of the different scales. That is all. No change to the numbers has been made, only how they are plotted.I cannot argue this. It is correct. The shape of the curves differ as I have contended all along. It is merely a point of perspective. if you keep an arithmetic scale then the data itself must be converted to log or if you have a log scale then the data is unchanged. This is not obvious to you but if you added the tick marks to your graph it would be painfully obvious.
If you still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this, or claim I have done some other weird conversion to the data, you are either incompetent or trolling.
plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve. if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?
I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged. Conduct a minor experiment for yourself. use any ten digits and plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve. if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?Really? 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Now plot that. On anything. With meaning.
Right. You don't know at all. Thank you for admitting that you have no clue.Is this a log or linear graph? You won't answer this simple elementary question because you are incapable of doing so.I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged. Conduct a minor experiment for yourself. use any en digits and plot it first regularly and plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve. if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?Lie.What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic dataJason, this is really getting embarrassing. Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph. Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches. Come on man!
I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.Lie.This is not a difficult concept to embrace.Not for us, but apparently it is beyond your grasp.The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure. If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever. Why can't we let this go? It is like a toothache.And all of a sudden when pressurized, you can't spell. Face it. You have no clue what you are talking about.
Is this the Apollo Hoax site or the Math Hoax site. Why are we not discussing the improbability of the lunar landing and instead wrangling over semantics?Because you chose to raise the issue and thus exposed yourself to deserved derision when you doubled down on your nonsense.
I cannot actually understand how anyone thinks that changing a scale means the data is transformed. If you plot a log graph and an arithmetic graph of the same data, the shape of the graph changes, but the data remains the same when read against the scale.Nor I.
I am truly at a loss to understand what you are going on about. I surely know that mean is the sum divided by the quantity while median is the middle data point when all data is arranged in numerical order. Where the distinct challenge lies in grasping the concept of a logarithmic graph and it's purpose which as an english major I am sure you did not spend a lot of time studying the concept but is is great to see you bring your journalistic prowess to bear on this sticky problem.
Now should you convert the raw data into logarithmic data then you are simply doing what plotting on a logarithmic graph would do.
Maybe this will solve the issue for all except Abaddon who is mentally challenged.
Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic. To you I say nay, moose breath. If a thing can't be then it isn't. It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.I am truly at a loss to understand what you are going on about. I surely know that mean is the sum divided by the quantity while median is the middle data point when all data is arranged in numerical order. Where the distinct challenge lies in grasping the concept of a logarithmic graph and it's purpose which as an english major I am sure you did not spend a lot of time studying the concept but is is great to see you bring your journalistic prowess to bear on this sticky problem.
For the love of Gods, why does everyone assume English majors are all journalists? Those are journalism majors. I write nonfiction, for the most part, mostly about film--which is how I know what I've repeatedly told you about how faking the Apollo footage is literally impossible even today.
So let's do a little thought experiment, Tim. Let's say that it is, as you've been told, impossible to fake the Apollo footage. The only way to get it to look the way it does is in a place with 1/6 Earth gravity, in near-vacuum, with no ambient humidity. So. Knowing that the film is not possible to fake, why is the answer to the fact that you think the numbers don't make sense not "you don't understand what the numbers are telling us"?
Maybe this will solve the issue for all except Abaddon who is mentally challenged. I f you label the minor graduation on your chart and they are equally spaced then the only way the data can match up is if you convert it into a log. if the minor graduation are at logarithmic intervals then your graph is indeed a logarithmic graph. So mark the minor graduation on the CraTer data and we will all be happy. Set them at 1/10 intervals then I have a problem with that and with you. Capiche?
If you label the minor graduation on your chart and they are equally spaced then the only way the data can match up is if you convert it into a log.
So mark the minor graduation on the CraTer data and we will all be happy
Capiche?
Why do you think there is log graph paper and arithmetic graph paper? The magic is in the graduations.Maybe this will solve the issue for all except Abaddon who is mentally challenged. I f you label the minor graduation on your chart and they are equally spaced then the only way the data can match up is if you convert it into a log. if the minor graduation are at logarithmic intervals then your graph is indeed a logarithmic graph. So mark the minor graduation on the CraTer data and we will all be happy. Set them at 1/10 intervals then I have a problem with that and with you. Capiche?
Tim, I have already drawn the minor divisions on my own plot of the CraTer data on a log scale and the whole thing matches the CraTer graph from the website.
You are proposing a situation where leaving off minor divisions on the y-axis leaves the scale ambiguous. This is just not true. If the powers of 10 are equidistant it is a log scale, because the other kind of scale you talk of simply is not used.
In a more serious vein, thanks for finding these Luke.Concentrations of Thorium and Uranium from Granitic Rocks in NW Spain
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969705002032
Uranium concentrations in the rock varied between 5.3 and 27.7 mg kg-1 and Thorium concentrations from 5.5 to 50.7 mg kg-1
Concentrations of radioactive elements in lunar materials
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/97JE03267
...
Returning to my previous question :When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified? i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions? And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...Tim, you fobbed me off, suggesting I google the answers to these questions myself. I admit I haven't spent much time on it - at this time of year weekends are taken up more by boat maintenance than anything else - but I haven't found the information I wanted. Luke has provided some relevant information however.
Also, what is the calculated risk from brief periods of inhaling dust, as in the typical stay of an Apollo mission, as opposed to long-term colonisation?
Since you apparently do have information on the risks and likely doses from short-term dust inhalation, as opposed to the dangers of long-stay colonisation, perhaps you can indulge me and at least post the references to it? If dust inhalation over a few days is extremely dangerous, then what medical effects would you expect to see in Apollo astronauts if they were on the moon?
Does anyone ever read the articles? It clearly states :
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.
The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited. How can it be more plainly stated. If you are looking for an amount in grams then I have no answer but consider this article: Apollo Chronicles: The Mysterious Smell of Moondust01.30.06
Long after the last Apollo astronaut left the moon, a mystery lingers: Why does moondust smell like gunpowder?
Moondust. "I wish I could send you some," says Apollo 17 astronaut Gene Cernan. Just a thimbleful scooped fresh off the lunar surface. "It's amazing stuff."
Feel it--it's soft like snow, yet strangely abrasive.
Taste it--"not half bad," according to Apollo 16 astronaut John Young.
Sniff it--"it smells like spent gunpowder," says Cernan.
How do you sniff moondust?
Apollo 17 astronaut Gene Cernan rests inside the lunar module Challenger. There are smudges of dust on his longjohns and forehead.
Every Apollo astronaut did it. They couldn't touch their noses to the lunar surface. But, after every moonwalk (or "EVA"), they would tramp the stuff back inside the lander. Moondust was incredibly clingy, sticking to boots, gloves and other exposed surfaces. No matter how hard they tried to brush their suits before re-entering the cabin, some dust (and sometimes a lot of dust) made its way inside.
Once their helmets and gloves were off, the astronauts could feel, smell and even taste the moon.
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/30jan_smellofmoondust.html
Why do you think there is log graph paper and arithmetic log paper? The magic is in the graduations.
Maybe this will solve the issue for all except Abaddon who is mentally challenged.Hurling insults is the last resort of the defeated. Thank you for admitting that.
I f you label the minor graduation on your chart and they are equally spaced then the only way the data can match up is if you convert it into a log.And if you label the axis "sausages" you can measure the speed of light in rashers per furlong. Be pretty stupid to try to do so, no?
if the minor graduation are at logarithmic intervals then your graph is indeed a logarithmic graph. So mark the minor graduation on the CraTer data and we will all be happy. Set them at 1/10 intervals then I have a problem with that and with you. Capiche?Yes, we understand that you have no clue how graphs, scales and 3 dimensions actually work. We definitively established that pages ago. Try to keep up.
Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic. To you I say nay, moose breath. If a thing can't be then it isn't. It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.
Can we please get back to the Lunar Hoax? This basic math stuff is so boring.Yes, we can do so as soon as you realise that your head is on a trajectory with your butt. You simply know that you have been found out and that your knowledge is found wanting. You will do and say anything to dodge the fact.
Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data. Is that really not obvious?
Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic. To you I say nay, moose breath. If a thing can't be then it isn't. It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.
In my spare time, apart from being a professional, credentialed engineer for a living, I am also a stage magician as was my father before me. This is yet another area of knowledge of which you are utterly ignorant.Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic. To you I say nay, moose breath. If a thing can't be then it isn't. It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.I am truly at a loss to understand what you are going on about. I surely know that mean is the sum divided by the quantity while median is the middle data point when all data is arranged in numerical order. Where the distinct challenge lies in grasping the concept of a logarithmic graph and it's purpose which as an english major I am sure you did not spend a lot of time studying the concept but is is great to see you bring your journalistic prowess to bear on this sticky problem.
For the love of Gods, why does everyone assume English majors are all journalists? Those are journalism majors. I write nonfiction, for the most part, mostly about film--which is how I know what I've repeatedly told you about how faking the Apollo footage is literally impossible even today.
So let's do a little thought experiment, Tim. Let's say that it is, as you've been told, impossible to fake the Apollo footage. The only way to get it to look the way it does is in a place with 1/6 Earth gravity, in near-vacuum, with no ambient humidity. So. Knowing that the film is not possible to fake, why is the answer to the fact that you think the numbers don't make sense not "you don't understand what the numbers are telling us"?
Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data. Is that really not obvious?What were the units in my graph? What were the units in the crater graph?
Just maybe therein lies my confusion...Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data. Is that really not obvious?What were the units in my graph? What were the units in the crater graph?
You don't know that either.
If a thing can't be then it isn't. It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.
I am sure until I brought the subject up, most of you were unaware that moon dust was a health hazard due to it's radioactive alpha particle content.Lie.
I am sure most of you were unaware that the surface of the moon was so radioactive that the radiation from the surface of the moon raises the background radiation in lunar orbit by 30 to 40%.Lie.
Now do I need to inform everyone that radiation from a plane source diminishes as a function of distance, so that it is reasonable to assume thesurface radiation is greater than the radiation reflected back into lunar orbit. Let us discuss the implication of these facts.Teaching grandma to suck eggs. BTW, the space bar has a purpose.
No, therein lies your glaring error. Right there among your other lies.Just maybe therein lies my confusion...Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data. Is that really not obvious?What were the units in my graph? What were the units in the crater graph?
You don't know that either.
I told you befor and I will repeat it. I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages. I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic. To you I say nay, moose breath. If a thing can't be then it isn't. It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.
In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong? Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
;DOh no!! Do you think my boss would accept it as a reasonable excuse for not going in to work, well, ever again? :o
I assume your refer to Dundee, the Granite City. Now known as the City of Imminent Radioactive Death.
I told you befor and I will repeat it. I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages. I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic. To you I say nay, moose breath. If a thing can't be then it isn't. It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.
In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong? Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
I told you befor and I will repeat it. I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages. I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic. To you I say nay, moose breath. If a thing can't be then it isn't. It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.
In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong? Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.
What? Repeating it 6 times wasn't enough?Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic. To you I say nay, moose breath. If a thing can't be then it isn't. It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.I told you befor and I will repeat it. I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages. I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.
In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong? Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
I told you befor and I will repeat it. I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages. I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.
Again?I told you befor and I will repeat it. I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages. I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic. To you I say nay, moose breath. If a thing can't be then it isn't. It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.
In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong? Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.
Show me the data and I will be silenced.
I am sure until I brought the subject up, most of you were unaware that moon dust was a health hazard due to it's radioactive alpha particle content. I am sure most of you were unaware that the surface of the moon was so radioactive that the radiation from the surface of the moon raises the background radiation in lunar orbit by 30 to 40%. Now do I need to inform everyone that radiation from a plane source diminishes as a function of distance, so that it is reasonable to assume the surface radiation is greater than the radiation reflected back into lunar orbit. Let us discuss the implication of these facts.Lunar dust doesn't have a "radioactive alpha particle content", it contains isotopes which emit alpha particles. I'm no radiation expert, but even I know that (and have undestood the distinction since high school).
Why am I the only voice of dissention?Frankly, because you are the one harbouring crank beliefs.
What do you guys do when I am not here, stroke each others egos and massage each others sensibilities?We wait for the next loon with the next version of crankery.
If this was truly a useful site there would be a healthy discourse but all I here is one voice. What is up with that?Healthy discourse might happen if you ceased with the lies.
I am sure until I brought the subject up, most of you were unaware that moon dust was a health hazard due to it's radioactive alpha particle content.
Gillanren, let me say it again. I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished. knowing that there is no magic is sufficient. The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies. if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze. After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...
I told you befor and I will repeat it. I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages. I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.
But you yourself posted the data that proves you wrong. If you are unable to read your own data nobody here can help you. Seek a remedial course at your nearest school.I told you befor and I will repeat it. I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages. I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic. To you I say nay, moose breath. If a thing can't be then it isn't. It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.
In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong? Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.
Show me the data and I will be silenced.
Gillanren, let me say it again. I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished. knowing that there is no magic is sufficient. The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies. if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze. After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...
The hard part is the budget.
I told you befor and I will repeat it. I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages. I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic. To you I say nay, moose breath. If a thing can't be then it isn't. It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.
In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong? Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.
Show me the data and I will be silenced.
Gillanren, let me say it again. I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished. knowing that there is no magic is sufficient. The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies. if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze. After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...
The hard part is the budget.
It would be except for the fact that every major industrial nation desires to go the moon. The Japanese, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, The French,Germans, Italians, and a host of others. Private ventures are in place to send tourist to the moon. Money is not the issue.
But you yourself posted the data that proves you wrong. If you are unable to read your own data nobody here can help you. Seek a remedial course at your nearest school.I told you befor and I will repeat it. I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages. I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic. To you I say nay, moose breath. If a thing can't be then it isn't. It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.I asked if you wanted to use CraTer Data to prove or disprove the point many times and I get a resounding "No" it is not applicable. Why do you keep bringing it up?
In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong? Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.
Show me the data and I will be silenced.
Gillanren, let me say it again. I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished. knowing that there is no magic is sufficient. The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies. if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze. After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...
The hard part is the budget.
It would be except for the fact that every major industrial nation desires to go the moon. The Japanese, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, The French,Germans, Italians, and a host of others. Private ventures are in place to send tourist to the moon. Money is not the issue.
Add "governmental financing" to things you don't understand. Also, "how much it costs to send people to the Moon."
Gillanren, let me say it again. I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished. knowing that there is no magic is sufficient. The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies. if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze. After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...
The hard part is the budget.
Please explain the government financing part of this article: https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html
Gillanren, let me say it again. I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished. knowing that there is no magic is sufficient.Duh.
The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies.Can you take a supersonic transatlantic flight today? You could in the sixties and seventies, why can you not do it today?
if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze.Ooo, now you have stepped into my area of expertise. You will crash and burn. The AGC did exactly what it was supposed to do, no more, no less. To this day, people build working replicas for a hobby. Guess what? They all work as advertised.
After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...Hahaha. You seem to think that Apollo happened in isolation. That's hilarious.
It can't be that expensive if a private enterprise can make an adequate profit by charging two passengers a million each. I told you what it would take to convince me. Are you suffering from a short term memory disorder?Please explain the government financing part of this article: https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html
So if this succeeds, you'll admit that Apollo was real? That you've been mistaken about the radiation issues? That it's hardly a "magic trick" to produce all the other stuff, and that you are incredibly ignorant of the relevant issues to claim it is? That no government in the world has budgeted for a manned lunar mission since Apollo, and that it's the only reason there have been no manned lunar missions?
Ooo, now you have stepped into my area of expertise. You will crash and burn. The AGC did exactly what it was supposed to do, no more, no less. To this day, people build working replicas for a hobby. Guess what? They all work as advertised.
It can't be that expensive if a private enterprise can make an adequate profit by charging two passengers a million each. I told you what it would take to convince me. Are you suffering from a short term memory disorder?
No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.
No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.
Ooo, now you have stepped into my area of expertise. You will crash and burn. The AGC did exactly what it was supposed to do, no more, no less. To this day, people build working replicas for a hobby. Guess what? They all work as advertised.
I bet Tim hasn't got the foggiest about the AGC. What's the money on this one. I can hear his keyboard frantically being bashed into oblivion as he Goolges AGC.
Have we got computer with the power of a calculator on the Bingo Card?
Tim: Explain your statement about Apollo and the computer with the power of a calculator a little more please.
No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.
I freely admit to being ignorant of most of the radiation discussion. I'm slightly tempted to try explaining averages to Simon, though, to see if he can understand why "this is the average" necessarily proves that some data will fall below, possibly even significantly below, the stated figure.
The problem is a bit more complex than demonstrating that values fluctuate around an average. That goes without saying. The problem is find a window to encompass the duration of a mission that is significantly below average and then repeating such a feat 7 more times. Remember GCR background radiation is only a portion of the overall radiation.No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.
I freely admit to being ignorant of most of the radiation discussion. I'm slightly tempted to try explaining averages to Simon, though, to see if he can understand why "this is the average" necessarily proves that some data will fall below, possibly even significantly below, the stated figure.
So now your claim is that some private enterprise is offering moon trips for 2 million.It can't be that expensive if a private enterprise can make an adequate profit by charging two passengers a million each. I told you what it would take to convince me. Are you suffering from a short term memory disorder?Please explain the government financing part of this article: https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html
So if this succeeds, you'll admit that Apollo was real? That you've been mistaken about the radiation issues? That it's hardly a "magic trick" to produce all the other stuff, and that you are incredibly ignorant of the relevant issues to claim it is? That no government in the world has budgeted for a manned lunar mission since Apollo, and that it's the only reason there have been no manned lunar missions?
No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.
I freely admit to being ignorant of most of the radiation discussion. I'm slightly tempted to try explaining averages to Simon, though, to see if he can understand why "this is the average" necessarily proves that some data will fall below, possibly even significantly below, the stated figure.
Okay, I started, and I got as far as "and then you divide it by the number of numbers," and his response was, "That's crazy!" I guess four is too young to get averages.
Do you ever read the articles or you simply winging your way through this?So now your claim is that some private enterprise is offering moon trips for 2 million.It can't be that expensive if a private enterprise can make an adequate profit by charging two passengers a million each. I told you what it would take to convince me. Are you suffering from a short term memory disorder?Please explain the government financing part of this article: https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html
So if this succeeds, you'll admit that Apollo was real? That you've been mistaken about the radiation issues? That it's hardly a "magic trick" to produce all the other stuff, and that you are incredibly ignorant of the relevant issues to claim it is? That no government in the world has budgeted for a manned lunar mission since Apollo, and that it's the only reason there have been no manned lunar missions?
OK. Maybe that happens on Planet Sausage, but here on Earth not so much. There have been a few "Space Tourists", a very few. They hitched rides on rockets that were going anyway with or without them. On top of that the cost was 20-40 million just to rent a chair.
Once again, your head has married your butt.
Your response is nothing? Really? Well, that's convincing......not.But you yourself posted the data that proves you wrong. If you are unable to read your own data nobody here can help you. Seek a remedial course at your nearest school.I told you befor and I will repeat it. I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages. I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic. To you I say nay, moose breath. If a thing can't be then it isn't. It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.I asked if you wanted to use CraTer Data to prove or disprove the point many times and I get a resounding "No" it is not applicable. Why do you keep bringing it up?
In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong? Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."
Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.
Show me the data and I will be silenced.
I freely admit to being ignorant of most of the radiation discussion. I'm slightly tempted to try explaining averages to Simon, though, to see if he can understand why "this is the average" necessarily proves that some data will fall below, possibly even significantly below, the stated figure.
So, no one wants to discuss real issues? Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting? I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello. I have better things to do with my time.
tim you were shown that the amount of radiation received during transit of the VARB was < .1 of the total received from the missions, lower GCR's those two values alone are over one half of the roughly two week missions. Now all you have to do is calculate the amount of radiation received while on the Lunar surface which won't be that much higher than GCR's and you have a mission average of .24 quite simple.The problem is a bit more complex than demonstrating that values fluctuate around an average. That goes without saying. The problem is find a window to encompass the duration of a mission that is significantly below average and then repeating such a feat 7 more times. Remember GCR background radiation is only a portion of the overall radiation.No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.
I freely admit to being ignorant of most of the radiation discussion. I'm slightly tempted to try explaining averages to Simon, though, to see if he can understand why "this is the average" necessarily proves that some data will fall below, possibly even significantly below, the stated figure.
Sure. You and your ilk have taken away NASA's funding so they can't afford to go anymore. Thus NASA must hitchhike on the efforts of others. Why do you think NASA has a "rent-a-seat" arrangement with Russia to reach the ISS? It is because cranks have made sure that NASA can't afford it on their own.
Please explain the government financing part of this article: https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html
Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data. Is that really not obvious?
Apologies if you knew all of the above.
So, no one wants to discuss real issues? Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting? I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello. I have better things to do with my time.What issues? The only issue you have presented is that you can't read graphs. That's hardly our problem, is it?
No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.
I freely admit to being ignorant of most of the radiation discussion. I'm slightly tempted to try explaining averages to Simon, though, to see if he can understand why "this is the average" necessarily proves that some data will fall below, possibly even significantly below, the stated figure.
Apologies if you knew all of the above.
Oh, dear Gods, no. Honestly, I'd never even heard of CRaTER data before this discussion. Like I said, not my area of expertise. However, he's taking two areas in which I do have a pretty firm amateur understanding and insisting that I'm just being fooled by a magic trick, so there we are.
Jeez, now I want to do a whole YouTube thing--"Explaining Concepts to My Four-Year-Old." I'm sure Simon can get his head around "calculated risk."Well, my two are teens. I can't post what they think. They are egging me on to enter total rant mode.
I couldn't leave this one uncommented upon. Your positions is the same as mine. You say it couldn't be faked because I can't imagine how they would fake a whole list of items and I say it must be fake because it cannot be done using the parameters provided. We both take our position on a belief that neither can prove. Well I can prove mine so we are a little alike.So, no one wants to discuss real issues? Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting? I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello. I have better things to do with my time.
I tried. I tried to get you to understand that "I don't know how they faked it, but they must have, because my understanding of [thing] proves that it was faked" is less likely than "I don't understand how they did [thing]," but you're not getting that. Unlike you, I won't ascribe that to any cognitive malfunction. Frankly, I just don't think you want to admit you're wrong.
Oh yes. The difference is that I read it and understood it. You did not because as established up thread, you have challenges in that arena.Do you ever read the articles or you simply winging your way through this?So now your claim is that some private enterprise is offering moon trips for 2 million.It can't be that expensive if a private enterprise can make an adequate profit by charging two passengers a million each. I told you what it would take to convince me. Are you suffering from a short term memory disorder?Please explain the government financing part of this article: https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html
So if this succeeds, you'll admit that Apollo was real? That you've been mistaken about the radiation issues? That it's hardly a "magic trick" to produce all the other stuff, and that you are incredibly ignorant of the relevant issues to claim it is? That no government in the world has budgeted for a manned lunar mission since Apollo, and that it's the only reason there have been no manned lunar missions?
OK. Maybe that happens on Planet Sausage, but here on Earth not so much. There have been a few "Space Tourists", a very few. They hitched rides on rockets that were going anyway with or without them. On top of that the cost was 20-40 million just to rent a chair.
Once again, your head has married your butt.
Jeez, now I want to do a whole YouTube thing--"Explaining Concepts to My Four-Year-Old." I'm sure Simon can get his head around "calculated risk."
The problem is a bit more complex than demonstrating that values fluctuate around an average
That goes without saying.
The problem is find a window to encompass the duration of a mission that is significantly below average and then repeating such a feat 7 more times. Remember GCR background radiation is only a portion of the overall radiation.
I couldn't leave this one uncommented upon. Your positions is the same as mine. You say it couldn't be faked because I can't imagine how they would fake a whole list of items and I say it must be fake because it cannot be done using the parameters provided. We both take our position on a belief that neither can prove. Well I can prove mine so we are a little alike.So, no one wants to discuss real issues? Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting? I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello. I have better things to do with my time.
I tried. I tried to get you to understand that "I don't know how they faked it, but they must have, because my understanding of [thing] proves that it was faked" is less likely than "I don't understand how they did [thing]," but you're not getting that. Unlike you, I won't ascribe that to any cognitive malfunction. Frankly, I just don't think you want to admit you're wrong.
Jeez, now I want to do a whole YouTube thing--"Explaining Concepts to My Four-Year-Old." I'm sure Simon can get his head around "calculated risk."
I'd watch that!
I had the chance to explain bases to my nephew back when he was five or six, enough where he grasped the joke about there being "10" kinds of of people in the world (those who understand binary and those who don't.)
I can't take the credit, though. Smart kid. He came close to going for maths when he hit University.
Wrong again. We have evidence and you don't. I can certainly "imagine" how it could be faked, but that just gives rise to a plethora of other intractable problems for the hoax proponents. For example, one cannot fake the transmissions from the modules unless one proposes that the "ebil gubmint" can somehow overturn physics.I couldn't leave this one uncommented upon. Your positions is the same as mine. You say it couldn't be faked because I can't imagine how they would fake a whole list of items and I say it must be fake because it cannot be done using the parameters provided. We both take our position on a belief that neither can prove. Well I can prove mine so we are a little alike.So, no one wants to discuss real issues? Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting? I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello. I have better things to do with my time.
I tried. I tried to get you to understand that "I don't know how they faked it, but they must have, because my understanding of [thing] proves that it was faked" is less likely than "I don't understand how they did [thing]," but you're not getting that. Unlike you, I won't ascribe that to any cognitive malfunction. Frankly, I just don't think you want to admit you're wrong.
It should be unless there aren't enough squares with all the other willfully ignorant claims.
The Bingo Card could be the size of a small tennis court. :o
I had the chance to explain bases to my nephew back when he was five or six, enough where he grasped the joke about there being "10" kinds of of people in the world (those who understand binary and those who don't.)
So, no one wants to discuss real issues? Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting? I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello. I have better things to do with my time.
Terminology is not semantics. Using the wrong terms is as fatal to doing the math as getting the exponent wrong. You can't simple interchange "mass" and "weight" or "speed" and "acceleration" and think you are actually getting a result.
Maybe this will solve the issue for all except Abaddon who is mentally challenged.
I wonder will tim grok that one?I had the chance to explain bases to my nephew back when he was five or six, enough where he grasped the joke about there being "10" kinds of of people in the world (those who understand binary and those who don't.)
That's why computer scientists get Christmas and Halloween confused, as OCT31 = DEC25
I have banned you for 5 days for trolling and insults like the one quoted above. Improve your attitude or don't bother coming back.
I wonder will tim grok that one?
I had the chance to explain bases to my nephew back when he was five or six, enough where he grasped the joke about there being "10" kinds of of people in the world (those who understand binary and those who don't.)
That's why computer scientists get Christmas and Halloween confused, as OCT31 = DEC25
As the victim, I took no offence. What matters a slur from any drooling idiot? I was more offended by the insults hurled gillianren's direction.I have banned you for 5 days for trolling and insults like the one quoted above. Improve your attitude or don't bother coming back.
Thanks LO. We've had long discussions on this board about making assumptions about CTs mental health/conditions. I know that I was one that had their wrists slapped over it a few times by other members. I think we have pretty much stopped that between ourselves. Slurs about mental state are unacceptable.
My nephew really loved the idea of "Carry the G," though.
As the victim, I took no offence.
Why am I the only voice of dissention? What do you guys do when I am not here, stroke each others egos and massage each others sensibilities? If this was truly a useful site there would be a healthy discourse but all I here is one voice. What is up with that?
Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data. Is that really not obvious?
...or say the dust is filled with radioactive alpha particles. Who even says that in physics?
It was either you, Zakalwe or nomuse that used that phrase 'words have meanings.' It's really clear that if the claimant cannot access the terminology, then they highly unlikely to proficient in the field.
Sure, it's possible someone could memorize a bunch of jargon and convincingly pull a Jarod with it, but I've never found that convinces anyone other than HR. To use the jargon grammatically and idiomatically you need to have grasped the underlying structure.
I try not to be exclusionary, though. Someone can not know the jargon and still have a good idea.
What they can't do is skimp on the terminology -- if it isn't correct, it isn't exact, and if it isn't exact, then you have no idea what the person is really thinking.
As the victim, I took no offence. What matters a slur from any drooling idiot? I was more offended by the insults hurled gillianren's direction.
Sure, it's possible someone could memorize a bunch of jargon and convincingly pull a Jarod with it, but I've never found that convinces anyone other than HR.
I've been open about my mental health issues for decades now. However, my own particular mental illness is if anything correlated with higher intelligence. I'm used to the insults, and the ones he used aren't even the worst I've heard--they aren't even worse than "hoaxtard," which I cannot even begin to explain how offensive it is. But I prefer discussion, not just bickering.Indeed you have and I thank you for it.
I am sure until I brought the subject up, most of you were unaware that moon dust was a health hazard due to it's radioactive alpha particle content.
My bold. So the moon dust contains alpha particle and the alpha particles are radioactive. Words have meanings, and you don't know what they mean.
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 missionsThis is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.
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 missionsThis is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.
ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question
and tell me it isn't some playbook.
I could write you the script.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 missionsThis is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.
ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question
and tell me it isn't some playbook.
Oh, dear. Oh, dear. Gillianren, tell me if you are seeing the same thing I'm seeing. Do you also get a sense of someone putting on a style of writing which is not natural to them?
This may or may not have been linked but I read it today and a lot of the language and ideas seem like tim'sDude, your link is messed up.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=1444.1665;last_msg=45127
More oddity. Benparry claims to want to address timfinch but not only fails to do so, simply vanishes while tim posts crap over and over. Ben is suddenly uninterested. Why is that?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 missionsThis is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.
ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question
and tell me it isn't some playbook.
Oh, dear. Oh, dear. Gillianren, tell me if you are seeing the same thing I'm seeing. Do you also get a sense of someone putting on a style of writing which is not natural to them?
More oddity. Benparry claims to want to address timfinch but not only fails to do so, simply vanishes while tim posts crap over and over. Ben is suddenly uninterested. Why is that?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 missionsThis is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.
ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question
and tell me it isn't some playbook.
Oh, dear. Oh, dear. Gillianren, tell me if you are seeing the same thing I'm seeing. Do you also get a sense of someone putting on a style of writing which is not natural to them?
This may or may not have been linked but I read it today and a lot of the language and ideas seem like tim'sDude, your link is messed up.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=1444.1665;last_msg=45127
Yeah...the pilot fish routine is really obvious when you see it repeated.
Remember Doctor Socks? His increasingly outrageous disguises, as if the size of the mustache could distract from the unconscious habits of speech?
Speaking of...up to post #172 at CosmoWhatever and apparently the submarine has beached.
Yeah...the pilot fish routine is really obvious when you see it repeated.Remember I called Doctor Socks office?
Remember Doctor Socks? His increasingly outrageous disguises, as if the size of the mustache could distract from the unconscious habits of speech?
Speaking of...up to post #172 at CosmoWhatever and apparently the submarine has beached.
Gosh, no worries. I bork links at a whim.This may or may not have been linked but I read it today and a lot of the language and ideas seem like tim'sDude, your link is messed up.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=1444.1665;last_msg=45127
You are correct, sorry. I fixed the link
http://www.apollophotos.ch/media/6314092c889dd380ffff8266a426365.pdf
Yeah...the pilot fish routine is really obvious when you see it repeated.
Remember Doctor Socks? His increasingly outrageous disguises, as if the size of the mustache could distract from the unconscious habits of speech?
Speaking of...up to post #172 at CosmoWhatever and apparently the submarine has beached.
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 missionsThis is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.
ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question
and tell me it isn't some playbook.
I don't speculate about socks or not. I do note that at least he's stopped claiming that no one other than the US government was capable of tracking the landings; he just ignores the implications that they could entirely.Ooo let's see. The Russians maybe? Jodrell bank perhaps? Larry Baysinger mayhap? Anything from foreign nations to random amateurs. But tim won't read that, will he?
Yup. He liked those as aliases. So much he had a fleet of them.Yeah...the pilot fish routine is really obvious when you see it repeated.
Remember Doctor Socks? His increasingly outrageous disguises, as if the size of the mustache could distract from the unconscious habits of speech?
Speaking of...up to post #172 at CosmoWhatever and apparently the submarine has beached.
As a late comer to ApolloHoax, didn't he have some names of chess masters?
I know timfinch has problems reading them, but I did find this graph (figure Number 2) that conclusively shows the lunar surface dose rate for Apollo 11 to be less than 5cGy/year -
http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf
That means less than 50mGy/year and less than 1mGy/week. This computes to less than .143mGy/day.
So, timfinch, now that you have your requested data, do you concede that your assumptions regarding the dose rates experienced by Apollo 11 were incorrect?
To be fair, I had that in the bag from the outset.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 missionsThis is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.
ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question
and tell me it isn't some playbook.
Holy mother-forking shirtballs...
That's a damn depressing read. Now I want to know what the hell ben/tim/whatever actually gets out of this.
What persuades you that tim/ben/alien orifice will ever acknowledge any error? He/she/it/housecat came close in this very thread but promptly ran away.I know timfinch has problems reading them, but I did find this graph (figure Number 2) that conclusively shows the lunar surface dose rate for Apollo 11 to be less than 5cGy/year -
http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf
That means less than 50mGy/year and less than 1mGy/week. This computes to less than .143mGy/day.
So, timfinch, now that you have your requested data, do you concede that your assumptions regarding the dose rates experienced by Apollo 11 were incorrect?
Dang. 5 days before I get a chance to see timfinch's acknowledgement of the error in his initial complaint.
No one can see it (I hope), but I couldn't even type that and keep a straight face.
I would reply and say how much he reminds me of a particular poster from the past, but that isn't really fair as he is currently barred from response. Better to keep boredom away discussing something else.Fair does not enter the equation. As evidenced in the cosmoquest thread, tim/ben/housecat is a proponent of Sibrel. That makes tim/ben/housecat/it fair game.
Well yes but socks was like 8 years ago wasn't he?Yup. He liked those as aliases. So much he had a fleet of them.Yeah...the pilot fish routine is really obvious when you see it repeated.
Remember Doctor Socks? His increasingly outrageous disguises, as if the size of the mustache could distract from the unconscious habits of speech?
Speaking of...up to post #172 at CosmoWhatever and apparently the submarine has beached.
As a late comer to ApolloHoax, didn't he have some names of chess masters?
BTW you are three years here, hardly a noob.
What persuades you that tim/ben/alien orifice will ever acknowledge any error? He/she/it/housecat came close in this very thread but promptly ran away.I know timfinch has problems reading them, but I did find this graph (figure Number 2) that conclusively shows the lunar surface dose rate for Apollo 11 to be less than 5cGy/year -
http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf
That means less than 50mGy/year and less than 1mGy/week. This computes to less than .143mGy/day.
So, timfinch, now that you have your requested data, do you concede that your assumptions regarding the dose rates experienced by Apollo 11 were incorrect?
Dang. 5 days before I get a chance to see timfinch's acknowledgement of the error in his initial complaint.
No one can see it (I hope), but I couldn't even type that and keep a straight face.
Yeah. we are getting old. Look on the bright side Dr. Socks is dead and we are not. (post cynically coloured by latest wingnut)Well yes but socks was like 8 years ago wasn't he?Yup. He liked those as aliases. So much he had a fleet of them.Yeah...the pilot fish routine is really obvious when you see it repeated.
Remember Doctor Socks? His increasingly outrageous disguises, as if the size of the mustache could distract from the unconscious habits of speech?
Speaking of...up to post #172 at CosmoWhatever and apparently the submarine has beached.
As a late comer to ApolloHoax, didn't he have some names of chess masters?
BTW you are three years here, hardly a noob.
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 missionsThis is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.
ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question
and tell me it isn't some playbook.
Holy mother-forking shirtballs...
That's a damn depressing read. Now I want to know what the hell ben/tim/whatever actually gets out of this.
Wait, you actually provided a documented rebuttal? The kind tim insists has never happened? Heaven forfend! That surely has never happened in this thread before!What persuades you that tim/ben/alien orifice will ever acknowledge any error? He/she/it/housecat came close in this very thread but promptly ran away.I know timfinch has problems reading them, but I did find this graph (figure Number 2) that conclusively shows the lunar surface dose rate for Apollo 11 to be less than 5cGy/year -
http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf
That means less than 50mGy/year and less than 1mGy/week. This computes to less than .143mGy/day.
So, timfinch, now that you have your requested data, do you concede that your assumptions regarding the dose rates experienced by Apollo 11 were incorrect?
Dang. 5 days before I get a chance to see timfinch's acknowledgement of the error in his initial complaint.
No one can see it (I hope), but I couldn't even type that and keep a straight face.
Nothing, hence my laughter while writing that. I can see where I wasn't clear regarding the reason for my laughter (could have been gloating, having anatomical disturbances, etc.). I am sure he will attempt some sort of spin or twist, but the data IS there. And just for further clarity, the line I used for data is described in the reference thus:
"The lens dose behind 0.22 g/cm2 Al is an excellent proxy for the combined dose from the D1-D2 detector [Spence et al., 2010] of the CRaTER instrument. Calculation of the dose is detailed in Appendix A."
I know timfinch has problems reading them, but I did find this graph (figure Number 2) that conclusively shows the lunar surface dose rate for Apollo 11 to be less than 5cGy/year -
http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf
That means less than 50mGy/year and less than 1mGy/week. This computes to less than .143mGy/day.
So, timfinch, now that you have your requested data, do you concede that your assumptions regarding the dose rates experienced by Apollo 11 were incorrect?
Wait, you actually provided a documented rebuttal? The kind tim insists has never happened? Heaven forfend! That surely has never happened in this thread before!
Hahaha, sorry, sometimes I am wordy.Wait, you actually provided a documented rebuttal? The kind tim insists has never happened? Heaven forfend! That surely has never happened in this thread before!"forfend". I actually had to look that one up. Thanks for the vocab lesson! Just one more of the benefits I get from this forum. : )
That's a great find. Good work MBDK. I've skimmed it, but will have a good read tomorrow when I have more time and it's a little less near midnight.
...
Yeah. we are getting old. Look on the bright side Dr. Socks is dead and we are not. (post cynically coloured by latest wingnut)
Oh he died. In real life....
Yeah. we are getting old. Look on the bright side Dr. Socks is dead and we are not. (post cynically coloured by latest wingnut)
I didn't get the memo.
Yep, unknown history to me.Oh he died. In real life....
Yeah. we are getting old. Look on the bright side Dr. Socks is dead and we are not. (post cynically coloured by latest wingnut)
I didn't get the memo.
ETA: His brother took up the clubs of nonsense after him. You missed all that?
Hahaha, sorry, sometimes I am wordy.Wait, you actually provided a documented rebuttal? The kind tim insists has never happened? Heaven forfend! That surely has never happened in this thread before!"forfend". I actually had to look that one up. Thanks for the vocab lesson! Just one more of the benefits I get from this forum. : )
ETA: Gillian is going to kick me.
Thanks, Luke (if I may be so familiar).
It wasn't easy...
and I am sure there is more straightforward info out there, but that's the best I have at this time.
Have a great night, and a better tomorrow!
That's a damn depressing read.
He went under the name "Skinny Splash" as a homage to his brother. He first appeared here...Yep, unknown history to me.Oh he died. In real life....
Yeah. we are getting old. Look on the bright side Dr. Socks is dead and we are not. (post cynically coloured by latest wingnut)
I didn't get the memo.
ETA: His brother took up the clubs of nonsense after him. You missed all that?
I've been reading this thread, following most of it. Is this person one of the usual suspects? Some comments has led me to believe that.
To be clear, I am explicitly calling Tim out as a troll
Weisbecker was as dumb as rocks, so not him (not that this Tim/benparry character is over-endowed with smarts,
Weisbecker was as dumb as rocks, so not him (not that this Tim/benparry character is over-endowed with smarts,
Wait! benparry? Really? benparry doesn't strike me as being a troll or an HB. His posts don't suggest that to me (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=1770)
You don't mean inconceivable (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=224) do you?
Weisbecker was as dumb as rocks, so not him (not that this Tim/benparry character is over-endowed with smarts,
Wait! benparry? Really? benparry doesn't strike me as being a troll or an HB. His posts don't suggest that to me (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=1770)
You don't mean inconceivable (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=224) do you?
Benparry and Timfinch have been playing this same game on Cosmoquest.
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question
They're ether working together or they're the same person.
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 missionsThis is all oddly like your trajectory on cosmoquest. And tim's. Odd that.
ETA: Read this. http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?166821-Moon-Landing-Question
and tell me it isn't some playbook.
cosmoquest is a forum I am also a member of however for anybody who is a member there you will recall the reason why tim stopped debating there is because he was banned.
for a group of people who claim most hoax believers jump to a conclusion quickly you seem to have .....
Thanks for the clarification benparry.
I apologise for any offence. As Jason has said the old "asking for a friend" theme has been used before, as has multiple sock-puppet accounts to either set the stage or support a hoaxie's claims.
If I got the wrong end of the stick then I unreservedly apologise.
Thanks for the clarification benparry.
I apologise for any offence. As Jason has said the old "asking for a friend" theme has been used before, as has multiple sock-puppet accounts to either set the stage or support a hoaxie's claims.
If I got the wrong end of the stick then I unreservedly apologise.
no need to my friend. we are all friends here. i understand the sock puppet issue. i suppose it could be annoying and i suppose for those who have done this a long time quite predictable.
Thanks for the clarification benparry.
I apologise for any offence. As Jason has said the old "asking for a friend" theme has been used before, as has multiple sock-puppet accounts to either set the stage or support a hoaxie's claims.
If I got the wrong end of the stick then I unreservedly apologise.
no need to my friend. we are all friends here. i understand the sock puppet issue. i suppose it could be annoying and i suppose for those who have done this a long time quite predictable.
I have asked before and I'll ask again link the Facebook group you debated with tim
Yes you have indicated that you dropped out of them, but still I would appreciate a link, I searched Facebook last week and could find neither you or tim in discussions.Thanks for the clarification benparry.
I apologise for any offence. As Jason has said the old "asking for a friend" theme has been used before, as has multiple sock-puppet accounts to either set the stage or support a hoaxie's claims.
If I got the wrong end of the stick then I unreservedly apologise.
no need to my friend. we are all friends here. i understand the sock puppet issue. i suppose it could be annoying and i suppose for those who have done this a long time quite predictable.
I have asked before and I'll ask again link the Facebook group you debated with tim
black knight and i'm sure i have given this answer before but i will give it again. i have come out of quite a few groups on facebook including the manned lunar landing hoax. you can see many posts by me on there. however i will for sure ask Tim which one he is a member of and i will link that group. if you like i can link both mine and tims facebook profile here. if you like i can link facebook groups which i have debated in if you like. anything to alay your fears.
Yes you have indicated that you dropped out of them, but still I would appreciate a link, I searched Facebook last week and could find neither you or tim in discussions.Thanks for the clarification benparry.
I apologise for any offence. As Jason has said the old "asking for a friend" theme has been used before, as has multiple sock-puppet accounts to either set the stage or support a hoaxie's claims.
If I got the wrong end of the stick then I unreservedly apologise.
no need to my friend. we are all friends here. i understand the sock puppet issue. i suppose it could be annoying and i suppose for those who have done this a long time quite predictable.
I have asked before and I'll ask again link the Facebook group you debated with tim
black knight and i'm sure i have given this answer before but i will give it again. i have come out of quite a few groups on facebook including the manned lunar landing hoax. you can see many posts by me on there. however i will for sure ask Tim which one he is a member of and i will link that group. if you like i can link both mine and tims facebook profile here. if you like i can link facebook groups which i have debated in if you like. anything to alay your fears.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1075708332491654/
No members of the relevant names.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1075708332491654/
No members of the relevant names.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1075708332491654/
No members of the relevant names.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1075708332491654/
No members of the relevant names.
I guess by posting this, I'm getting involved in the debate. It's not really a debate that I want to be involved in.
I'm really beside myself that we are asking people to prove who they are and offer links to their personal information on FB. Most of us here go by internet names, and I'm guessing that the reason is to afford oneself and families some degree of anonymity.
I went through a time on YT where my personal details were actively sought by Jarrah, Dwayne Damon and others, and it was very uncomfortable. I know of an individual that helps with ALSJ who was dealt with a far harsher hand by Dwayne Damon once that individual's information had become public. I'm not suggesting that anyone here would use personal information for nefarious means, as the individuals here are of good character. However, I do question the precedent we are setting.
I'm going to put forward a scenario here. I played a sophomoric joke on Dwayne and Jarrah once. By chance there was someone of the name M Hunt at a British University that fitted my profile. That lecturer was named and shamed by Jarrah, as he and Dwayne did no understand the joke. Now, say you are correct and that Ben and Tim are the same person, but Tim has played a *clever card* and used to identity of someone on FB for his pilot-fish. How would the real Ben Parry feel if he was caught up in this?
Let's play the cards presented at this forum. If others want to play by dishonest tactics, then let them. We've tried debating the points with whomever timfinch happens to be, and there is a record of his obfuscation here for all to see.
If tim chooses to continue here then thats fine. he has shown me today in messenger (i will happily share if needed) that he has indeed downloaded some crater data so he may choose to share this when his ban has ended.
If tim chooses to continue here then thats fine. he has shown me today in messenger (i will happily share if needed) that he has indeed downloaded some crater data so he may choose to share this when his ban has ended.
That's fine, did he download the fundamentals of scaling graphs while he was at it? I look forward to his return, but I will be appealing to LO if he continues to ignore my posts, particularly as I have new questions to put on the table. You can tell him that.
I was just asking for a link to the FB page since I could not find either name when I searched. I'm attempting to read the discourse that is all, but I understand your reservations.
Ben,
I've been wrong before (as my wife and son will assure you) and I'm sure that I will be wrong in the future. But I'm adult enough to admit it. I apologize for accusing you of skullduggery.
I won't apologize to Tim, though. He's a jerk.
I also believe he is wrong but ...
I also believe he is wrong but ...
Would you suggest that both sides needs to provide evidence for their argument? Those that believe Apollo need to present evidence it occurred, and that evidence is consistent with engineering, scientific and anecdotal record. Those that are sceptical also need to present evidence that shows the record is not consistent with events. Anomalies if you must.
What is you take on this point? My curiosity is whetted by the ellipsis.
I also believe he is wrong but ...
Would you suggest that both sides needs to provide evidence for their argument? Those that believe Apollo need to present evidence it occurred, and that evidence is consistent with engineering, scientific and anecdotal record. Those that are sceptical also need to present evidence that shows the record is not consistent with events. Anomalies if you must.
What is you take on this point? My curiosity is whetted by the ellipsis.
The main reason for my joining the group was to investigate the claims made by HB's. But now and then I find new facts that I was unaware, a new word ellipsis for example.
I am willing to discuss with anyone who is interesting enough to discuss with. If all they do is repeat, I'll turn them off. If they start shouting profanity, I'll turn them off. If they are clearly wrong, I'll keep listening, because that is still interesting. And if they want to play games with their identity I will clap like an adult at a magic show.
That all said...I haven't heard anything of substance from Ben. I don't care if he made nice arguments somewhere else. What can you say to us here? Can you tell us anything you understood and were able to correct from your sparring partner Tim? Perhaps you understand where he went wrong with reading (and naming!) graphs?
I'd actually be really happy if an outsider to the last couple days could go back over the graph discussion and be able to say, "oh, yes, I see now. That's what the difference is." Perhaps even contribute a new way, an analogy that Tim might be able to grasp?
with regard to this comment muse you are clearly incorrect. i havent made any arguments anywhere. i am the student here. i have asked a question. certain people on here have kindly answered that both to me and by engaging Tim. some of those points i understand and some i dont. however i have come to the conclusion that Tims points have been answered. it isnt my fault if he refuses to believe them
I'd actually be really happy if an outsider to the last couple days could go back over the graph discussion and be able to say, "oh, yes, I see now. That's what the difference is." Perhaps even contribute a new way, an analogy that Tim might be able to grasp?
Understood. But as you've noticed, much of the activity here is sidetalk. None of us have to play the Devil's Advocate in order to dissect and then go beyond Tim's claims. Much of the time, what the HB brings to the table is only a jumping-off point for us to learn from each other (and to have the excuse to hit the books ourselves.)
We are here. Tim's claims are still sitting on the table. What do YOU have to say in response to them?
Tim is a gentleman [..]I think you are mistaken there.
I'd actually be really happy if an outsider to the last couple days could go back over the graph discussion and be able to say, "oh, yes, I see now. That's what the difference is." Perhaps even contribute a new way, an analogy that Tim might be able to grasp?
I agree that maybe someone else could provide a new analogy, but what is an analogy when we are dealing with matter of fact maths skills? You're a good reasoned sort nomuse, did we not do well at explaining the graph to Tim? What could we do to improve?
Most involved in that protracted discussion tried various ways. I would suggest that the overwhelming evidence that everyone in the forum said it was a log graph.
In some ways it's all academic anyway, as the data tells the story. In some ways it isn't as if we present another graph using the same scale, it seems a pointlessness exercise when the target audience cannot read the graph. We're damned either way.
Those that believe Apollo need to present evidence it occurred, and that evidence is consistent with engineering, scientific and anecdotal record.
I am with you, in that my main argument on the graph was against using a graph. Why look at pretty pictures when you have numbers? (Unless you are an HB -- they looooove looking at pictures for something they can single out).
I did obliquely by pointing Tim at my website in my sig.
I am with you, in that my main argument on the graph was against using a graph. Why look at pretty pictures when you have numbers? (Unless you are an HB -- they looooove looking at pictures for something they can single out).
Even then, if we had CRaTER data for July 1969, the dosimeter results from the astronauts would not align. The detectors on CRaTER would be different to the dosimeters for many reasons. It's a ludicrous exercise. About all one can say it that the CRaTER data is actually ball park with the Apollo missions. Go figure, what could that actually mean?
The CRaTER and SOHO data are pointers that refute Ralph Rene's argument that cisluanr space if a raging inferno or radiation where the the astronauts receive hundreds of rem outside the VABs. The CRaTER data neatly shows the the frequency of SPE events. It's a great tool from that point of view.
of course i agree. i cannot just say its true without research. i myself used to believe they were fake. i watched the FOX TV show. i decided to google 'did we land on the moon' one day and found Bobs site. after reading through this site and looking at a few others i was happy with what i saw and what was explained in a very simple manner. also on the other hand i have yet to come across an argument which i couldnt find an answer for. until i met tim and his radiation issue. this is when i joined cosmoquest and eventually this one. through my interactions on FB groups i occasionally come across items i cannot fully explain and i have asked some of those questions in other threads on here.
Luke
I don't think this is exactly correct, LRO was launched on June 18 2009 on a four day mission to the Moon. That would put it in orbit on the 22nd 2009. The data in the file linked started on the 26th 2009, so no cislunar data is recorded in this file, although it ay have been saved in a different file. I didn't think to look up the launch date and the corresponding trip out bound.
Luke
I don't think this is exactly correct, LRO was launched on June 18 2009 on a four day mission to the Moon. That would put it in orbit on the 22nd 2009. The data in the file linked started on the 26th 2009, so no cislunar data is recorded in this file, although it ay have been saved in a different file. I didn't think to look up the launch date and the corresponding trip out bound.
I wasn't being very clear. Even if we had CRaTER-like data. Yes, I am aware that there is no CRaTER data for 1969, but if we could imagined that data was available, you could not compare it to the dosimeters directly. There would alway be differences.
Yes, the dosimeters were a total mission received, then divided by the mission length gives one the average of .24 as represented in to Apollo radiation tables. The data would give a close approximation of that value, but as all of us have pointed out, the individual data points must be used not a graph.
It's why I like Gillian's approach with her skills in film, history and understanding of psychology, or talking to the engineers here who can tell you that a hoax that size could never be kept quiet.
Thank you kindly. Tim's claim that it must have been figured out how to fake it because the numbers tell him it's wrong is infuriating to me, because he's doing it exactly backward. The obvious answer there, given that the rest of it cannot be faked, is that he doesn't understand the numbers as well as he thinks he does. But he will never admit that, so in his mind, the hoax is the obvious answer.
It's why I like Gillian's approach with her skills in film, history and understanding of psychology, or talking to the engineers here who can tell you that a hoax that size could never be kept quiet.
Thank you kindly. Tim's claim that it must have been figured out how to fake it because the numbers tell him it's wrong is infuriating to me, because he's doing it exactly backward. The obvious answer there, given that the rest of it cannot be faked, is that he doesn't understand the numbers as well as he thinks he does. But he will never admit that, so in his mind, the hoax is the obvious answer.
I lean toward that assessment, as he has been shown points that invalidate his belief and he won't accept and move on as he puts it.
Well, do you still kick your dog?It is merely a thing of curiosity.
Then it won't matter if no one answers you.QuoteIs there harm in asking?
All the other conspiracy theorists who come here and ask the same question have had one of a small number of ulterior motives in asking it. So you tell me what harm you might intend by asking it.
My, my, we are defensive. I am in the far corner of the country and I am old and harmless. I am a threat to a beer bottle but that is the extent of it. I am just trying to get a feel for the nature of the group. So tell me. What conspiracy do you fancy?
I'd actually be really happy if an outsider to the last couple days could go back over the graph discussion and be able to say, "oh, yes, I see now. That's what the difference is." Perhaps even contribute a new way, an analogy that Tim might be able to grasp?
here is a link to the group https://www.facebook.com/groups/1090895674258943/about/
...but if the major intervals were equally spaced, why would that not also apply to the minor intervals?
(I hope this makes sense)
here is a link to the group https://www.facebook.com/groups/1090895674258943/about/
Well, I found both of you in the thread, but didn't find any interaction between you guys.
However all of tim's post that I did read were more or less a copy of what he posted here.
...but if the major intervals were equally spaced, why would that not also apply to the minor intervals?
(I hope this makes sense)
I hope my answer makes sense. Take the minor intervals between 10 and 100. They correspond to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90.
Now take Log 10 = 1
Now take Log 100 = 2
I can say that 10 is places on square 1, which is labelled 101. 100 is placed on square 2 which is labelled 102. So how do I place minor unit on the square to scale 20, 30... etc?
So I have to scale my minor units as a log function spaced in between the two major scales that represent 10 and 100 which are equidistant on paper. So how do I space the multiples the units of 10 between 10 and 100.
Log 20 = 1.30
Log 30 = 1.48
Log 40 = 1.60
Log 50 = 1.70
Log 60 = 1.78
Log 70 = 1.85
Log 80 = 1.90
Log 90 = 1.95
As you can see, 20 is scaled at 1.3 squares, and 30 is almost half way between 10 and 100 at 1.48 squares. The lines then get closer for each increment of 10. Logs are not linear, therefore, if you distribute 10n linearly, the numbers in between are not.
Just my two cents.
Just my two cents.
A valuable 2 cents. I don't find a log scale terribly intuitive immediately and I have to sit and ponder, but that's the nature of reading graphs. They are meant to make one think, as all they present are a visual of the data. I actually prefer them with the minor division as it helps me determine the numbers. To a lay person I can see why they are confusing.
I heavily edited my last post while you were replying, so it reads differently. I read it a few times and thought my explanation was still not clear.
So my point is, that the lines, that divide the units on the y-axis in the CRaTER "graph" (for short) in smaller increments, are not helpfull. They are meaningless and confusing as the y-axis is logarithmic. So why are they there?
That was my gut feeling....Tim was looking at a line around 2 and reading it as if it were 5.
You are correct and I apologize for not having paid adequate attention to what you wrote in the post you mention, although I remember the picture, which I never bothered to click. On the other hand it justifies, that my employer as of today has granted me free glasses for screen work 8)So my point is, that the lines, that divide the units on the y-axis in the CRaTER "graph" (for short) in smaller increments, are not helpfull. They are meaningless and confusing as the y-axis is logarithmic. So why are they there?
As I tried to get Tim to understand, they are actually not there, at least not as increments on the y-axis.
And then this is "radiation" arriving at detectors. A human astronaut is inside a spacecraft. Not only does a human have different quality factors for each potential ionizing threat, each is ameliorated differently. You can't just wave vaguely at bremsstrahlung and thus just add all your particles together, regardless of energies, to get one simplified picture.
But you know what's really funny? After all of that....he comes in within a power of two of what was actually recorded. His error bars are a magnitude above that. Some of us are happy enough with the results of a Fermi Estimation (his favorite song from an American musical? 100 trombones!)
When you do a napkin sketch and it is in the ballpark of the real-world numbers, you pat yourself on the back. You don't run to the highest steps and start shouting "NASA is wrong I just proved it!"
Would it be correct to say that the ten equally space minor divisions between 100 and 101 would be 10n where n= a decimal fraction of 1
so
100 = 1 (major division)
100.1 = 1.259
100.2 = 1.585
100.3 = 1.995
100.4 = 2.512
100.5 = 3.162
100.6 = 3.981
100.7 = 5.011
100.8 = 6.310
100.9 = 7.943
101 = 10 (major division)
Would it be correct to say that the ten equally space minor divisions between 100 and 101 would be 10n where n= a decimal fraction of 1
so
100 = 1 (major division)
100.1 = 1.259
100.2 = 1.585
100.3 = 1.995
100.4 = 2.512
100.5 = 3.162
100.6 = 3.981
100.7 = 5.011
100.8 = 6.310
100.9 = 7.943
101 = 10 (major division)
If Tim tried to put a sine wave on his weird hybrid graph it would get all bumpy.
In any case, nobody makes a graph that changes shape depending on the scale you look at it. I'd be tempted to say that's the basic nature of a graph; that it is fractal. As in, theoretically (if the plotted data were actually to that many significant figures) you could zoom in infinitely and the curve would still be the same.
The only way to scale a graph this way would be to have infinite minor scales so you ensure the scale is bespoke for the data set.
This is what working with an exponential arithmetic scale using log data would be like.Now that is kool. 😀
I eluded to this point a few posts ago....
as you elude to in you post...
Only in the event of an SPE do the levels spike.
Sorry to nitpick, but you allude to something. To elude means to escape from something.
All of this is before you account for the different shielding properties of their spacecraft versus the detectors used to gather these data.
I screw up choosing its or it's far too often.
I screw up choosing its or it's far too often.
... and of course, with warning,
they could turn the spacecraft around so the CSM faces the incoming proton flux and offers increased shielding; eluding some components of the SPE flux. As alluded to in many discussions on this topic at fora and accounts in the literature. There is no eluding this issue, SPEs are the main danger.
And this is where understanding the scale and the numbers on the axis comes into play. On the log scale the CraTer data appears to be full of big, dangerous-looking spikes. However, only four of them get above 10cGy/day (0.1Gy/day) and only two exceed 100cGy/day (1Gy/day). If big, life-threatening spikes are what you're interested in then a linear plot is actually more clear visually. To put that in context a quick Google search (not the most academic of methods but gives an idea) for radiation effects in humans suggests 0.3Gy makes you ill, 1-4gy makes you very ill but you can be saved with medical intervention, 4-8Gy makes you extremely ill and might kill you within weeks of exposure even if you do get treatment. 8-30Gy makes you acutely ill and kills you within days of exposure and over 30Gy is certain death within two days. So put like that it is clear that over the entire cycle only a very small number of occasions occurred that would present even significant threats to the health of any astronauts on a two-week flight, Only two that present threat to life during the mission, and that's only because any radiation sickness would likely impair their ability to operate the spacecraft to return safely to Earth where they could be treated for it. All of this is before you account for the different shielding properties of their spacecraft versus the detectors used to gather these data.
This is what working with an exponential arithmetic scale using log data would be like.Wow! Now that is complex!! ;D <pun intended>
But then we have still have the issue of the glass windows in the LEM and the CM and not to mention the helmets. Sure they can handle the heat of reentry but no Nasa documentation on radiation protection and micrometeoroids. The space shuttle's fused silicon GLASS which was in low Earth orbit had a record average replacement of 1 window replacement every 10.8 days in orbit. The higher the altitude the mean impact rate increased. Shielding is required over 124.34 miles altitude and more research is needed for better shielding over 330 miles altitude. This is basically the same fused silicon glass the Soyuz and the new Orion will be using. Ironically there is no mention of Apollo/Gemini radiation protection of high temp quartz GLASS. The Boeing x-37 shuttle is doing the preliminary testing of crafts with no windows and HUD with cameras and screens and advanced electronics capable of traveling in the Van Allen Belts. To go the moon and deep space it is known that windows have to go. Glass is like having an open window in space to radiation. 3oh.e
To go the moon and deep space it is known that windows have to go. Glass is like having an open window in space to radiation.
But then we have still have the issue of the glass windows in the LEM and the CM and not to mention the helmets.
no Nasa documentation on radiation protection and micrometeoroids
Glass is like having an open window in space to radiation.
I suspect strongly there are MORE impacts in LEO, not fewer.
You are fortunate. Sure, I can buy that the photo nonsense has the appearance of some traction, but upon examination, it does not.of course i agree. i cannot just say its true without research. i myself used to believe they were fake. i watched the FOX TV show. i decided to google 'did we land on the moon' one day and found Bobs site. after reading through this site and looking at a few others i was happy with what i saw and what was explained in a very simple manner. also on the other hand i have yet to come across an argument which i couldnt find an answer for. until i met tim and his radiation issue. this is when i joined cosmoquest and eventually this one. through my interactions on FB groups i occasionally come across items i cannot fully explain and i have asked some of those questions in other threads on here.
Thing is, ballpark shows you the task is achievable. Even error-ridden approximations like we've been throwing around in this thread are enough to zero in to a magnitude or two; enough to where you know you aren't going to need that "six feet of lead" some people claim.
If one single fact can be shown not to fit the prosecutors case, there can be argued for "resonable doubt" - and the defendant must be acquitted.
I was a Security Policeman (7th Security Police Squadron) at Carswell AFB (now Naval JRB) when that happened (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carswell_Air_Force_Base). Our Readiness Exercise was cancelled in preparation for receiving any survivors at the base hospital. We didn't receive any that I recall; the local hospitals in and around DFW were sufficient to handle them.The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years....
Well, microbursts were not identified as an aviation hazard until the mid 70's. All those decades before that with people flying about close to airports putting themselves at risk not knowing about the potential for disaster.
Ah yes I remember AA flight 181 2 Aug 85 near DFW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_191
Also, I believe it was Flight 191 ...The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years....
Well, microbursts were not identified as an aviation hazard until the mid 70's. All those decades before that with people flying about close to airports putting themselves at risk not knowing about the potential for disaster.
Ah yes I remember AA flight 181 2 Aug 85 near DFW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_191
Also, I believe it was Flight 191 ...The thing that gets me about moon mission are the unknowns that have come to light over the years....
Well, microbursts were not identified as an aviation hazard until the mid 70's. All those decades before that with people flying about close to airports putting themselves at risk not knowing about the potential for disaster.
Ah yes I remember AA flight 181 2 Aug 85 near DFW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_191
I can see I was sorely missed. Providence has smiled on you all for I am back. If you are not aware Cosmoquest booted me the first day. It seems they have a policy against proving the Moon Landings were a hoax. Who knew? I also noticed there was movement on the Logarithmic graph and now we all see the purpose and need for the logarithmic minor graduations. This is good news because we we all have to decipher the data from logarithmic graphs moving forward if we are to keep up. Check out the Cosmoquest debacle and tell me what you think. They not only booted me, they closed the thread. What's up with that?No you were suspended for arguing with the mods
One last graph before I go to bed. This is a very interesting one. It plots GCR with SPE ans Solar activity. It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.
Exploration missions near solar maximum may be preferable in order to limit the galactic cosmic ray
radiation hazard
I didn't so much as argue with the moderator as I refused to agree with his Nazi -like attempts to administer the thread that I created. There ploy is to distract and obfuscate with inane questions and ploys to distract. When I refused to engage the attempts they ran me out on the rail.
I am at a loss to understand what does it matter how long one must be in space to reach his limit. I have never claimed space exploration was impossible. I simply claim that it cost more than we claimed we spent. It is simple and you can not obscure the simple fact. Background radiation is too high to to make a lunar transit and not have gotten more than .22 mgy/day. It didn't happen, it can't happen and therefore the moon hoax is proven. I believe the Mars planners believe a six month trip will cost 66 msv for the effort so you can spend longer than six months if you are into Russian Roulette and one to take your chances with SPE's.
Some of you thought that because you saw prolonged stretches of data below the Apollo threshold that a transit was possible. You would need a stretch of over 240 consecutive measurements to equal a 10 day mission.
I also noticed there was movement on the Logarithmic graph and now we all see the purpose and need for the logarithmic minor graduations.
This is good news because we we all have to decipher the data from logarithmic graphs moving forward if we are to keep up.
One last graph before I go to bed. This is a very interesting one. It plots GCR with SPE ans Solar activity. It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.
I really don't think you guys are looking at background radiation correctly. It appears to me that you believe that because GCR is reduced by Solar Activity then a corresponding reduction in background radiation occurs.
I would point out the cause of GCR reduction is the presence of Solar radiation. Solar radiation is not the same radiation as GCR but it is nevertheless radiation. It is the reason the average background radiation is so high. It is logical to assume that background radiation increases in relation to solar activity
meaning that because Apollo 11 ventured out during solar peak it would have experienced ad inordinately high background radiation.
It would be easier to convince me of the moon landing than it would be to convince me these forums are not some government front designed to intercept and prevent the widespread distribution of truth.
I really don't think you guys are looking at background radiation correctly. It appears to me that you believe that because GCR is reduced by Solar Activity then a corresponding reduction in background radiation occurs. I would point out the cause of GCR reduction is the presence of Solar radiation. Solar radiation is not the same radiation as GCR but it is nevertheless radiation. It is the reason the average background radiation is so high. It is logical to assume that background radiation increases in relation to solar activity meaning that because Apollo 11 ventured out during solar peak it would have experienced ad inordinately high background radiation.
One last graph before I go to bed. This is a very interesting one. It plots GCR with SPE ans Solar activity. It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.
I didn't so much as argue with the moderator as I refused to agree with his Nazi -like attempts to administer the thread that I created. There ploy is to distract and obfuscate with inane questions and ploys to distract. When I refused to engage the attempts they ran me out on the rail.
That YOU created? I thought the OP was benparry?
One last graph before I go to bed. This is a very interesting one. It plots GCR with SPE ans Solar activity. It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.
Pretty much the opposite.
Here's your source:
https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/&httpsredir=1&article=1311&context=physics_facpubQuoteExploration missions near solar maximum may be preferable in order to limit the galactic cosmic ray
radiation hazard
How many days in space would it take in space before an astronaut exceeded modern limits on dosage?
A lunar transit requires transiting 4 radiation areas' The order of magnitude is as follows:
1. The LEO is the lowest
2. Cislunar space is the second lowest
3. Lunar orbit and the lunar surface are the third highest
4. finally, the Van Allen Belts are by far the highest.
I reject these calculations in their entirety. They are a poorly masqueraded attempt to distract. Table 2 of that article list the transit times as follows: Outbound VARB Transit =214 minutes & Inbound VARB Transit =140 minutes. Realizing the VAB span some 37 thousands miles it can be seen in Apollo 11 logs the rate of deceleration was such that the Apollo craft transited the VAB at an average speed of less than 8684 mph. It is not possible that they spent less than 4.5 hours transiting the VAB. Braeuning states that the entire VAB exposursure was from high energy protons and that there was no electron contribution to radiation exposure. Which is ridiculous at any level of consideration. I reject this article as a poor attempt at misdirection.
I can see I was sorely missed. Providence has smiled on you all for I am back.
If you are not aware Cosmoquest booted me the first day.
It seems they have a policy against proving the Moon Landings were a hoax. Who knew?
I also noticed there was movement on the logarithmic graph and now we all see the purpose and need for the logarithmic minor graduations.
This is good news because we we all have to decipher the data from logarithmic graphs moving forward if we are to keep up.
Check out the Cosmoquest debacle and tell me what you think. They not only booted me, they closed the thread. What's up with that?
Already did, and saw the same pompous, self-aggrandising, pseudo-scientific drivel posted there as you have posted here. You got booted as you didn't answer the questions. LO has much more patience, but then I'm guessing that CQ has a broader remit and broader topic audience, so quickly brings down the hammer as they don't waster time with the hoax nonsense. This forum is dedicated to ApolloHoax.Cosmoquest (full disclosure - I'm also a member there) has a strict set of rules for people posting in their conspiracy and "against the mainstream" forums, including politeness (on both sides) presenting evidence or claims in a suitable form, and answering relevant questions properly and in a timely manner.
I was referring to my unpleasant experience at the Nazi compound called Cosmoquest.I didn't so much as argue with the moderator as I refused to agree with his Nazi -like attempts to administer the thread that I created. There ploy is to distract and obfuscate with inane questions and ploys to distract. When I refused to engage the attempts they ran me out on the rail.
That YOU created? I thought the OP was benparry?
I pin my hopes on no such thing. Everything NASA claims that man accomplished on the moon can be and has been accomplished on unmanned lunar missions. You saw the magic trick and now you believe in magic? There is absolutely no way to make a lunar transit without a magnitude greater mission dose than the Apollo missions reported. This is the claim I am willing to defend.I am at a loss to understand what does it matter how long one must be in space to reach his limit. I have never claimed space exploration was impossible. I simply claim that it cost more than we claimed we spent. It is simple and you can not obscure the simple fact. Background radiation is too high to to make a lunar transit and not have gotten more than .22 mgy/day. It didn't happen, it can't happen and therefore the moon hoax is proven. I believe the Mars planners believe a six month trip will cost 66 msv for the effort so you can spend longer than six months if you are into Russian Roulette and one to take your chances with SPE's.
And everyone else is at a loss as to how you can continually misinterpret the information you are trying to provide as a support for your argument. You have supplied no information that contradicts the figures recorded by Apollo, however many times you claim it does. Radiation levels recorded by Apollo are an irrelevant sideshow, there are much simpler proofs that require far more complex explanations to dismiss.
You are pinning your hopes on an instrument in lunar orbit that has repeatedly photographed evidence of human activity that is completely in accordance with both the historical record and the observations of other spacecraft.
I am sure I made the distinction between radiation types but I won't belabor the point. My claim is and has always been that the baseline for lunar transit radiation dosage has to be GCR. No mission can have a mission dosage less than GCR. I have yet to take into account the transit through the VAB on lunar orbit or actual lunar landing all of which are a higher radiation area. If we can't demonstrate the apollo's mission dose was not at least as high as cislunar space radiation then what hope have we of proving they did any of it?I really don't think you guys are looking at background radiation correctly. It appears to me that you believe that because GCR is reduced by Solar Activity then a corresponding reduction in background radiation occurs.
Shifting goalposts noted again. Your argument was that the GCR produced a constant background radiation level that must be a minimum for all missions beyond LEO. Now confronted with the fact that available data do not support that position, you try and weasel out of it. It was you who focused this discussionon the GCR, and it was that we discussed.QuoteI would point out the cause of GCR reduction is the presence of Solar radiation. Solar radiation is not the same radiation as GCR but it is nevertheless radiation. It is the reason the average background radiation is so high. It is logical to assume that background radiation increases in relation to solar activity
What are the types and energy levels of solar radiation versus GCR? Yet again you still fall back on 'radiation is radiation'.
GCR flux is modulated by solar radiation because solar radiation affects the density of matter in the solar system, over several trillion cubic kilometres. It essentially adds to the matter present in space. When you look at a volume of space the size of a solar system particle densities which we would define as a vacuum make a huge difference over those scales. For any given GCR particle there is more matter in the way as it passes through the solar system during high solar activity than during low. Effectively it's a better, denser shield.
But, and here's the kicker, that shield can be made up of particles a lot less energetic and penetrating than the GCR. Higher solar radiation does not mean the radiaton levels overall balance out, or that this radiation is as dangerous as CGR flux. Type, energy, flux density, all terms critical yet all terms you instst on ignoring in favour of 'radiaiton' as some catch-all.Quotemeaning that because Apollo 11 ventured out during solar peak it would have experienced ad inordinately high background radiation.
No, because radiation is not the same as radiation. Differences exist, and you are not accounting for them.
All I know is every attempt to get the information I have discerned out is resisted. My voice is silenced for unfounded an unjust reasons. The universal claim "He was trolling" seems to be the excuse de Jour. If disagreeing with the mainstream herd is trolling then I will always be guilty of that crime.It would be easier to convince me of the moon landing than it would be to convince me these forums are not some government front designed to intercept and prevent the widespread distribution of truth.
Predictable as ever. Tell me, which government do you think is operating this board, and why do you think that has anything to do with me?
Also, perhaps you can explain how allowing your posts to be made at all on a website that can be read by anyone constitutes intercepting and preventing a spread of information?
You remind me of Bill Kaysing, who repeatedly insisted the government was controlling the mass media to silence anyone who claimed the moon landings were faked. A claim he repeatedly made using the mass media. He also freely published his address and contact details. He died of natural causes after literally decades of spouting his stuff about how he was being silenced by the media he was using to claim he was being silenced...
I really don't think you guys are looking at background radiation correctly. It appears to me that you believe that because GCR is reduced by Solar Activity then a corresponding reduction in background radiation occurs. I would point out the cause of GCR reduction is the presence of Solar radiation. Solar radiation is not the same radiation as GCR but it is nevertheless radiation. It is the reason the average background radiation is so high. It is logical to assume that background radiation increases in relation to solar activity meaning that because Apollo 11 ventured out during solar peak it would have experienced ad inordinately high background radiation.
Jason has addressed this point, but I will add. The data you brought to the forum shows you are wrong on this point. The CRaTER data clearly illustrates a modulated background radiation punctuated by SPEs. The modulation of the background radiation is such that it has a minimum at solar maximum. The very fact that the SPEs are recorded informs us that the detectors recording the data do not discriminate between the outward flux of particle radiation from the Sun, and the incoming GCR radiation. They record all background radiation levels, including particle radiation that is responsible for the modulation of the GCR, the solar wind. The radiation that you suggest raises the background considerably.
The modulation of GCR is predominately due to the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) produced by the solar wind. This was suggested as early as 1962 (Ahluwalia and Dessler, 1962) whereby it was proposed that electric drift in the solar wind leads to convective removal of GCR from the inner heliosphere, modulating the CGR flux.
At solar maximum the solar wind *increases*, and it produces several mechanisms that perturb the IMF. The solar wind produces tangled magnetic fields that stretch out into space through the slow solar wind, the high speed solar wind speed, interplanetary manifestations of coronal transients and shocks.
The interplanetary manifestations of coronal transients form a diffusion region, the heliocentric barrier, further out in the heliosphere. This is knows as the global merged interaction region after Burlaga et al. (1993), which reduced the GCR intensity at Earth's orbit. We are familiar with this idea, and it has been shown from the data presented in this thread.
Now, if one examines the solar wind, the increase in radiation that you suggest raises the background considerably has thermal energies (a few eV - 10 keV). This radiation presents a negligible radiation hazard to an astronaut in a space ship. In fact, the solar wind is readily absorbed by the layers of a space suit, so present negligible radiation hazard to an astronaut on EVA.
So, once again, you have hand waved you way into showing you ignorance of pertinent facts and lack all understanding of the different components of particle fluxes that exist in the solar system.
If your memory served you better you'd remember that I openly acknowledged it was not an apples and apples and comparison. I wanted to use the stated GCR range of NASA which was 2.4 mgy/day to 6. mgy/day as the basis of my position. I asked if anyone hand any information to the contrary and then I would use it instead. There are no herrings red or otherwise in the soup of denial. It was subtle but it obviously went under your radar. You claimed the graph refuted my position. Look again mon ami. What does it show as GCR levels for 1969 through 1974? Touche! Your serve.One last graph before I go to bed. This is a very interesting one. It plots GCR with SPE ans Solar activity. It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.
I'm glad to see you have plotted the CRaTER data, and are now over you issue with reading log graphs properly. That's a move forward on your part.
As for your last pre-bedtime graph. It tells you what we have telling you all along. The GCR flux would have been lower on cycle 20 due to that cycle having an increased activity over cycle 24. Therefore, the CRaTER data that falls below your threshold for long periods of time would have been even lower in 1969.
It also informs us that the lunar surface dose that you propose was prohibitively high, does not manifest itself as you claim. Isn't it a little bit of a pain when you post sources that refute your own claims?
However, the CRaTER data is a red herring that you have created. It was taken in cycle 24. What don't you understand about this point, or do you think we have simply forgotten in the space of 5 days while you were serving a ban for being rude to forum members?
Consider this graph if you will. Is is the same graph that performing a median of the data would provide. All the data is lined up numerically from high to low. If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat with a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component. The curve is not flat. That suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation. It is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.
tim we were in the middle of a discussion concerning the amount of radiation received by the Apollo crews.
In post 3 and again in post 17 you stated:QuoteA lunar transit requires transiting 4 radiation areas' The order of magnitude is as follows:
1. The LEO is the lowest
2. Cislunar space is the second lowest
3. Lunar orbit and the lunar surface are the third highest
4. finally, the Van Allen Belts are by far the highest.
After posting Bob Braeunig's calculation of radiation received during transit through the VARB
https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
Your comment was:QuoteI reject these calculations in their entirety. They are a poorly masqueraded attempt to distract. Table 2 of that article list the transit times as follows: Outbound VARB Transit =214 minutes & Inbound VARB Transit =140 minutes. Realizing the VAB span some 37 thousands miles it can be seen in Apollo 11 logs the rate of deceleration was such that the Apollo craft transited the VAB at an average speed of less than 8684 mph. It is not possible that they spent less than 4.5 hours transiting the VAB. Braeuning states that the entire VAB exposursure was from high energy protons and that there was no electron contribution to radiation exposure. Which is ridiculous at any level of consideration. I reject this article as a poor attempt at misdirection.
You have been repeatedly show that the trajectory through the VARB was not through the entire width of the belts but traversed through less dense parts of the torus shaped VARB as show in this video linked several times in this thread.
Now you as can clearly visualize the Apollo CSM transited the portion of the VARB in about 2 hours as Bob indicated, not the 4.5 hours you guess.
Bob included the electron radiation, you just need to re-read and understand what Bob has calculated. Electron part was included about half way down on the page.
In summary to this long post:
The radiation received was not great through the VARB.
The transit time through the VARB was about two hours.
You are incorrect concerning the radiation received through the VARB, or the trajectory of Apollo and the corresponding time in the VARB.
You just don't get it do you? I remind you that each individual snapshot is approximately 1/24 of a days exposure. Yes that is right they are not a days average. Now having said that I also remind you that the D1 & D2 dose meter readings are uncorrected and should be multiplied by 1.3 to obtain the actual value. How do you like me now?Consider this graph if you will. Is is the same graph that performing a median of the data would provide. All the data is lined up numerically from high to low. If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat with a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component. The curve is not flat. That suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation. It is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.
My bold in your quote, as I want to address that point.
1) The curve won't be flat if the GCR is strongly modulated, will it? The background GCR flux is modulated, so it rises,
won't it?.
2) The peak at the end is due to SPE radiation events skewing the data. The SPE event contribute the most by
magnitude, but temporally the background radiation is predominantly due to GCR.
Your attempts at analysis to step around the issue are quite unremarkable in that you are simply presenting the data in a different way and it tells the same story. You r new graph clearly show there are periods of time where the level is below the threshold, the rise GCR rises for less active parts of the solar, and is skewed for sharp peaks due to SPE events. Remember, this was your initial premise. I being deliberately tautological here.
There are prolonged periods where the GCR flux is below the threshold you stated, in every graph you have presented. That was your initial argument, but in any case you can dismiss the CRaTER data. Please refrain from discussing it again as it does not apply to the solar cycle 20.
If your memory served you better you'd remember that I openly acknowledged it was not an apples and apples and comparison. I wanted to use the stated GCR range of NASA which was 2.4 mgy/day to 6. mgy/day as the basis of my position.
I asked if anyone hand any information to the contrary and then I would use it instead.
It was subtle but it obviously went under your radar.
Touche! Your serve.
Now having said that I also remind you that the D1 & D2 dose meter readings are uncorrected and should be multiplied by 1.3 to obtain the actual value
How do you like me now?
Now having said that I also remind you that the D1 & D2 dose meter readings are uncorrected and should be multiplied by 1.3 to obtain the actual value
Where does the 1.3 come from please?QuoteHow do you like me now?
I'm ambivalent.
tim we were in the middle of a discussion concerning the amount of radiation received by the Apollo crews.
In post 3 and again in post 17 you stated:QuoteA lunar transit requires transiting 4 radiation areas' The order of magnitude is as follows:
1. The LEO is the lowest
2. Cislunar space is the second lowest
3. Lunar orbit and the lunar surface are the third highest
4. finally, the Van Allen Belts are by far the highest.
After posting Bob Braeunig's calculation of radiation received during transit through the VARB
https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
Your comment was:QuoteI reject these calculations in their entirety. They are a poorly masqueraded attempt to distract. Table 2 of that article list the transit times as follows: Outbound VARB Transit =214 minutes & Inbound VARB Transit =140 minutes. Realizing the VAB span some 37 thousands miles it can be seen in Apollo 11 logs the rate of deceleration was such that the Apollo craft transited the VAB at an average speed of less than 8684 mph. It is not possible that they spent less than 4.5 hours transiting the VAB. Braeuning states that the entire VAB exposursure was from high energy protons and that there was no electron contribution to radiation exposure. Which is ridiculous at any level of consideration. I reject this article as a poor attempt at misdirection.
You have been repeatedly show that the trajectory through the VARB was not through the entire width of the belts but traversed through less dense parts of the torus shaped VARB as show in this video linked several times in this thread.
Now you as can clearly visualize the Apollo CSM transited the portion of the VARB in about 2 hours as Bob indicated, not the 4.5 hours you guess.
Bob included the electron radiation, you just need to re-read and understand what Bob has calculated. Electron part was included about half way down on the page.
In summary to this long post:
The radiation received was not great through the VARB.
The transit time through the VARB was about two hours.
You are incorrect concerning the radiation received through the VARB, or the trajectory of Apollo and the corresponding time in the VARB.
Show me on this graph were the bad man hurt you. Pick your color and we will use it in the calculation of a VAB transit. I assure you that you will not like your color.
Luke, you don't like my graphs and numbers but I am willing to use your numbers to prove my point. You see there exist no realistic numbers than can validate the apollo lunar transit. None! Not old data and not new. Let's try anyway. Tell me what numbers you would use and why and I gladly make the calculations using numbers of your choice.
This also includes the effect of the higher density of silicon, which must be factored out, resulting in a multiplicative factor of 1.33 to be applied to the silicon dose.[/glow] This can be seen from considering the sums over energy depositions, DEi, in the two materials:
My claim is and has always been that the baseline for lunar transit radiation dosage has to be GCR. No mission can have a mission dosage less than GCR.
If we can't demonstrate the apollo's mission dose was not at least as high as cislunar space radiation
then what hope have we of proving they did any of it?
If your memory served you better you'd remember that I openly acknowledged it was not an apples and apples and comparison. I wanted to use the stated GCR range of NASA which was 2.4 mgy/day to 6. mgy/day as the basis of my position.
If your memory served you better, the 'standard' you cite was 0.24 and 0.60 mGy day-1. It's also point out to you that it says nowhere that this is a standard. A standard implies that the figure is broadly used by industry or scientists as a baseline. Only in your head is it a 'standard.' I dismiss any reference to you implying this a standard as it's something you invented in your own mind.QuoteI asked if anyone hand any information to the contrary and then I would use it instead.
If your mathematical skills serve you better, then you'd understand it was an average based on modulated data. The 0.24 mGy day-1 will have be based on values that are higher and lower.QuoteIt was subtle but it obviously went under your radar.
Save the patronising, as your tone is a form of trolling. You've already served a 5 day expulsion for a similar tone.QuoteTouche! Your serve.
Since you place so much reliance on the CRaTER data. Then I take it you won't mind if we put this in the mix then.
http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf
I draw your attention to Figure 2. That put the doses due to GCR well below your arbitrary threshold. And you know the nice thing about it... it's a graph that even you might understand, although I doubt that very much.
You just don't get it do you? I remind you that each individual snapshot is approximately 1/24 of a days exposure. Yes that is right they are not a days average.
not one single pointactually goes over your magic 0.22mGy/day threshold. So you can take a day's average, a ten days' average, or any period average you like over those time scales and the average will not (indeed mathematically cannot) exceed your stated minimum GCR dose.
Luke, you don't like my graphs and numbers but I am willing to use your numbers to prove my point. You see there exist no realistic numbers than can validate the apollo lunar transit. None! Not old data and not new. Let's try anyway. Tell me what numbers you would use and why and I gladly make the calculations using numbers of your choice.This also includes the effect of the higher density of silicon, which must be factored out, resulting in a multiplicative factor of 1.33 to be applied to the silicon dose.[/glow] This can be seen from considering the sums over energy depositions, DEi, in the two materials:
Good, now since you place so much credence on the CRaTER scientists being correct. What did they conclude about the dose in 1969 from their data and models?
http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf
Figure 2 please?
Explain to me how you are interpreting this graph. Are you using the red line or the green. Maybe an average and if you chose one over the other then why. Finally tell me the value you extrapolated from this graph that I might consider properly the ramifications.
I remind you that chasrt not only emcompasses the apollo era it aslo includes the CraTer era as a defacto comparison to the available data on cislunar background radiation.
Explain to me how you are interpreting this graph. Are you using the red line or the green. Maybe an average and if you chose one over the other then why. Finally tell me the value you extrapolated from this graph that I might consider properly the ramifications.
No, you tell me how you interpret it. It's produced by the CRaTER team that you Timothy, hold with so great authority. You tell use how you interpret it, and then answer the question. Does it meet your criteria or not?
LO: I want this moderated if you can spare the time. I want Timothy to interpret the graph, and answer the question I placed in bold.
I suggest no other person here gives the answers. Over to you Timothy. Interpret that graph.
I remind you that chart not only emcompasses the apollo era it aslo includes the CraTer era as a defacto comparison to the available data on cislunar background radiation.
All the data is lined up numerically from high to low. If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat
with a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.
That suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.
It is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.
Whoa, big fellow. You introduced the graph and I asked for your interpretation first. Fair is fair. You brought the witness to the stand then examine the witness that I might consider the testimony.
Is this a seniority thing? I asked the first question and as such I should get the first answer. Let's play fair. What are you afraid of?Whoa, big fellow. You introduced the graph and I asked for your interpretation first. Fair is fair. You brought the witness to the stand then examine the witness that I might consider the testimony.
No, I'm asking you a question. Does the graph confirm your initial hypothesis of threshold, yes or no? The burden of proof is on you. I'm just given you another part of the data.
You can read graphs Timothy?
Appendix B: Calculation of the D1-D2 Dose Rate [54] Many measurements of space radiation have been, and continue to be, made using silicon detectors. In many experiments, the quantities of interest are the fluxes of individual ion species in particular energy bins. Detectors and electronics are optimized accordingly. ACE/CRIS provides a good example of this. In contrast, CRaTER is optimized to measure energy deposition distributions in silicon over a very wide dynamic range. These measurements must E00H13 SCHWADRON ET AL.: LUNAR RADIATION AND SPACE WEATHERING E00H13 10 of 13 be converted to tissue dose. As in analysis done by other groups [e.g., Beaujean et al., 2002] a single scaling factor is used to perform this conversion. [55] In principle, calculation of dose requires knowledge of the charge, mass, and energy of each incident particle in order to calculate its LET in water; the LET values of individual particles are multiplied by path length (detector thickness), summed and divided by the mass. In practice, we do not have this detailed information, so instead we add together all the energy depositions in silicon and divide by the mass to get the dose in silicon. We then need to account for the difference in ionization potentials between silicon and water. The ionization potential appears in the logarithmic term in the Bethe-Bloch equation, and introduces energy dependence when the ratio of dE/dx in two materials is computed. At typical GCR energies of several hundred to a few thousand MeV/nuc, the ratio of dE/dx in the two materials is fairly constant. The lower ionization potential of water compared to silicon results in larger energy depositions per unit mass for a particle with a given charge and velocity. Careful study shows that for the GCR energy range of interest the ratio of dE/dx in silicon to dE/dx in water is about 1.75, an estimate that includes d-ray escape from finite depths of silicon. This also includes the effect of the higher density of silicon, which must be factored out, resulting in a multiplicative factor of 1.33 to be applied to the silicon dose. This can be seen from considering the sums over energy depositions, DEi, in the two materials:
Didn't you get the memo? That is uncorrected data, and to properly evaluate it you should average out daily dose rates making it 1/24 the size it currently is. It really doesn't matter what value you select as a representative dose foe a lunar transit. Any dose at all is too high because of VAB an Lunar radiation but let's play this game anyway. What value would you select as a realistic value for the next lunar mission?All the data is lined up numerically from high to low. If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat
Why? The GCR background is modulated by solar activity and hence is not constant (as is clear from the riginal CraTER graph). If it is not constant the curve cannot be flat.Quotewith a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.
Why? SPEs are not events with certain magnitudes, and their directionality will also affect the amount of radiation reaching the detectors. In fact that kind of continuum is exactly what you would expect from something recording radiation reaching a detector in a particular location when the object emitting the radiation is spherical and blasting it off from various points on its surface.QuoteThat suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.
SPEs are discrete events.QuoteIt is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.
Virtually the whole left side of that curve falls below 0.2mGy/day.
Is this a seniority thing? I asked the first question and as such I should get the first answer. Let's play fair. What are you afraid of?
I confess, There was nothing in the down load that indicated it was not raw data but theoretically I imagine it could have been. What can I tell you?Appendix B: Calculation of the D1-D2 Dose Rate [54] Many measurements of space radiation have been, and continue to be, made using silicon detectors. In many experiments, the quantities of interest are the fluxes of individual ion species in particular energy bins. Detectors and electronics are optimized accordingly. ACE/CRIS provides a good example of this. In contrast, CRaTER is optimized to measure energy deposition distributions in silicon over a very wide dynamic range. These measurements must E00H13 SCHWADRON ET AL.: LUNAR RADIATION AND SPACE WEATHERING E00H13 10 of 13 be converted to tissue dose. As in analysis done by other groups [e.g., Beaujean et al., 2002] a single scaling factor is used to perform this conversion. [55] In principle, calculation of dose requires knowledge of the charge, mass, and energy of each incident particle in order to calculate its LET in water; the LET values of individual particles are multiplied by path length (detector thickness), summed and divided by the mass. In practice, we do not have this detailed information, so instead we add together all the energy depositions in silicon and divide by the mass to get the dose in silicon. We then need to account for the difference in ionization potentials between silicon and water. The ionization potential appears in the logarithmic term in the Bethe-Bloch equation, and introduces energy dependence when the ratio of dE/dx in two materials is computed. At typical GCR energies of several hundred to a few thousand MeV/nuc, the ratio of dE/dx in the two materials is fairly constant. The lower ionization potential of water compared to silicon results in larger energy depositions per unit mass for a particle with a given charge and velocity. Careful study shows that for the GCR energy range of interest the ratio of dE/dx in silicon to dE/dx in water is about 1.75, an estimate that includes d-ray escape from finite depths of silicon. This also includes the effect of the higher density of silicon, which must be factored out, resulting in a multiplicative factor of 1.33 to be applied to the silicon dose. This can be seen from considering the sums over energy depositions, DEi, in the two materials:
Now show that what that statement means is actually that the data presented must be multiplied by 1.3 rather than that this factor has already been included in the data presented.
Didn't you get the memo? That is uncorrected data, and to properly evaluate it you should average out daily dose rates making it 1/24 the size it currently is.All the data is lined up numerically from high to low. If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat
Why? The GCR background is modulated by solar activity and hence is not constant (as is clear from the riginal CraTER graph). If it is not constant the curve cannot be flat.Quotewith a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.
Why? SPEs are not events with certain magnitudes, and their directionality will also affect the amount of radiation reaching the detectors. In fact that kind of continuum is exactly what you would expect from something recording radiation reaching a detector in a particular location when the object emitting the radiation is spherical and blasting it off from various points on its surface.QuoteThat suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.
SPEs are discrete events.QuoteIt is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.
Virtually the whole left side of that curve falls below 0.2mGy/day.
It really doesn't matter what value you select as a representative dose foe a lunar transit.
Any dose at all is too high because of VAB an Lunar radiation but let's play this game anyway.
Is this a seniority thing? I asked the first question and as such I should get the first answer. Let's play fair. What are you afraid of?
I say that graph refutes your hypothesis.
I confess, There was nothing in the down load that indicated it was not raw data but theoretically I imagine it could have been. What can I tell you?
When you really think about it. If you had a dosimeter that recorded at hourly intervals would and average reading be indicative or would you need to multiply the average by 24 to get a daily dose. I'm just wondering out loud. Any thoughts in this regard?Didn't you get the memo? That is uncorrected data, and to properly evaluate it you should average out daily dose rates making it 1/24 the size it currently is.All the data is lined up numerically from high to low. If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat
Why? The GCR background is modulated by solar activity and hence is not constant (as is clear from the riginal CraTER graph). If it is not constant the curve cannot be flat.Quotewith a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.
Why? SPEs are not events with certain magnitudes, and their directionality will also affect the amount of radiation reaching the detectors. In fact that kind of continuum is exactly what you would expect from something recording radiation reaching a detector in a particular location when the object emitting the radiation is spherical and blasting it off from various points on its surface.QuoteThat suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.
SPEs are discrete events.QuoteIt is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.
Virtually the whole left side of that curve falls below 0.2mGy/day.
Averaging out the data won't make it get any higher. Having fewer data points won't alter the magnitude.QuoteIt really doesn't matter what value you select as a representative dose foe a lunar transit.
That was literally your whole argument up until you find yourself unable to defend it. Page after apge after page is you insisting that GCR has to be some magical threshold minimum. Now it doesn't matter?QuoteAny dose at all is too high because of VAB an Lunar radiation but let's play this game anyway.
Also wrong for reasons gone into at length on this thread.
I confess, There was nothing in the down load that indicated it was not raw data but theoretically I imagine it could have been. What can I tell you?
When you really think about it. If you had a dosimeter that recorded at hourly intervals would and average reading be indicative or would you need to multiply the average by 24 to get a daily dose. I'm just wondering out loud. Any thoughts in this regard?
It is still the foundation of my argument. A problem arose when the both the CraTer and MSL/RAD data was rejected as being inapplicable because it was from a different solar cycle. To get around this obstacle I cited a NASA range of expected GCR dose rates. There was then an outcry that although this was a valid comparison it was to broad to cover specifics like a 10 day lunar transit. It was presented that theoretically the apollo could have ventured out in the rain and not gotten wet because the cosmos lined up just right. I am trying to negotiate this minefield as best I can. Be patient. The truth is near.Didn't you get the memo? That is uncorrected data, and to properly evaluate it you should average out daily dose rates making it 1/24 the size it currently is.All the data is lined up numerically from high to low. If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat
Why? The GCR background is modulated by solar activity and hence is not constant (as is clear from the riginal CraTER graph). If it is not constant the curve cannot be flat.Quotewith a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.
Why? SPEs are not events with certain magnitudes, and their directionality will also affect the amount of radiation reaching the detectors. In fact that kind of continuum is exactly what you would expect from something recording radiation reaching a detector in a particular location when the object emitting the radiation is spherical and blasting it off from various points on its surface.QuoteThat suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.
SPEs are discrete events.QuoteIt is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.
Virtually the whole left side of that curve falls below 0.2mGy/day.
Averaging out the data won't make it get any higher. Having fewer data points won't alter the magnitude.QuoteIt really doesn't matter what value you select as a representative dose foe a lunar transit.
That was literally your whole argument up until you find yourself unable to defend it. Page after apge after page is you insisting that GCR has to be some magical threshold minimum. Now it doesn't matter?QuoteAny dose at all is too high because of VAB an Lunar radiation but let's play this game anyway.
Also wrong for reasons gone into at length on this thread.
Could you punctuate that response with a value you interpreted from the graph to help me understand your position. Who knows, I might agree with you. I am not sure of the relevancy of the graph as it states it is a neutron flux derived determination and I am unfamiliar with the specifics but I don't discount the information.
I was led to believe this was raw data. Feel free to make what ever assumptions you want but be reminded that a correlation exist between MSL/RAD data and CraTer Data. A comparison can be made against the same period of the solar cycle to test for accuracy.When you really think about it. If you had a dosimeter that recorded at hourly intervals would and average reading be indicative or would you need to multiply the average by 24 to get a daily dose. I'm just wondering out loud. Any thoughts in this regard?
When the data are presented as 'cGy/day' don't you think that's already been accounted for? It's very simple: the detector records how much radiaiton hit it in an hour, then multiplied it by 24 so the data represents a daily dose equivalent. That's why the units used are cGy/day.
You seem to be unable to grasp the simple fact that when data are presented using certain units and in certain ways, you can actually use those units to interpret without trying to fudge other calculations to make it what you think it should actually be.
I want to use the truth in any form I find it. The chart in question is problematic for me because I am not familiar with the methodologies use to formulate the chart. The description says it is based upon magnetic and neutron fluxes taken from a model but what does that really mean? I have no idea. I can open difficult packages but I prefer the effortless kinds.Could you punctuate that response with a value you interpreted from the graph to help me understand your position. Who knows, I might agree with you. I am not sure of the relevancy of the graph as it states it is a neutron flux derived determination and I am unfamiliar with the specifics but I don't discount the information.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. So they say.
Now you tell me, based on everything we have said, why you don't want to use the graph I have presented. What are your objections?
It is still the foundation of my argument. A problem arose when the both the CraTer and MSL/RAD data was rejected as being inapplicable because it was from a different solar cycle.
To get around this obstacle I cited a NASA range of expected GCR dose rates.
There was then an outcry that although this was a valid comparison it was to broad to cover specifics like a 10 day lunar transit.
It was presented that theoretically the apollo could have ventured out in the rain and not gotten wet because the cosmos lined up just right.
I am trying to negotiate this minefield as best I can.
I was led to believe this was raw data.
Feel free to make what ever assumptions you want
Jason, The question that assaults my mind relentlessly is this. Does the raw CraTer data represent discrete snapshots of radiation levels in cislunar space that have to be averaged and multiplied by 24 to arrive at an actual daily dose rate? Can you help me unravel this tightly wound ball of frustration. What are your thoughts?I was led to believe this was raw data.
Exactly what led you to believe it? The data are clearly presented as dose rates in cGy/day.QuoteFeel free to make what ever assumptions you want
I am making no assumptions. When the data are presented as daily dose rates it is a sound conclusion that that is what they represent.
I want to use the truth in any form I find it. The chart in question is problematic for me because I am not familiar with the methodologies use to formulate the chart. The description says it is based upon magnetic and neutron fluxes taken from a model but what does that really mean? I have no idea. I can open difficult packages but I prefer the effortless kinds.
I am not complaining but it is difficult to keep track of all the responses when so many quotes are reposted.
My resources are taxed by my contemplation of things far above the pay grade of the general populace.
How does that work in your mind? We used a ground based neutron detector shielded by the VAB to determine cislunar GCR radiation? You are good with that assessment? That is the method you would choose above all others? Why in your data mining did you pass on this more realistic assessment taken from detectors in space?I want to use the truth in any form I find it. The chart in question is problematic for me because I am not familiar with the methodologies use to formulate the chart. The description says it is based upon magnetic and neutron fluxes taken from a model but what does that really mean? I have no idea. I can open difficult packages but I prefer the effortless kinds.
... my bold, and herein lies the problem.
The chart tells you everything we have been telling you. The dose would have been lower in 1969 during a corresponding solar maximum. Why? The phi McMurdo reading is based on a ground based neutron monitor. A neutron monitor informs us of GCR flux from secondary neutrons produced by GCR interacting in our upper atmosphere. The higher the neutron reading, the greater the GCR flux.
As you can see, the McMurdo levels are greater in cycle 24 (when the CRaTER data was taken) compared with cycle 20 (Apollo).
So, those CRaTER data that you have been plotting, where swathes of the data are below 0.22. Do you think more of the data would be below 0.22 or less below 0.22?
Further, the entire data set used in the argument shows you that the problem is more complex than you make out. You cannot simply take data from research articles and use it as proof. The detection methods are different for a start. The whole problem is too difficult to use the simple methods you apply. That's really the bottom line to this whole discussion.
However, when you present the argument in the form you expressed, refuse to accept that you cannot compare cycle 20 with 24, that your initial premise is proven wrong by inspection of the data, and then move the goal posts by using average data which you cite as a standard; then it does not make you case look good.
That's not finding the truth in any form you find it. That's deliberately bending the truth to hide the fact you read a graph incorrectly.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/MSL-RAD-radiation-environment-measurements.-Guo-Zeitlin/89c373715bc38905ea2cf8c4ae3709d0e626e218/figure/1
Jason, The question that assaults my mind relentlessly is this. Does the raw CraTer data represent discrete snapshots of radiation levels in cislunar space that have to be averaged and multiplied by 24 to arrive at an actual daily dose rate? Can you help me unravel this tightly wound ball of frustration. What are your thoughts?
I am sure that you will note that the graph is inclusive of solar cycle 20 . It is easily over looked.https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/MSL-RAD-radiation-environment-measurements.-Guo-Zeitlin/89c373715bc38905ea2cf8c4ae3709d0e626e218/figure/1
Taken during cycle 24 and enroute to Mars. Rejected based on fallacy of equivalence.
We used a ground based neutron detector shielded by the VAB to determine cislunar GCR radiation? You are good with that assessment? That is the method you would choose above all others? Why in your data mining did you pass on this more realistic assessment taken from detectors in space?
I am sure that you will note that the graph is inclusive of solar cycle 20 . It is easily over looked.
I love this graph. It easily allows a comparison across solar cycles. What say we used it exclusively for our discussion on GCR levels? Can we vote on this.
And here is a plot of the daily dose rate received over 10-day periods on the CraTER data. I started this set from day 178 on the data file, but of course you can choose any starting point. The clear point here is that once again we see a significant number of 10-day periods where the dose rates lie well below that magical Apollo 11 0.22mGy/day dose...
But assuming you won't, do you agree that it shows a lunar surface dose rate of between 4-6Gy/yr during the period of the lunar phase of Apollo?
Are we referring to the same graph?I am sure that you will note that the graph is inclusive of solar cycle 20 . It is easily over looked.
What, the Year 2011-12 is solar cycle 20? It's taken from the Mars Surface Laboratory, it launched November 26, 2011. The date on the graphs runs from 2011 - 2012.
Graphs still not your strong point Timothy?
Are we referring to the same graph?I am sure that you will note that the graph is inclusive of solar cycle 20 . It is easily over looked.
What, the Year 2011-12 is solar cycle 20? It's taken from the Mars Surface Laboratory, it launched November 26, 2011. The date on the graphs runs from 2011 - 2012.
Graphs still not your strong point Timothy?
I love this graph. It easily allows a comparison across solar cycles. What say we used it exclusively for our discussion on GCR levels? Can we vote on this.
Why bother? EVen if we show it proves you wrong you will just backtrack.
But assuming you won't, do you agree that it shows a lunar surface dose rate of between 4-6Gy/yr during the period of the lunar phase of Apollo?
I will agree that it shows 4-6 cgy/year during the lunar phase of the the apollo missions, yes, wholeheartedly.
You lost me there. Help me catch up. I was under the assumption that I was promoting a range of .24-6 mg/day citing a NASA report as the basis of that assumption. I thought I was trying to get everyone to accept NASA's minimum as the reference. What did I miss?I will agree that it shows 4-6 cgy/year during the lunar phase of the the apollo missions, yes, wholeheartedly.
... and state your assumptions for that value. Remember, it's based on modelling of ground based neutron detectors.
So if you want to use the data from this graph for CYle 20, do you agree that your initial premise based on cycle 24 data from CRaTER was incorrect.
Would you also agree that Solar cycle 20 is more active than 24, and the dose in cycle 20 is correspondingly lower. Which is what we have telling you all along. This means you can reject the CRaTER data, and you initial premise is now proven fallacious.
It would be an amazing stretch of luck to assume no contribution to background radiation from SPE's and CME during the most active time of a solar cycle when CME's occur at a rate of 3 time a day but let's proceed with this as the basis of our discussion. Where are we?
It would be an amazing stretch of luck to assume no contribution to background radiation from SPE's and CME during the most active time of a solar cycle when CME's occur at a rate of 3 time a day but let's proceed with this as the basis of our discussion. Where are we?
SPEs are discrete events, so they've taken them out to provide the background GCR flux; that's what the study is interest in. Were there any SPEs during the actual flight of the Apollo missions? No, so we can discount them from this discussion.
You do know the relationship between CMEs and SPEs? I'll tell you, as you don't know.
A large majority of CMEs have Alven wave speeds less than the solar wind. In other words, the matter in the CME contributes to the solar wind. CMEs above a certain speed produce SPEs by a shock driven event in the plasma. It tends to be a halo-CME event that gives rise to solar storms at the moon-Earth system. a vast majority of CME events produce particles with thermal energies. CMEs are frequent and produce huge amounts of mass, but would not contribute to the overall dose owning to the low energy of the constituent particles.
You lost me there. Help me catch up.
So, from that I am to understand that CME's and the subsequent CME induced SPE's do not contribute to the background radiation. Is that correct?
The CraTer Data is correct. It has never been in questioned is the ability to interpret it's data and apply it across solar cycles. I have stated on multiple occasions that I acknowledge the solar cycle is different but I am under the impression the current solar cycle is more active and as a consequence GCR levels are much higher in this cycle than in 20. I have been a proponent of disregarding CraTer Data and using NASA GCR ranges of the apollo missions all along. Where is the disconnect and why do you keep bringing this up?You lost me there. Help me catch up.
If you are sop excited by that graph, then that graph tells us about the modulation of GCR. Answer the questions please.
So if you want to use the data from this graph for Cycle 20, do you agree that your initial premise (based on cycle 24 data) using CRaTER was incorrect?
Would you also agree that Solar cycle 20 is more active than 24, and the dose in cycle 20 is correspondingly lower. Which is what we have telling you all along. Does this mean was can reject the CRaTER data, and you initial premise is now proven fallacious.
I'm going to ask the moderator that you answer these two questions.
My bad. I thought I read that CME's themselves are capable of producing SPE's. Was I wrong?So, from that I am to understand that CME's and the subsequent CME induced SPE's do not contribute to the background radiation. Is that correct?
That's not what I said. SPEs did not occur an Apollo flight. They contribute to the dose, but are discrete events. CMEs contribute to the background flux but not dose as their energies are insufficient to produce a dose. CMEs have thermal energies, typical of the solar wind. We have been discussing dose, not flux. We've been discussing dose, not flux. Two different things.
My bad. I thought I read that CME's themselves are capable of producing SPE's. Was I wrong?
So, in your estimations it is logical to assume during the most active part of a solar cycle these "certain conditions" can be eliminated from consideration? Why is that? I didn't follow your line of reasoning.My bad. I thought I read that CME's themselves are capable of producing SPE's. Was I wrong?
No, only under certain conditions a CME will produce an SPE. A CME event is a precursor for an SPE, but only if the speed of the CME exceeds a certain value. Also, it tends to be halo-CMEs that produced solar storms at the Earth-moon system. SPE events can graze the Earth or miss completely.
This picture of the magnetic field gives a picture of the problem:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/solar-radiation-storm
This is handy table to show you that space is not a raging sea of radiation:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/noaa-scales-explanation
Based on all the data we have considered is anyone willing to estimate a realistic background radiation level for the apollo missions? Something you feel comfortable with?
Jason, Jason, Jason.... I ask the question again. Should you not be summing readings over a day to arrive at a daily dose rate and shouldn't some type of multiplier be used to account for the fact that you were not continually monitoring.
I was under the assumption that I was promoting a range of .24-6 mg/day citing a NASA report as the basis of that assumption. I thought I was trying to get everyone to accept NASA's minimum as the reference. What did I miss?
So no one but me has directly addressed the elephant in the room in regards to the CraTer data. Do we need to correct it to a daily dose or not and if we do is that adjustment a multiplier of 24 times?
Jason, Jason, Jason.... I ask the question again. Should you not be summing readings over a day to arrive at a daily dose rate and shouldn't some type of multiplier be used to account for the fact that you were not continually monitoring.
Asked and answered. The data presented are daily dose rate equivalents. If you needed to do anything else they would not be presented in units of cGy/day.
The CraTer Data is correct.
If Solar activity does not raise overall background radiation why would the average radiation be higher during solar peak?
If we took the data and eliminated peaks above a certain magnitude would not the remaining level be higher than GCR level.
If you had a pocket dosimeter that measured radiation when you pressed a button and you pressed that button hourly then after one day would you dosimeter reflect your total esposure or would it simply reflect the exposure you had received in the 24 seconds of actual measurement?So no one but me has directly addressed the elephant in the room in regards to the CraTer data. Do we need to correct it to a daily dose or not and if we do is that adjustment a multiplier of 24 times?
This has been addressed. Look at the units, then explain why I would take 24 measurements in cGy/day and multiply them by anything to get another measurement in cGy/day. Units are important, but you don't seem to get it.
This should clarify it all for me. If you were planing a tourist trip to the moon, would you plan your trip during solar maximum or solar minimum or something in between? Why?
That sounds like a serious cop out to me. Are you throwing in the towel? Before you do consider this amazing fact. The lowest recorded level in all of the VAB is .0001 rads/sec. Now if there existed a tunnel of radiation at this level in which a craft could travel then the transit directly through the VAB would still be 6 times the reported level of the apollo 11 mission. Do the math and then throw that towel into the ring. You just got knocked out.This should clarify it all for me. If you were planing a tourist trip to the moon, would you plan your trip during solar maximum or solar minimum or something in between? Why?
Doesn't matter. You can skirt the van Allen belts with the right orbital mechanics, avoiding the inner proton belt.
The GCR dose is not sufficient to cause a hazardous accumulated dose on a short mission.
You can use a risk model to avoid SPEs. You might get unlucky, you might not.
The moon is not a radioactive wasteland.
The Crater Data is literally 24 discrete captures taken each day. How in your mind do you equate each discrete data point as a daily dose.
Do the math and then throw that towel into the ring. You just got knocked out.
I have stated on multiple occasions that I acknowledge the solar cycle is different but I am under the impression the current solar cycle is more active and as a consequence GCR levels are much higher in this cycle than in 20.
So no one but me has directly addressed the elephant in the room in regards to the CraTer data. Do we need to correct it to a daily dose or not and if we do is that adjustment a multiplier of 24 times?
What actually are the units of the 24 daily readings? and how did they arrive at them? In your mind how does the detector convert discrete readings into daily averages and if it does then why isn't their a single reading for each day?The Crater Data is literally 24 discrete captures taken each day. How in your mind do you equate each discrete data point as a daily dose.
Because those are the units given. Clearly. All over the place.
The data are not raw data showing how much radiation was detected that hour. This is clear from the headings and the units used.
are you sure about that?So no one but me has directly addressed the elephant in the room in regards to the CraTer data. Do we need to correct it to a daily dose or not and if we do is that adjustment a multiplier of 24 times?
This is why units matter. This is why terminology matters. This is why dimensional analysis matters. Gray is defined as absorbed energy in joules per kilogram. You don't get to throw in "time" or "area" or "flux" or whatever a second time.
Gray is also not seivert -- it has no quality factor imposed for the effect of that absorbed energy in human tissues.
I could halfway go along with that premise except for the glaring fact that they closed the thread. Why would they do that if I were the problem and not the subject matter.
Because you violated the rules that YOU SPECIFICALLY AGREED TO when you signed up.
One last graph before I go to bed. This is a very interesting one. It plots GCR with SPE ans Solar activity. It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.Why are you posting another graph? It has been demonstrated that you do not understand graphs at all.
If you had a pocket dosimeter that measured radiation when you pressed a button and you pressed that button hourly then after one day would you dosimeter reflect your total esposure or would it simply reflect the exposure you had received in the 24 seconds of actual measurement?
If you had a pocket dosimeter that measured radiation when you pressed a button and you pressed that button hourly then after one day would you dosimeter reflect your total esposure or would it simply reflect the exposure you had received in the 24 seconds of actual measurement?
That would depend entirely upon the units the dosimeter reported in. If you have four dosimeters, do you add their readings together to get your total dose? If not, why not?
There really is no question about the CraTER data. It is presented in cGy/day, which means that every data point represents a calculated daily dose based on the radiation detected in that time period. Units are everything. Again, you seem determined to imply some other calcualtions have to be done or have been done with the data, just so you can avoid acepting that the graph proves you wrong, repeatedly, in every way,
What actually are the units of the 24 daily readings?
In your mind how does the detector convert discrete readings into daily averages
and if it does then why isn't their a single reading for each day?
Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so. There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.
You are still working on the assumption that they went straight through the middle of them.
It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time. I'd say it represents an hour. What do you say? if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so. There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.
No, that is what you expect. If it was not as I state why is it presented in cGy/day in the first place?
I say you have again demonstrated that you do not understand graphs or even raw data. It is amusing wathcing you flail about in total ignorance of the subject matter.It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time. I'd say it represents an hour. What do you say? if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so. There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.
No, that is what you expect. If it was not as I state why is it presented in cGy/day in the first place?
Then the data would be labeled with the sample time frame. They don't just slap labels on these things randomly.No they don't. How do they "slap" them on? You don't know, do you?
Abaddon, here is a wonderful opportunity for you to step in and provide much needed clarity. Start with this question. Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day? Do we pick one or sum them or average them Help us find a path through this radiation minefield.I say you have again demonstrated that you do not understand graphs or even raw data. It is amusing wathcing you flail about in total ignorance of the subject matter.Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so. There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.
No, that is what you expect. If it was not as I state why is it presented in cGy/day in the first place?
It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time. I'd say it represents an hour. What do you say? if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?
I thought the CraTer Data was off the table.
Dear Moderator, It seems many of my questions go unanswered. I am not complaining but I wanted to point it out in case I was accused of such a dastardly act and was banned once again.
I am unsure that I can sufficiently dumb it down.Abaddon, here is a wonderful opportunity for you to step in and provide much needed clarity. Start with this question. Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day? Do we pick one or sum them or average them Help us find a path through this radiation minefield.I say you have again demonstrated that you do not understand graphs or even raw data. It is amusing wathcing you flail about in total ignorance of the subject matter.Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so. There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.
No, that is what you expect. If it was not as I state why is it presented in cGy/day in the first place?
It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time. I'd say it represents an hour. What do you say? if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?
You are taking a set of measurements performed by averaging of the dosimeter tags sewn to the flightsuit (I assume...that's the most likely place to be looking at total flight dose taken in situ) of astronauts inside a spacecraft passing through multiple potential ionizing sources of wildly fluctuating magnitude, and comparing them against an off-the-cuff back-of-the-envelope attempt to sum up the data from a completely different set of instruments using nothing but arithmetic averaging, with no attempt to even define the range of variation.
And even when you start throwing in random multipliers you are still getting answers that are closer to NASA's than the error range of either method. I'd say every bit of work you are doing validates NASA's data (or, to be more honestly, fails to demonstrate anything).
It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time. I'd say it represents an hour.
if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?
Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?
I find a reason to respect you for that concession and I reiterate, in an attempt to use only relevant Apollo era data I relied on NASA own belief that GCR radiation existed in a range of .24 mgy/day to 6.0 mgy/day. I don't make these numbers up. I am merely repeating what they said. It really doesn't matter in proving the hoax because GCR radiation is a bit player in the game of total radiation received.I thought the CraTer Data was off the table.
That's not what said or implied. There are conclusions that can be drawn from the CRaTER data, lots of them. We are saying that the dose from GCR would be lower in Cycle 20 owning to the increased activity of that cycle.
It draws nicely on the notion that SPEs are discrete events that does not mean that space is a region of searing radiation. That much I owe you, I'll be fair on that point. It shows quite clearly that once discrete events are removed, the GCR background is quite survivable on a short mission. Some HB's would cite astronauts receiving hundreds of rem.
The issue with the CRaTER data is that you won't accept that it refutes your initial premise of <0.22 for all the reasons discussed. So it's really up to you. Your initial claim was fallacious. So in some ways it is off the table, but in others it remains. It serves as a useful exercise in the merit of using scientific data to present a case for the hoax. Namely that there is no merit, you'll always have an apples and oranges comparison with the actual dosimeters.
Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?
Why should there not be? 'Because I don't think there should be' is not an adequate answer. NASA is under no obligation to cnform to your expectations for how it presents data.
Oh, so all of this is just your inexpert "intepretation" of the data. Fine. I claim that my "interpretation" of the data proves unicorns exist. Now what?Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?
Why should there not be? 'Because I don't think there should be' is not an adequate answer. NASA is under no obligation to cnform to your expectations for how it presents data.
Obviously then interpreting the data requires some understanding of the fact that it is not a list of daily doses rather it is a list of discrete snapshots of multiple daily doses. It makes a huge difference wouldn't you say?
Tim, I don't think you understand how this works.Contraire mon ami. If I prove your car has never had an engine then do I subsequently need to prove that you did not drive your car across country? You say But I arrived across country therefore it is proof that I did. Really? Is it? As far as you doing me favors, well perspective is everything. I feel I am doing you all favors by haring a perspective that does not exist in the singularity of thought within the group. I feel you guys should create a go fund me account to compensate me for the effort. What do I know?
The reality of Apollo has been proven to the satisfaction of all the world's experts in every relevant field. Every single one, all over the world. Therefore, when you are making claims counter to that, it is your obligation to show that you know what you're talking about. Which, yes, means answering all questions. And not necessarily having your own answered, because we are doing you the favour of assuming you're smart enough to figure things out on your own.
Further, let me explain a little about how "reasonable doubt" works. The fact is, it is not reasonable to believe that your belief that a single thing doesn't work somehow proves that literally everything else was faked. What is considerably more reasonable is that you don't know what you're talking about. You have yet to explain why you believe that isn't the reasonable explanation.
And as for Cosmoquest? Yeah, you were in violation of a whole bunch of rules there. Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you set the rules for it. Duh.
Oh, so all of this is just your inexpert "intepretation" of the data. Fine. I claim that my "interpretation" of the data proves unicorns exist. Now what?Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?
Why should there not be? 'Because I don't think there should be' is not an adequate answer. NASA is under no obligation to cnform to your expectations for how it presents data.
Obviously then interpreting the data requires some understanding of the fact that it is not a list of daily doses rather it is a list of discrete snapshots of multiple daily doses. It makes a huge difference wouldn't you say?
Really? Prove that I do not have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. You cannot.Oh, so all of this is just your inexpert "intepretation" of the data. Fine. I claim that my "interpretation" of the data proves unicorns exist. Now what?Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?
Why should there not be? 'Because I don't think there should be' is not an adequate answer. NASA is under no obligation to cnform to your expectations for how it presents data.
Obviously then interpreting the data requires some understanding of the fact that it is not a list of daily doses rather it is a list of discrete snapshots of multiple daily doses. It makes a huge difference wouldn't you say?
Let's leave the unicorns in your stable and stay on point. How do you correctly interpret the CraTer Data to make it a meaningful depiction of daily dose?
I missed this one.It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time. I'd say it represents an hour.
If it represents one hour why is it in cGy/day? It is quite simply the estimated daily dose rate based on the radiation detected in that hour. This is not complex, but you insist on making it so.Quoteif it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?
Take an average, of course. Why would I do anything other than that?
So you have nothing and have decided distraction is the only tool left in you arsenal. Pity, I am embarrassed for you.Really? Prove that I do not have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. You cannot.Oh, so all of this is just your inexpert "intepretation" of the data. Fine. I claim that my "interpretation" of the data proves unicorns exist. Now what?Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?
Why should there not be? 'Because I don't think there should be' is not an adequate answer. NASA is under no obligation to cnform to your expectations for how it presents data.
Obviously then interpreting the data requires some understanding of the fact that it is not a list of daily doses rather it is a list of discrete snapshots of multiple daily doses. It makes a huge difference wouldn't you say?
Let's leave the unicorns in your stable and stay on point. How do you correctly interpret the CraTer Data to make it a meaningful depiction of daily dose?
I'd fund a hoax believer that was worth the time. One that had interesting and well-worked out arguments and one whose arguments evolved during discussion.Remember the it is logarithmic. When dividing between minor graduation it is still logarithmic. Halfway between marks is roughly a third.
This is not a non sequitur. You last post on log graphs, you mentioned the necessity of the minor divisions. I agree; they make the data easier to read. But here's a question; what if I look close at the graph and the data point I want to read falls between two of the minor divisions? How do you read that one? Say, if on the paper I am using, there is 1 cm between the minor division at "2" and the one at "3." A data point sits at .5 cm above the "2." What is that number?
Nope just making clear that you have no clue. Can you disprove my IPU? Or can you not?So you have nothing and have decided distraction is the only tool left in you arsenal. Pity, I am embarrassed for you.Really? Prove that I do not have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. You cannot.Oh, so all of this is just your inexpert "intepretation" of the data. Fine. I claim that my "interpretation" of the data proves unicorns exist. Now what?Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?
Why should there not be? 'Because I don't think there should be' is not an adequate answer. NASA is under no obligation to cnform to your expectations for how it presents data.
Obviously then interpreting the data requires some understanding of the fact that it is not a list of daily doses rather it is a list of discrete snapshots of multiple daily doses. It makes a huge difference wouldn't you say?
Let's leave the unicorns in your stable and stay on point. How do you correctly interpret the CraTer Data to make it a meaningful depiction of daily dose?
Lie. There is no such requirement as has been demonstrated in this very thread.I'd fund a hoax believer that was worth the time. One that had interesting and well-worked out arguments and one whose arguments evolved during discussion.Remember the it is logarithmic. When dividing between minor graduation it is still logarithmic. Halfway between marks is roughly a third.
This is not a non sequitur. You last post on log graphs, you mentioned the necessity of the minor divisions. I agree; they make the data easier to read. But here's a question; what if I look close at the graph and the data point I want to read falls between two of the minor divisions? How do you read that one? Say, if on the paper I am using, there is 1 cm between the minor division at "2" and the one at "3." A data point sits at .5 cm above the "2." What is that number?
Now prove that my invisible pink unicorn is not emitting your suspect particles.Will you stop already? This is serious business. If you have nothing to contribute then spectate. You are embarrassing yourself.
Obvious troll is obvious.Is everyone who disagrees with convention a troll? Does not the data validate the assertion. Have I not penetrated deep into the institutional programming? Is it time to drop the mic on this one?
Nope. There is an important point to be illustrate in this. You are incapable of disproving my IPU in my garage. Not only are you incapable, your are comically unaware why it matters.Now prove that my invisible pink unicorn is not emitting your suspect particles.Will you stop already? This is serious business. If you have nothing to contribute then spectate. You are embarrassing yourself.
I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs. You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter. Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose. There is no getting around the facts. It can not have happened and therefore it didn't. I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled. No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
No, just you.Obvious troll is obvious.Is everyone who disagrees with convention a troll?
Does not the data validate the assertion.No, we have already established that you might as well be looking up a trouser leg.
Have I not penetrated deep into the institutional programming?No, we have established that you are unable to penetrate an intellectual bag. Institutional programming is amusingingly rubbish, only people who have no education and are somehow jealous of that education invent that baloney.
Is it time to drop the mic on this one?Perhaps you should.
NASA considered two trajectories. The first was a direct one straight through the heart of the VAB to the moon and the second one a translunar injection using a technique invented and proven by the Russians. They determined the direct shot would actually receive the least radiation because the speed and time in the heart of the VAB would actually reduce overall exposure. The Russian method spent more time in the VAB but was far more fuel efficient. They opted for the the Russian method. There is no secret safe passage. Many pretend it is but they cannot document it. Why would we send the Orion into the heart of the VAB if such a path had been discovered?I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs. You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter. Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose. There is no getting around the facts. It can not have happened and therefore it didn't. I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled. No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
Timfinch cannot fathom 3D spatial reasoning. We established that already.I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs. You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter. Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose. There is no getting around the facts. It can not have happened and therefore it didn't. I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled. No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
Lie. There is no such requirement as has been demonstrated in this very thread.I'd fund a hoax believer that was worth the time. One that had interesting and well-worked out arguments and one whose arguments evolved during discussion.Remember the it is logarithmic. When dividing between minor graduation it is still logarithmic. Halfway between marks is roughly a third.
This is not a non sequitur. You last post on log graphs, you mentioned the necessity of the minor divisions. I agree; they make the data easier to read. But here's a question; what if I look close at the graph and the data point I want to read falls between two of the minor divisions? How do you read that one? Say, if on the paper I am using, there is 1 cm between the minor division at "2" and the one at "3." A data point sits at .5 cm above the "2." What is that number?
Timfinch cannot fathom 3D spatial reasoning. We established that already.I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs. You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter. Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose. There is no getting around the facts. It can not have happened and therefore it didn't. I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled. No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
Tim, I don't think you understand how this works.Contraire mon ami. If I prove your car has never had an engine then do I subsequently need to prove that you did not drive your car across country? You say But I arrived across country therefore it is proof that I did. Really? Is it? As far as you doing me favors, well perspective is everything. I feel I am doing you all favors by haring a perspective that does not exist in the singularity of thought within the group. I feel you guys should create a go fund me account to compensate me for the effort. What do I know?
The reality of Apollo has been proven to the satisfaction of all the world's experts in every relevant field. Every single one, all over the world. Therefore, when you are making claims counter to that, it is your obligation to show that you know what you're talking about. Which, yes, means answering all questions. And not necessarily having your own answered, because we are doing you the favour of assuming you're smart enough to figure things out on your own.
Further, let me explain a little about how "reasonable doubt" works. The fact is, it is not reasonable to believe that your belief that a single thing doesn't work somehow proves that literally everything else was faked. What is considerably more reasonable is that you don't know what you're talking about. You have yet to explain why you believe that isn't the reasonable explanation.
And as for Cosmoquest? Yeah, you were in violation of a whole bunch of rules there. Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you set the rules for it. Duh.
Wrong. You think two because those are the only two that you have been instructed to consider by your masters.NASA considered two trajectories.I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs. You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter. Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose. There is no getting around the facts. It can not have happened and therefore it didn't. I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled. No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
The first was a direct one straight through the heart of the VAB to the moonAnd what were the others? You don't know.
and the second one a translunar injection using a technique invented and proven by the Russians. They determined the direct shot would actually receive the least radiation because the speed and time in the heart of the VAB would actually reduce overall exposure.And Apollo somehow didn't know that because???
The Russian method spent more time in the VAB but was far more fuel efficient. They opted for the the Russian method.All of a sudden, you are claiming that living beings actually can traverse the VAB.
There is no secret safe passage.Nobody claimed there was. That was your claim. Are you now stating you lied?
Many pretend it is but they cannot document it.Sure, apart from all of the documentation. If one ignores that then there is no documentation.
Why would we send the Orion into the heart of the VAB if such a path had been discovered?Wow. You really can't work that out. According to your very own rules, Orion is clearly a fake.
Abaddon are you a government troll? Is it your job to act as a diversion, to distract the intelligent exchange of information and perspective? What is your agenda here. You are a negative component detracting from the overall good of friendly discourse. Why the moderators remain silent is a source of interest to me.
I recommend we take a breather from all this and consider the implication of the information we have unveiled.
I don't want it to be true but intellectual integrity places it's demands on me.
I will spend the rest of the day trying to correct the CraTer Data into an actual record of daily doses.
I recommend we take a breather from all this and consider the implication of the information we have unveiled.Why? All that has been revealed is that you are clueless about Apollo. Why would we conspire with you to hide your ignorance?
It is a lot to digest.For you, perhaps, but you have revealed your ignorance of the subject matter. Why should anyone pander to that ignorance?
I don't want it to be true but intellectual integrity places it's demands on me.You clearly have none. Why else would you be appealing for you proposed crank beliefs to be given a bye?
I had hoped that my suspicions would unravel under close scrutiny but alas, it has not.They have.
I will spend the rest of the day trying to correct the CraTer Data into an actual record of daily doses. Until tomorrow.You can't, You have demonstrated that you can't. Your credibility is not a boomerang. It is not coming back.
Be vigilant and never abandon your wingman logic.Sure. Cranks need to be exposed. We agree.
Abaddon are you a government troll? Is it your job to act as a diversion, to distract the intelligent exchange of information and perspective? What is your agenda here. You are a negative component detracting from the overall good of friendly discourse. Why the moderators remain silent is a source of interest to me.Not American, don't live in America, don't have much contact with Americans.
I recommend we take a breather from all this and consider the implication of the information we have unveiled. It is a lot to digest. I don't want it to be true but intellectual integrity places it's demands on me. I had hoped that my suspicions would unravel under close scrutiny but alas, it has not. I will spend the rest of the day trying to correct the CraTer Data into an actual record of daily doses. Until tomorrow. Be vigilant and never abandon your wingman logic.You must be hating the Chinese doing a manned mission. and the Indians, and the japenese. That must really annoy you because that will demonstrate the trajectory and all of a sudden you have nothing.
Abaddon are you a government troll?
Is it your job to act as a diversion, to distract the intelligent exchange of information and perspective?
Why the moderators remain silent is a source of interest to me.
You have not proven the car has no engine. At absolute best, you have proved that you don't understand how fuel efficiency works. I have shown you ticket stubs from attractions across the country with my fingerprints on them. I have shown you date-stamped pictures of me in front of buildings there, and other people have taken pictures showing me from different angles that show I was there. You haven't looked at my car. You have claimed, without knowing anything about my engine, that I haven't stopped for gas often enough. But you don't know what mileage my car gets or what route I took to get there.Thanks Gillian - an excellent analogy!
..."Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." </Mal> ;D
How do you like me now?
You have not proven the car has no engine. At absolute best, you have proved that you don't understand how fuel efficiency works. I have shown you ticket stubs from attractions across the country with my fingerprints on them. I have shown you date-stamped pictures of me in front of buildings there, and other people have taken pictures showing me from different angles that show I was there. You haven't looked at my car. You have claimed, without knowing anything about my engine, that I haven't stopped for gas often enough. But you don't know what mileage my car gets or what route I took to get there.Thanks Gillian - an excellent analogy!
Tim is at the stage of having doubts about the receipts produced for buying fuel on the trip, despite having demonstrated no understanding of how a car engine works, or what the factory fuel efficency is for your model...
That would be the 'bit of documentation' that is right at the top of the data file you supposedly downloaded some time ago? Super sluething skills there....
You have not proven the car has no engine. At absolute best, you have proved that you don't understand how fuel efficiency works. I have shown you ticket stubs from attractions across the country with my fingerprints on them. I have shown you date-stamped pictures of me in front of buildings there, and other people have taken pictures showing me from different angles that show I was there. You haven't looked at my car. You have claimed, without knowing anything about my engine, that I haven't stopped for gas often enough. But you don't know what mileage my car gets or what route I took to get there.Thanks Gillian - an excellent analogy!
Tim is at the stage of having doubts about the receipts produced for buying fuel on the trip, despite having demonstrated no understanding of how a car engine works, or what the factory fuel efficency is for your model...
Thank you kindly! To my mind, proving the car had no engine would be more like proving that the capsule couldn't have had enough fuel to get to the Moon and back, which of course would take quite a lot of understanding of engineering to get.
Averaging out the Crater Data to a daily average is proving a bit challenging. Has anyone else accomplished this or does anyone have an algorithm to efficiently accomplish this?
Averaging out the Crater Data to a daily average is proving a bit challenging. Has anyone else accomplished this or does anyone have an algorithm to efficiently accomplish this?That's trivial with any scripting. If you don't know how to do that, take in Excel in another column the sum of the day's hourly values divided by 24 (=SUM(B1:B24)/24 for example), and copy-paste that for every day in steps of 24.
Car engine =Rocket engine.... Rocket fuel = Gasoline. The ASVAB must have been a challenge for you.
It didn't transfer over to the excel sheet and was lost for a minute but I found it. I did note that it eluded you for the better part of a day.
If you had known you would still be rubbing my nose in it. What is wrong with intellectual integrity that you shun it so?It didn't transfer over to the excel sheet and was lost for a minute but I found it. I did note that it eluded you for the better part of a day.
Did it? Sure about that are you? I asked you about it. That doesn't mean I didn't already happen to know it was there. Clearly I was wasting my time trying to lead you to see the problem with your original statement about it. Simple answers only from now on....
There is almost 70 thousand entries and I was actually looking for something a bit more elegant but thank you for the attempt. If you find this type of repetitive work thrilling then I will patiently wait to savor the fruits of your efforts.Averaging out the Crater Data to a daily average is proving a bit challenging. Has anyone else accomplished this or does anyone have an algorithm to efficiently accomplish this?That's trivial with any scripting. If you don't know how to do that, take in Excel in another column the sum of the day's hourly values divided by 24 (=SUM(B1:B24)/24 for example), and copy-paste that for every day in steps of 24.
You are trying to complicate a simple matter. This is simply converting multiple reading taken during a day to a single daily equivalent. Don't make this difficult.Averaging out the Crater Data to a daily average is proving a bit challenging. Has anyone else accomplished this or does anyone have an algorithm to efficiently accomplish this?
Yay! You are starting to get it.
A coin is isolated. Toss a coin a hundred times, or a hundred coins one time, it's the same thing. Dice -- unless they are loaded -- all numbers occur with equal frequency.
But take for an example asteroids. Frequency maps to size; roughly, for every doubling in diameter you get 1/10 the number of them. So you can't strike a number through the center and call that meaningful. If you need to know aggregate weight per volume space then arithmetic average won't cut it.
The Crater data has patterns. It has an SD that is significantly higher than 1.
Car engine =Rocket engine.... Rocket fuel = Gasoline. The ASVAB must have been a challenge for you.Just out of interest, I had a look at a practice ASVAB test. Honestly, there's less of a challenge in that than an average pub quiz...
There is almost 70 thousand entries and I was actually looking for something a bit more elegant but thank you for the attempt. If you find this type of repetitive work thrilling then I will patiently wait to savor the fruits of your efforts.Responding in kind - I guess learning to use Excel efficiently is a challenge for you...
21.5 hours on the lunar surface
Distance to the moon: 238,900 mi
Length of VAB =37000 miles
Time to the moon:
Translunar injection engine cutout 1:40:50
Lunar orbit insertion 63:23:27
Elapsed time: 61:43:37
Average rate of travel: 238900 miles/ 61.76666 hours = 3870.92 miles/hour
We know that Apollo 11 entered the TLI at 24200 mph @ 12:22
We know that 2 hrs. and 32 minutes later it had traveled 22000 miles
22000/2.53 hrs. = an average speed of 8695.65 mph.
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long
22000/37000 = 59.5% of the VAB had been crossed
After 2.53 hours the Apollo 11 was traveling 12,914 feet per second.
12914 ft/sec * 3600sec/hr * 1 mile/5280 ft = 8805 mph
37000-22000 =15000 miles of VAB left to travel @ 8805 mph slowing
15000 miles/8805/miles/hr = 1.7 hrs plus 2.53 hours = 4.23 hours but let’s round it to 4.30 because the Apollo was in constant deceleration throughout the VAB transit.
Now the lowest radiation area in all of the VAB is the blue region which is .0001 rad/sec
.0001 rad/sec * 4.5 hrs * 3600 sec/hr * 10 mgy/rad = 5.22 mgy
5.22 mgy/8days = 0.6525 mgy/day
Now if we assume GCR of .24 mg/day and lunar radiation raises that 35% then 1.35* .24 mg/day = .324 mg/day for 2 days lunar orbit and 1 day on the surface or 3 days.
.324 mg/day * 3 days = .972 mgy
.972 mgy from lunar orbit and lunar landing plus 5.22 mgy from VAB transit plus 5.22 mgy return transit through the VAB = 11.412 mgy
11.412 mgy/8.33 days = 1.369 or as I originally said a full magnitude less than it should be.
https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/apollo11_log/log.htm
All I know is every attempt to get the information I have discerned out is resisted.
My voice is silenced for unfounded an unjust reasons. The universal claim "He was trolling" seems to be the excuse de Jour. If disagreeing with the mainstream herd is trolling then I will always be guilty of that crime.
You have not proven the car has no engine.
Everything NASA claims that man accomplished on the moon can be and has been accomplished on unmanned lunar missions.
21.5 hours on the lunar surface
Distance to the moon: 238,900 mi
Length of VAB =37000 miles
Time to the moon:
Translunar injection engine cutout 1:40:50
Lunar orbit insertion 63:23:27
Elapsed time: 61:43:37
Average rate of travel: 238900 miles/ 61.76666 hours = 3870.92 miles/hour
We know that Apollo 11 entered the TLI at 24200 mph @ 12:22
We know that 2 hrs. and 32 minutes later it had traveled 22000 miles
22000/2.53 hrs. = an average speed of 8695.65 mph.
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long
22000/37000 = 59.5% of the VAB had been crossed
After 2.53 hours the Apollo 11 was traveling 12,914 feet per second.
12914 ft/sec * 3600sec/hr * 1 mile/5280 ft = 8805 mph
37000-22000 =15000 miles of VAB left to travel @ 8805 mph slowing
15000 miles/8805/miles/hr = 1.7 hrs plus 2.53 hours = 4.23 hours but let’s round it to 4.30 because the Apollo was in constant deceleration throughout the VAB transit.
Now the lowest radiation area in all of the VAB is the blue region which is .0001 rad/sec
.0001 rad/sec * 4.5 hrs * 3600 sec/hr * 10 mgy/rad = 5.22 mgy
5.22 mgy/8days = 0.6525 mgy/day
Now if we assume GCR of .24 mg/day and lunar radiation raises that 35% then 1.35* .24 mg/day = .324 mg/day for 2 days lunar orbit and 1 day on the surface or 3 days.
.324 mg/day * 3 days = .972 mgy
.972 mgy from lunar orbit and lunar landing plus 5.22 mgy from VAB transit plus 5.22 mgy return transit through the VAB = 11.412 mgy
11.412 mgy/8.33 days = 1.369 or as I originally said a full magnitude less than it should be.
https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/apollo11_log/log.htm
It really is amusing how you don't understand much beyond basic physics and math. The spacecraft will be travelling at its fastest during its transit through the VAB's, after its TLI burn, then slowly decelerating until it reached the Earth/Moon Lagrangian point. You cannot use the average to determine the speed at any specific point, but I hold no hope that you will get this, as you probably still do not understand how averages work. So, to be crystal clear, from your own reference contained in the above quote:
"12:22 p.m.- Another firing of the third-stage engine, still attached to the command service module, boosts Apollo 11 out of orbit midway in its second trip around the Earth and onto its lunar trajectory at an initial speed of 24,200 miles an hour."
You also omitted the fact that the radiation levels you used for the blue portion(s) of the VABs is for UNSHIELDED people/detectors, and the lower the energies of the electrons (the lowest of which are the ones seen in the blue portions of the illustration), the higher the attenuation rate of the shielding in the Apollo spacecraft (meaning MUCH lower doses to the astronauts).
So, in essence, you provided more numbers, but indicate you don't understand their significance and you have erroneously assumed factors that are completely off-base for accurate calculations. Therefor, your entire worksheet above is an immaterial labor.
Everything NASA claims that man accomplished on the moon can be and has been accomplished on unmanned lunar missions.
Who developed the hardware used on these alleged unmanned missions? When and where were they tested? When were they launched? When did they return. Show me a photograph of the hardware.
Everything NASA claims that man accomplished on the moon can be and has been accomplished on unmanned lunar missions.
Who developed the hardware used on these alleged unmanned missions? When and where were they tested? When were they launched? When did they return. Show me a photograph of the hardware.
We know the Russians and the Chinese both have landed rovers on the moon and retrieved samples.
Who developed the hardware used on these alleged unmanned missions? When and where were they tested? When were they launched? When did they return. Show me a photograph of the hardware.
Where do I start?
We know that Apollo 11 entered the TLI at 24200 mph @ 12:22...
Is anyone keeping score? It seems like I am winning. Am I winning?
Do I need remind all involved that I forego including all but the lowest of radiations of the VAB. You can look for kernels in that turd if you choose but you have to realize if the lowest radiations produce an exposure rate 6 times as high as the reported dose then anything else is simply adding fuel to a raging fire. Know when to say "No".We know that Apollo 11 entered the TLI at 24200 mph @ 12:22...
You are aware that the CM had a surface density of 8 g cm-2. Now, what was the variation in flux with energy for the outer electrons in the outer belts again? I don't believe you accounted for the performance of the CM materials against this flux profile in your calculations. Please add that information.
I am easily confused but didn't Trump win the presidential race?Is anyone keeping score? It seems like I am winning. Am I winning?
Umm... is that you, Mr. Trump? You seem to have a skewed interpretation of what it means to be winning.
Do I need remind all involved that I forego including all but the lowest of radiations of the VAB.
Do I need remind all involved that I forego including all but the lowest of radiations of the VAB. You can look for kernels in that turd if you choose but you have to realize if the lowest radiations produce an exposure rate 6 times as high as the reported dose then anything else is simply adding fuel to a raging fire. Know when to say "No".We know that Apollo 11 entered the TLI at 24200 mph @ 12:22...
You are aware that the CM had a surface density of 8 g cm-2. Now, what was the variation in flux with energy for the outer electrons in the outer belts again? I don't believe you accounted for the performance of the CM materials against this flux profile in your calculations. Please add that information.
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long
I'm sorry but is the Outer VAb entirely consisting of electrons? I din't know that. Even a genius like me can learn something. Reference?Do I need remind all involved that I forego including all but the lowest of radiations of the VAB.
You need to understand that the outer belts, where Apollo traversed is mainly electrons. The values you cite are unprotected doses.
Can you please explain how well the 8 g cm-2 will perform against the electrons in the electron flux for different electron energies?
You guys took a lot out of me today. I had intended to tackle that CraTer data but I find myself unmotivated and easily distracted. How about we tackle some other mystery that troubles mankind. I can bring my Sherlock Holmes like intellect to bear on it and we can solve it like we did the Lunar Hoax. What have you got?
NASA considered two trajectories. The first was a direct one straight through the heart of the VAB to the moon and the second one a translunar injection using a technique invented and proven by the Russians. They determined the direct shot would actually receive the least radiation because the speed and time in the heart of the VAB would actually reduce overall exposure. The Russian method spent more time in the VAB but was far more fuel efficient. They opted for the the Russian method. There is no secret safe passage. Many pretend it is but they cannot document it. Why would we send the Orion into the heart of the VAB if such a path had been discovered?I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs. You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter. Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose. There is no getting around the facts. It can not have happened and therefore it didn't. I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled. No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
Actually a good question. I used it because we all know the VAB expansds thousands of miles during Solar max and not having any reference I thought it a fairly conservative estimate.We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long
Along the geomagentic equator maybe, but as you have been told and shown repeatedly, the Apollo spacecraft did not take that route (indeed it was virtually impossible for it to do so due to the different inclinations ot the orbit and the geomagentic plane) so why do you think using the full thickness of the belt is valid?
You guys took a lot out of me today.
Just glancing through the threads are you. Try a more detailed approach Johnny come lately. I already posted the math for the inquisitive.NASA considered two trajectories. The first was a direct one straight through the heart of the VAB to the moon and the second one a translunar injection using a technique invented and proven by the Russians. They determined the direct shot would actually receive the least radiation because the speed and time in the heart of the VAB would actually reduce overall exposure. The Russian method spent more time in the VAB but was far more fuel efficient. They opted for the the Russian method. There is no secret safe passage. Many pretend it is but they cannot document it. Why would we send the Orion into the heart of the VAB if such a path had been discovered?I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs. You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter. Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose. There is no getting around the facts. It can not have happened and therefore it didn't. I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled. No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
Red herring. Besides you have already been informed why the Orion trajectory was not the same as Apollo's general trajectory. You really don't understand anything concerning orbital mechanics. The Russians didn't "invent" sny trajectory it is all in the mathematics.
Apollo's trajectory was to skirt the more intense areas of the VARB, look at the image you plotted the 2 dimensional representation of the 3 dimensional torus. You can see for your self that the trajectory was a the edges and did not go through the whole VARB. Not 4.5 hrs. but around 2 hrs. as Bob B. indicated in his computations, you're what, I think Jay coined the phrase, willfully ignorant. The data is there you either refuse to accept it or hand wave it away.
Now for your calculation please, show your work as Bob did.
Actually a good question. I used it because we all know the VAB expansds thousands of miles during Solar max and not having any reference I thought it a fairly conservative estimate.We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long
Along the geomagentic equator maybe, but as you have been told and shown repeatedly, the Apollo spacecraft did not take that route (indeed it was virtually impossible for it to do so due to the different inclinations ot the orbit and the geomagentic plane) so why do you think using the full thickness of the belt is valid?
You need to understand that the outer belts, where Apollo traversed is mainly electrons. The values you cite are unprotected doses.I'm sorry but is the Outer VAb entirely consisting of electrons? I din't know that. Even a genius like me can learn something. Reference?
I am easily confused but didn't Trump win the presidential race?Is anyone keeping score? It seems like I am winning. Am I winning?
Umm... is that you, Mr. Trump? You seem to have a skewed interpretation of what it means to be winning.
You guys took a lot out of me today.
There wasn't much to take in the first place. Please, save us from your delusions of grandeur; your smugness doesn't escape the fact that you couldn't read a graph in the first place and are back pedalling faster that a nuclear submarine electrician who waded into the deep water when the hull sprung a leak, and is now shouting 'don't panic!' at the top of his voice... oh wait...
Now, the CM was shielded at 8 g cm-2. Please explain how the energies of the electrons in the outer VAB are distributed across the energies, say from 0.5 MeV - 20 MeV.
I'm sorry but is the Outer VAB entirely consisting of electrons? I didn't know that. Even a genius like me can learn something.
Reference?
Just glancing through the threads are you. Try a more detailed approach Johnny come lately. I already posted the math for the inquisitive.NASA considered two trajectories. The first was a direct one straight through the heart of the VAB to the moon and the second one a translunar injection using a technique invented and proven by the Russians. They determined the direct shot would actually receive the least radiation because the speed and time in the heart of the VAB would actually reduce overall exposure. The Russian method spent more time in the VAB but was far more fuel efficient. They opted for the the Russian method. There is no secret safe passage. Many pretend it is but they cannot document it. Why would we send the Orion into the heart of the VAB if such a path had been discovered?I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs. You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter. Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose. There is no getting around the facts. It can not have happened and therefore it didn't. I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled. No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
Red herring. Besides you have already been informed why the Orion trajectory was not the same as Apollo's general trajectory. You really don't understand anything concerning orbital mechanics. The Russians didn't "invent" sny trajectory it is all in the mathematics.
Apollo's trajectory was to skirt the more intense areas of the VARB, look at the image you plotted the 2 dimensional representation of the 3 dimensional torus. You can see for your self that the trajectory was a the edges and did not go through the whole VARB. Not 4.5 hrs. but around 2 hrs. as Bob B. indicated in his computations, you're what, I think Jay coined the phrase, willfully ignorant. The data is there you either refuse to accept it or hand wave it away.
Now for your calculation please, show your work as Bob did.
I feel your pain. I was the same way about George Bush. I resorted to recreational pharmaceuticals, alcohol and ************. The ************ really helped a lot.I am easily confused but didn't Trump win the presidential race?Is anyone keeping score? It seems like I am winning. Am I winning?
Umm... is that you, Mr. Trump? You seem to have a skewed interpretation of what it means to be winning.
Yes, you are easily confused. Especially by graphs.
And Trump did not win in the way that matters. He won because the United States has the Electoral College... which is basically like a sports handicap for politicians who can't win otherwise. It's like me beating Michael Jordan at basketball... but only because every ball I get in the net is worth 1000 points while his are worth 1. But that's off topic, so I'll slap myself on the wrist and stop now.
We know that 2 hrs. and 32 minutes later it had traveled 22000 miles
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long
Why concentrate on electrons when the share territory with protons?
I explained this to those that were on time to class already. The VAB expands during solar maximums by thousands of miles and even a third ring is created. I thought it a conservative estimate to simply use the the stated size of 37000 miles for computation. If I had access to better data I could accomplish miracles considering my mental acumen is exceptionally great and I stayedd at a Holiday Express once.Just glancing through the threads are you. Try a more detailed approach Johnny come lately. I already posted the math for the inquisitive.NASA considered two trajectories. The first was a direct one straight through the heart of the VAB to the moon and the second one a translunar injection using a technique invented and proven by the Russians. They determined the direct shot would actually receive the least radiation because the speed and time in the heart of the VAB would actually reduce overall exposure. The Russian method spent more time in the VAB but was far more fuel efficient. They opted for the the Russian method. There is no secret safe passage. Many pretend it is but they cannot document it. Why would we send the Orion into the heart of the VAB if such a path had been discovered?I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs. You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter. Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose. There is no getting around the facts. It can not have happened and therefore it didn't. I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled. No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
Red herring. Besides you have already been informed why the Orion trajectory was not the same as Apollo's general trajectory. You really don't understand anything concerning orbital mechanics. The Russians didn't "invent" sny trajectory it is all in the mathematics.
Apollo's trajectory was to skirt the more intense areas of the VARB, look at the image you plotted the 2 dimensional representation of the 3 dimensional torus. You can see for your self that the trajectory was a the edges and did not go through the whole VARB. Not 4.5 hrs. but around 2 hrs. as Bob B. indicated in his computations, you're what, I think Jay coined the phrase, willfully ignorant. The data is there you either refuse to accept it or hand wave it away.
Now for your calculation please, show your work as Bob did.
No radiation computations, try to stay up with me. And use the correct time and it isn't 4.5 hrs. Tell you what read Bob" page again tonight, it might give you some ideas/leads. And look at the 3'd video of the trajectory.
The ************ really helped a lot.
Actually a good question. I used it because we all know the VAB expansds thousands of miles during Solar max and not having any reference I thought it a fairly conservative estimate.We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long
Along the geomagentic equator maybe, but as you have been told and shown repeatedly, the Apollo spacecraft did not take that route (indeed it was virtually impossible for it to do so due to the different inclinations ot the orbit and the geomagentic plane) so why do you think using the full thickness of the belt is valid?
Jason with regard to this 37000 figure do you know of a 3d picture or chat which shows the 3d path the vehicles took to transverse the edges. I have seen many 2d's but not 3d
I explained this to those that were on time to class already. The VAB expands during solar maximums by thousands of miles and even a third ring is created.
I am not the brightest candle in the candelera ( yes I am but I am trying to be modest) but the TLI is an elliptical orbit somewhere around 30% off the equatorial plane or 15% if you are using the lunar plane so realizing this elliptical orbit would be like slicing diagonally through the proverbial donut, just exactly how do you think they "Skirted" the VAB?Why concentrate on electrons when the share territory with protons?
... because the Apollo craft followed a trajectory that skirted the outer belts. The main flux in the outer belts are due to electrons. It's a bit like someone firing 1000 paintballs at you, 999 are green and 1 are red. The electrons are the green ones.
Now, how does the shielding perform against the electron flux at the electron energies that are relevant to the problem? You need to perform an integrated flux attenuated against shielding at 8 g cm-2.
...
I explained this to those that were on time to class already. The VAB expands during solar maximums by thousands of miles and even a third ring is created. I thought it a conservative estimate to simply use the the stated size of 37000 miles for computation. If I had access to better data I could accomplish miracles considering my mental acumen is exceptionally great and I stayedd at a Holiday Express once.
Actually a good question. I used it because we all know the VAB expansds thousands of miles during Solar max and not having any reference I thought it a fairly conservative estimate.We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long
Along the geomagentic equator maybe, but as you have been told and shown repeatedly, the Apollo spacecraft did not take that route (indeed it was virtually impossible for it to do so due to the different inclinations ot the orbit and the geomagentic plane) so why do you think using the full thickness of the belt is valid?
Jason with regard to this 37000 figure do you know of a 3d picture or chat which shows the 3d path the vehicles took to transverse the edges. I have seen many 2d's but not 3d
Ben here is the video
I am not the brightest candle in the candelera ( yes I am but I am trying to be modest) but the TLI is an elliptical orbit somewhere around 30% off the equatorial plane or 15% if you are using the lunar plane so realizing this elliptical orbit would be like slicing diagonally through the proverbial donut, just exactly how do you think they "Skirted" the VAB?
I explained this to those that were on time to class already. The VAB expands during solar maximums by thousands of miles and even a third ring is created.
Ring? Do you mean torus. See the difference between me being able to visualise in 3D and you default to 2D?
There's even a suggestion that the second torus is made of two smaller belts, if I recall the literature correctly. Oh, see what I did there. I referred to literature as I'm a little bit of an expert in this area. You on the other hand didn't even know the outer belts mainly consist of electrons. That is lamentable.
So how did the CM hull perform against the electrons in the outer belt for different energies across the flux? I'll give you an helping hand, you're going to have to perform an integrated flux calculation here.
Allow my little Friend at NASA help you with the math. They did this for children so I am fully confident that you will have no problems with it. We can use NASA's figures if you like or your personal ones if it makes you feel any better. https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/3Page7.pdfI explained this to those that were on time to class already. The VAB expands during solar maximums by thousands of miles and even a third ring is created.
Ring? Do you mean torus. See the difference between me being able to visualise in 3D and you default to 2D?
There's even a suggestion that the second torus is made of two smaller belts, if I recall the literature correctly. Oh, see what I did there. I referred to literature as I'm a little bit of an expert in this area. You on the other hand didn't even know the outer belts mainly consist of electrons. That is lamentable.
So how did the CM hull perform against the electrons in the outer belt for different energies across the flux? I'll give you an helping hand, you're going to have to perform an integrated flux calculation here.
I feel your pain. I was the same way about George Bush. I resorted to recreational pharmaceuticals, alcohol and ************. The ************ really helped a lot.I am easily confused but didn't Trump win the presidential race?Is anyone keeping score? It seems like I am winning. Am I winning?
Umm... is that you, Mr. Trump? You seem to have a skewed interpretation of what it means to be winning.
Yes, you are easily confused. Especially by graphs.
And Trump did not win in the way that matters. He won because the United States has the Electoral College... which is basically like a sports handicap for politicians who can't win otherwise. It's like me beating Michael Jordan at basketball... but only because every ball I get in the net is worth 1000 points while his are worth 1. But that's off topic, so I'll slap myself on the wrist and stop now.
Allow my little Friend at NASA help you with the math. They did this for children so I am fully confident that you will have no problems with it. We can use NASA's figures if you like or your personal ones if it makes you feel any better.
If I had access to better data I could accomplish miracles considering my mental acumen is exceptionally great and I stayedd at a Holiday Express once.
If you continue making crude comments like that you will be banned.
Allow my little Friend at NASA help you with the math. They did this for children so I am fully confident that you will have no problems with it. We can use NASA's figures if you like or your personal ones if it makes you feel any better. https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/3Page7.pdfI explained this to those that were on time to class already. The VAB expands during solar maximums by thousands of miles and even a third ring is created.
Ring? Do you mean torus. See the difference between me being able to visualise in 3D and you default to 2D?
There's even a suggestion that the second torus is made of two smaller belts, if I recall the literature correctly. Oh, see what I did there. I referred to literature as I'm a little bit of an expert in this area. You on the other hand didn't even know the outer belts mainly consist of electrons. That is lamentable.
So how did the CM hull perform against the electrons in the outer belt for different energies across the flux? I'll give you an helping hand, you're going to have to perform an integrated flux calculation here.
"Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is completely harmless."
Which part do you find crude? The George Bush or the ************ part or the combination or was it the recreational pharmaceuticals? What is it ************? was that on the list of words you can't sayA? I missed it. I will avoid it's use in the future and apologize for my discretion.I feel your pain. I was the same way about George Bush. I resorted to recreational pharmaceuticals, alcohol and ************. The ************ really helped a lot.I am easily confused but didn't Trump win the presidential race?Is anyone keeping score? It seems like I am winning. Am I winning?
Umm... is that you, Mr. Trump? You seem to have a skewed interpretation of what it means to be winning.
Yes, you are easily confused. Especially by graphs.
And Trump did not win in the way that matters. He won because the United States has the Electoral College... which is basically like a sports handicap for politicians who can't win otherwise. It's like me beating Michael Jordan at basketball... but only because every ball I get in the net is worth 1000 points while his are worth 1. But that's off topic, so I'll slap myself on the wrist and stop now.
If you continue making crude comments like that you will be banned.
Which part do you find crude? The George Bush or the ************ part or the combination or was it the recreational pharmaceuticals? What is it ************? was that on the list of words you can't sayA? I missed it. I will avoid it's use in the future and apologize for my discretion.I feel your pain. I was the same way about George Bush. I resorted to recreational pharmaceuticals, alcohol and ************. The ************ really helped a lot.I am easily confused but didn't Trump win the presidential race?Is anyone keeping score? It seems like I am winning. Am I winning?
tim really. is that not a little bit childish.
Umm... is that you, Mr. Trump? You seem to have a skewed interpretation of what it means to be winning.
Yes, you are easily confused. Especially by graphs.
And Trump did not win in the way that matters. He won because the United States has the Electoral College... which is basically like a sports handicap for politicians who can't win otherwise. It's like me beating Michael Jordan at basketball... but only because every ball I get in the net is worth 1000 points while his are worth 1. But that's off topic, so I'll slap myself on the wrist and stop now.
If you continue making crude comments like that you will be banned.
Nice catch Luke I completely looked over that part. I've been attempting to get it across to tim that A11 was out of the second torus by about 2 hours, not the 4.5 he keeps trying to invent, but you know that.
Nice catch Luke I completely looked over that part. I've been attempting to get it across to tim that A11 was out of the second torus by about 2 hours, not the 4.5 he keeps trying to invent, but you know that.
There's so much information about the trajectory and the belts. The video is a lovely resource and shows how the spacecraft misses the 'red bit' nicely. It's knowing what's in the ts and how it relaters to the flux of the particles, and how the flux changes with energy. Which you know... ;)
I am so glad you pointed out that little tidbit and I didn't. It might have seemed a bit self serving if I had. Let us assume both you and NASA are entirely correct and it was a mere 13 rads accumulated over the VAB transit. Could you please explain to all your fans and friends and the audience how you can squeeze that into a mission dosage of .22 mgy/day. I am going to get a bag of popcorn because I love a good magics show.Allow my little Friend at NASA help you with the math. They did this for children so I am fully confident that you will have no problems with it. We can use NASA's figures if you like or your personal ones if it makes you feel any better. https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/3Page7.pdfI explained this to those that were on time to class already. The VAB expands during solar maximums by thousands of miles and even a third ring is created.
Ring? Do you mean torus. See the difference between me being able to visualise in 3D and you default to 2D?
There's even a suggestion that the second torus is made of two smaller belts, if I recall the literature correctly. Oh, see what I did there. I referred to literature as I'm a little bit of an expert in this area. You on the other hand didn't even know the outer belts mainly consist of electrons. That is lamentable.
So how did the CM hull perform against the electrons in the outer belt for different energies across the flux? I'll give you an helping hand, you're going to have to perform an integrated flux calculation here.
Once again, reading comprehension isn't exactly your forte, is it? From your latest reference:
"Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through
the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is
completely harmless."
So, not only did your reference fail to provide the computational data from the shielding, it made a general statement that completely supports the position that the exposure was of no concern (as mitigated by the shielding and trajectory).
I am so glad you pointed out that little tidbit and I didn't. It might have seemed a bit self serving if I had. Let us assume both you and NASA are entirely correct and it was a mere 13 rads accumulated over the VAB transit. Could you please explain to all your fans and friends and the audience how you can squeeze that into a mission dosage of .22 mgy/day. I am going to ge a bag of popcorn because I love a good magics show.Allow my little Friend at NASA help you with the math. They did this for children so I am fully confident that you will have no problems with it. We can use NASA's figures if you like or your personal ones if it makes you feel any better. https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/3Page7.pdfI explained this to those that were on time to class already. The VAB expands during solar maximums by thousands of miles and even a third ring is created.
Ring? Do you mean torus. See the difference between me being able to visualise in 3D and you default to 2D?
There's even a suggestion that the second torus is made of two smaller belts, if I recall the literature correctly. Oh, see what I did there. I referred to literature as I'm a little bit of an expert in this area. You on the other hand didn't even know the outer belts mainly consist of electrons. That is lamentable.
So how did the CM hull perform against the electrons in the outer belt for different energies across the flux? I'll give you an helping hand, you're going to have to perform an integrated flux calculation here.
Once again, reading comprehension isn't exactly your forte, is it? From your latest reference:
"Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through
the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is
completely harmless."
So, not only did your reference fail to provide the computational data from the shielding, it made a general statement that completely supports the position that the exposure was of no concern (as mitigated by the shielding and trajectory).
Nice catch Luke I completely looked over that part. I've been attempting to get it across to tim that A11 was out of the second torus by about 2 hours, not the 4.5 he keeps trying to invent, but you know that.
There's so much information about the trajectory and the belts. The video is a lovely resource and shows how the spacecraft misses the 'red bit' nicely. It's knowing what's in the ts and how it relaters to the flux of the particles, and how the flux changes with energy. Which you know... ;)
am I correct in saying they were In the belts in total for about 3.5 hours going and 2.5 returning
Nice catch Luke I completely looked over that part. I've been attempting to get it across to tim that A11 was out of the second torus by about 2 hours, not the 4.5 he keeps trying to invent, but you know that.
There's so much information about the trajectory and the belts. The video is a lovely resource and shows how the spacecraft misses the 'red bit' nicely. It's knowing what's in the ts and how it relaters to the flux of the particles, and how the flux changes with energy. Which you know... ;)
am I correct in saying they were In the belts in total for about 3.5 hours going and 2.5 returning
Using Bob's numbers that is about right
214 min
140 min
https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
About a 1/3 of the way down.
Let us assume both you and NASA are entirely correct and it was a mere 13 rads accumulated over the VAB transit.
"Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 rads/hour exposure so that it is completely harmless."
I am going to get a bag of popcorn because I love a good magics show.
I am so glad you pointed out that little tidbit and I didn't. It might have seemed a bit self serving if I had. Let us assume both you and NASA are entirely correct and it was a mere 13 rads accumulated over the VAB transit. Could you please explain to all your fans and friends and the audience how you can squeeze that into a mission dosage of .22 mgy/day. I am going to ge a bag of popcorn because I love a good magics show.
...and i'm thick bear in mind. Isn't the 13 a figure for outside of the spacecraft. The astronauts were inside.
Make sure you wash your hands.
...and i'm thick bear in mind. Isn't the 13 a figure for outside of the spacecraft. The astronauts were inside.
I think they were outside, but I guess Tim would probably argue that point too. There's only one person being thick here. It's not you, and it's not me. ::)
after reading this very short thread (again sorry for that) it seems to me (and compared to everybody including Tim I am very inexperienced and uneducated) there are a few bits which tangle him. firstly the trajectory through the VAB. I believe this region to be a 3D donut shaped region in space. the TLI were inclined about 30 degrees which allowed them to bypass the inner more dangerous regions. then for the GCR. Tim has tried to compare data on Apollo with other more recent missions which had both different vehicles, were unmanned, and occurred at different solar cycles. finally the neutron radiation which Tim claims is increased by 35 percent in orbit. again this figure is derived from a more recent mission with a higher solar cycle. is what I have written here basically the crux of all this
after reading this very short thread (again sorry for that) it seems to me (and compared to everybody including Tim I am very inexperienced and uneducated) there are a few bits which tangle him. firstly the trajectory through the VAB. I believe this region to be a 3D donut shaped region in space. the TLI were inclined about 30 degrees which allowed them to bypass the inner more dangerous regions. then for the GCR. Tim has tried to compare data on Apollo with other more recent missions which had both different vehicles, were unmanned, and occurred at different solar cycles. finally the neutron radiation which Tim claims is increased by 35 percent in orbit. again this figure is derived from a more recent mission with a higher solar cycle. is what I have written here basically the crux of all this
These are the salient points of the argument, but the real issue being that the problem is very complicated and cannot be distilled into convenient back of the envelope calculations and extrapolating scientific research and mapping that research on to the mission data.
The main thrust here has shown Tim is illiterate in the fields at every turn, and invokes literature that refutes his own claims. For him to ask for a reference pertaining to the VAB composition shows he's behind the curve ball. He shouldn't even be in the same 'room' as people here. We've hardly scratched the surface of the problem he's trying to boil into a few bones.
yeah over simplification. I suppose also the missions being compared are radiation received by the craft and radiation received by the astranauts. 2 different things am I right. can I just ask 1 final question before I hit the hay. how does one calculate that 30 degrees (the launch angle) would be enough to miss the bad bits of the belts. does it depend where the earth is in its cycle or ....
I am so glad you pointed out that little tidbit and I didn't. It might have seemed a bit self serving if I had. Let us assume both you and NASA are entirely correct and it was a mere 13 rads accumulated over the VAB transit. Could you please explain to all your fans and friends and the audience how you can squeeze that into a mission dosage of .22 mgy/day. I am going to ge a bag of popcorn because I love a good magics show.
Ignoring the point of my rebuke is classic troll behavior. Now deal with the point, and if you can't figure out what that is, you really have no business even walking outside, much less trying to discuss anything here.
So now you want me to believe that the Apollo had some form of shielding other than superstructure and equipment and and this space age shielding while highly effective to VAB proton and electron fluxes is permeable to GCR and SPE and neutron flux.
They engaged proton shields and could disregard them in their entirety. I like it. You provide be the radiation shielding thickness of the apollo( she had zero) and I will due the exposure calculation for you. I am an ex Navy nuke remember. I contend the Apollo had no radiation shielding so I need something definitive to prove otherwise. I want to make this work for you. I must admit I do love watching you wriggle on that hook firmly implanted in your gulletSo now you want me to believe that the Apollo had some form of shielding other than superstructure and equipment and and this space age shielding while highly effective to VAB proton and electron fluxes is permeable to GCR and SPE and neutron flux.
Strawman. It was explained an early point that we agree that the CM offered little protection against GCR. We agree that the CM would only attenuate SPEs, and in a very extreme SPE would have left the astronauts incapacitated.
There were no SPEs during the Apollo flights. So all we have to deal with is the GCR and VABs.
Now, what electron flux in the outer VAB and how is this differentiated across electron energies?
How would the craft, rated at 8 g cm-2 perform attenuating these electrons - can you perform the integrated flux calculation? Yes or no?
I am so glad you pointed out that little tidbit and I didn't. It might have seemed a bit self serving if I had. Let us assume both you and NASA are entirely correct and it was a mere 13 rads accumulated over the VAB transit. Could you please explain to all your fans and friends and the audience how you can squeeze that into a mission dosage of .22 mgy/day. I am going to ge a bag of popcorn because I love a good magics show.
Ignoring the point of my rebuke is classic troll behavior. Now deal with the point, and if you can't figure out what that is, you really have no business even walking outside, much less trying to discuss anything here.
So now you want me to believe that the Apollo had some form of shielding other than superstructure and equipment and and this space age shielding while highly effective to VAB proton and electron fluxes is permeable to GCR and SPE and neutron flux. Right.. You expect me to believe that the shielding on the Apollo 11 craft was superior to the orion craft that launched 50 years later and probed the heart of the VAB? Is that what you want me to believe. Really?
I am an ex Navy nuke remember.
You provide be the radiation shielding thickness of the apollo( she had zero) and I will due the exposure calculation for you.
I am an ex Navy nuke remember.
You provide be the radiation shielding thickness of the apollo( she had zero) and I will due the exposure calculation for you.
Certainly. The hull was rated at 8 g cm-2. Now perform the exposure calculation for electrons in the outer belts.
Show me. I reject that as false and purely speculative.
You provide be the radiation shielding thickness of the apollo (she had zero) and I will due the exposure calculation for you.
I see that the thread has moved on from this, but anyway, as said, it's a trivial exercise if you take the time to learn to use the proper tools of the trade. Excel really isn't what you'll want to use for any larger datasets, though if that's all you can use, I'd guess plotting a rolling average with an interval of 24 and ignoring the extra points it produces would work.There is almost 70 thousand entries and I was actually looking for something a bit more elegant but thank you for the attempt. If you find this type of repetitive work thrilling then I will patiently wait to savor the fruits of your efforts.Averaging out the Crater Data to a daily average is proving a bit challenging. Has anyone else accomplished this or does anyone have an algorithm to efficiently accomplish this?That's trivial with any scripting. If you don't know how to do that, take in Excel in another column the sum of the day's hourly values divided by 24 (=SUM(B1:B24)/24 for example), and copy-paste that for every day in steps of 24.
So now you want me to believe that the Apollo had some form of shielding other than superstructure and equipment
and and this space age shielding while highly effective to VAB proton and electron fluxes is permeable to GCR and SPE and neutron flux.
You expect me to believe that the shielding on the Apollo 11 craft was superior to the orion craft that launched 50 years later and probed the heart of the VAB?
...No, "belief" has nothing to do with it. A rigorous approach would be to find out from verifiable sources (peer-reviewed if possible) what sheilding is incorporated into the designs of the Apollo and Orion modules, what radiation environments they encountered, and what dosage rates were measured in each.
You expect me to believe that the shielding on the Apollo 11 craft was superior to the orion craft that launched 50 years later and probed the heart of the VAB? Is that what you want me to believe. Really?
So now you want me to believe that the Apollo had some form of shielding other than superstructure and equipment
No, the shielding is provided by the superstructure and equipment. The composition of the command module is not hard to come by in technical documentation. Can you do the calculation yourself to show that those layers of aluminium, steel, phenolic resin, kapton, plastics and so on are actually 'zero' shielding?Quoteand and this space age shielding while highly effective to VAB proton and electron fluxes is permeable to GCR and SPE and neutron flux.
Yes, because they have different energies. This is the whole point of this entire discussion. I honestly cannot believe you don't actually get this at this point.QuoteYou expect me to believe that the shielding on the Apollo 11 craft was superior to the orion craft that launched 50 years later and probed the heart of the VAB?
Again no. The Apollo shielding was adequate for the part of the belts it actually passed through. You have been told and shown countless times how it avoided the 'heart' of the belts. Again, this is looking like wilful obtuseness designed to provoke us.
Amusingly, you seem to labour under the delusion that Saturn burned all the way to the moon.You have not proven the car has no engine. At absolute best, you have proved that you don't understand how fuel efficiency works. I have shown you ticket stubs from attractions across the country with my fingerprints on them. I have shown you date-stamped pictures of me in front of buildings there, and other people have taken pictures showing me from different angles that show I was there. You haven't looked at my car. You have claimed, without knowing anything about my engine, that I haven't stopped for gas often enough. But you don't know what mileage my car gets or what route I took to get there.Thanks Gillian - an excellent analogy!
Tim is at the stage of having doubts about the receipts produced for buying fuel on the trip, despite having demonstrated no understanding of how a car engine works, or what the factory fuel efficency is for your model...
Thank you kindly! To my mind, proving the car had no engine would be more like proving that the capsule couldn't have had enough fuel to get to the Moon and back, which of course would take quite a lot of understanding of engineering to get.
Car engine =Rocket engine.... Rocket fuel = Gasoline. The ASVAB must have been a challenge for you.
No, we know already that 3 dimensions are outside of your understanding. There is no need to remind us.Do I need remind all involved that I forego including all but the lowest of radiations of the VAB. You can look for kernels in that turd if you choose but you have to realize if the lowest radiations produce an exposure rate 6 times as high as the reported dose then anything else is simply adding fuel to a raging fire. Know when to say "No".We know that Apollo 11 entered the TLI at 24200 mph @ 12:22...
You are aware that the CM had a surface density of 8 g cm-2. Now, what was the variation in flux with energy for the outer electrons in the outer belts again? I don't believe you accounted for the performance of the CM materials against this flux profile in your calculations. Please add that information.
bknight has been here from the outset. Try to pay attention.Just glancing through the threads are you. Try a more detailed approach Johnny come lately. I already posted the math for the inquisitive.NASA considered two trajectories. The first was a direct one straight through the heart of the VAB to the moon and the second one a translunar injection using a technique invented and proven by the Russians. They determined the direct shot would actually receive the least radiation because the speed and time in the heart of the VAB would actually reduce overall exposure. The Russian method spent more time in the VAB but was far more fuel efficient. They opted for the the Russian method. There is no secret safe passage. Many pretend it is but they cannot document it. Why would we send the Orion into the heart of the VAB if such a path had been discovered?I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs. You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter. Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose. There is no getting around the facts. It can not have happened and therefore it didn't. I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled. No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.
Red herring. Besides you have already been informed why the Orion trajectory was not the same as Apollo's general trajectory. You really don't understand anything concerning orbital mechanics. The Russians didn't "invent" sny trajectory it is all in the mathematics.
Apollo's trajectory was to skirt the more intense areas of the VARB, look at the image you plotted the 2 dimensional representation of the 3 dimensional torus. You can see for your self that the trajectory was a the edges and did not go through the whole VARB. Not 4.5 hrs. but around 2 hrs. as Bob B. indicated in his computations, you're what, I think Jay coined the phrase, willfully ignorant. The data is there you either refuse to accept it or hand wave it away.
Now for your calculation please, show your work as Bob did.
It's called a "candelabra". We know already that you are not the brightest bulb. Your error is in thinking that a badge of honour.I am not the brightest candle in the candelera ( yes I am but I am trying to be modest)Why concentrate on electrons when the share territory with protons?
... because the Apollo craft followed a trajectory that skirted the outer belts. The main flux in the outer belts are due to electrons. It's a bit like someone firing 1000 paintballs at you, 999 are green and 1 are red. The electrons are the green ones.
Now, how does the shielding perform against the electron flux at the electron energies that are relevant to the problem? You need to perform an integrated flux attenuated against shielding at 8 g cm-2.
but the TLI is an elliptical orbit somewhere around 30% off the equatorial plane or 15% if you are using the lunar plane so realizing this elliptical orbit would be like slicing diagonally through the proverbial donut, just exactly how do you think they "Skirted" the VAB?3D spatial reasoning fail.
CT's like tim think very one-dimensionally... if Apollo didn't have something that was specifically called "radiation shielding" then they conclude this means it had no shielding at all and was unprotected from radiation. Such a claim is just as ridiculous as claiming that you are totally unprotected from the car roof collapsing in an accident simply because the windscreen isn't called a roof brace.
You like that? have another...Actually a good question. I used it because we all know the VAB expansds thousands of miles during Solar max and not having any reference I thought it a fairly conservative estimate.We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long
Along the geomagentic equator maybe, but as you have been told and shown repeatedly, the Apollo spacecraft did not take that route (indeed it was virtually impossible for it to do so due to the different inclinations ot the orbit and the geomagentic plane) so why do you think using the full thickness of the belt is valid?
Jason with regard to this 37000 figure do you know of a 3d picture or chat which shows the 3d path the vehicles took to transverse the edges. I have seen many 2d's but not 3d
Ben here is the video
brill thanks for that
It's called a "candelabra". We know already that you are not the brightest bulb. Your error is in thinking that a badge of honour.I am not the brightest candle in the candelera ( yes I am but I am trying to be modest)Why concentrate on electrons when the share territory with protons?
... because the Apollo craft followed a trajectory that skirted the outer belts. The main flux in the outer belts are due to electrons. It's a bit like someone firing 1000 paintballs at you, 999 are green and 1 are red. The electrons are the green ones.
Now, how does the shielding perform against the electron flux at the electron energies that are relevant to the problem? You need to perform an integrated flux attenuated against shielding at 8 g cm-2.but the TLI is an elliptical orbit somewhere around 30% off the equatorial plane or 15% if you are using the lunar plane so realizing this elliptical orbit would be like slicing diagonally through the proverbial donut, just exactly how do you think they "Skirted" the VAB?3D spatial reasoning fail.
What Tim is failing (and honestly I can only believe it is deliberate now) to grasp is that when it comes to particle radiation such as CGRs, SPEs, VABs and so on, all matter will shield all of it to some degree. That's simply the physics of putting something in the way.
And this is Tim's second major failing: he grasps the differences between the various types of radiation when it comes to different particles, but cannot conceive that these types themselves exist as a spectrum of energies, and so something that is effective against relatively low energy protons in the VAB will be entirely permeable to the much higher energy protons in the GCR. Same particle, different energy, different penetrating power and different results if it does get absorbed. Rather like throwing a bullet at a window and having it bounce off, then firing the same kind of bullet at the same window and blowing a hole through it. Same bullet, different energy, therefore different effects.
I'll also freely admit I've never taken the ASVAB. Why would I?I think most of the contributors here would never have taken it either. As a non-US citizen, I'd never heard of it before now, but tried a sample test to get an idea of the level of knowledge and ability expected.
I'll also freely admit I've never taken the ASVAB. Why would I?
The objection of using ground based neutron monitors to correlate terrestrial detection events with the solar cycle was most revealing. Most high school students understand that GCR impact on our upper atmosphere to produce neutrons. An increase in neutrons at ground level correlates with increased GCR fluxes or an SPE. Ground based monitors are a valuable source in GCR studies. There are even details on YouTube to make a rudimentary cloud chamber to detect GCR.
And the brilliant physicist, and Science populariser Prof Brian Cox, does exactly that, and then demonstrates its use...
The objection of using ground based neutron monitors to correlate terrestrial detection events with the solar cycle was most revealing. Most high school students understand that GCR impact on our upper atmosphere to produce neutrons. An increase in neutrons at ground level correlates with increased GCR fluxes or an SPE. Ground based monitors are a valuable source in GCR studies. There are even details on YouTube to make a rudimentary cloud chamber to detect GCR.
And the brilliant physicist, and Science populariser Prof Brian Cox, does exactly that, and then demonstrates its use..
What Tim is failing (and honestly I can only believe it is deliberate now) to grasp is that when it comes to particle radiation such as CGRs, SPEs, VABs and so on, all matter will shield all of it to some degree. That's simply the physics of putting something in the way.
Precisely. A thick piece of card will be a good shield for alpha particles. A beta source is usually stored in a box constructed of aluminium and wood. Of course, the HB connects a radiation shield to lead or concrete because of everyday experiences such as visits to radiologists or their understanding of nuclear reactors. They do no understand that those materials are used to attenuate x-rays and gamma rays, and in the case of a nuclear reactor there are other reasons for having a thick concrete surrounding the reactor walls.
The claim of an unshielded CM exposes their understanding immediately, yet we need to remind Tim that he was citing the use of polythene on the ISS as a radiation shield. Of course, he now fails in his consistency when applying his 'knowledge' to the CM, which was constructed of metals and polymers.
Actually, when dealing with the Alpha particles emitted by most sources, they swill not penetrate beyond the dead layer of one's skin. It is only the soft internal tissues, such as the lungs, where they interact with live tissue and create a concern.
Very easy to make, and quite amazing to watch cosmic rays zapping through, realising they might have come from events millions of light years away...
It's also a measure of timfinch's level of education that he considers it worthwhile mentioning. Also it appears to me as measure of his arrogance that he thinks that it is noteworthy enough to use as a supercilious slur. What a plonker. ::)
Maybe he should post his GOATs score, too.Well, he is already posting "scores".
Thread closed pending moderator discussion.
Edit to Add:
OP suspended for refusing to follow the rules in spite of warnings not to do so.
TimFinch,
If you wish to resume this discussion upon your return, report this post to ask that the thread be reopened.
That seems to me to be fairly clear. But somehow not to TF.
I'd judge his comprehension as either poor or deliberately selective given his recent evidence with NASA's 'kids counting squares' fun pack; where it was candidly pointed out that the exposure wasn't shielded.
... and if to prove the point that not all SPEs are created equally and astronauts can be given warning.To be fair, that's from a coronal hole stream, and we can see them coming round into earth-facing positions over several days. The sudden-onset CMEs are harder to predict, although, as already noted, the particle mass can take several hours to reach Earth, giving plenty of time for astronauts to get into the most sheltered part of their vehicle.
Science News Reporter - Solar Storm to Hit Earth (http://www.thescinewsreporter.com/2018/04/solar-storm-to-hit-earth-in-two-days-as.html)
Colour me cynical, but benparry seems deeply uninterested with any conversation absent timfinch. One would think that he would forge ahead with productive conversation were he interested, no? Surely, he must be interested in learning in his own right? No?
Well, NO. ben does not post much at all without the presence of tim. Given the sheer volume of knowledge herein, and ben's claim to be strangely ignorant of the Apollo facts, ben's reluctance to post absent tim seems odd to me. So how about it, ben? Do you want to know more? Or are you content to slavishly follow tim around the internet while learning nothing? Or do you really want to know exactly how to refute tim's nonsense? Surely, by now you are able to read basic graphs, right? And surely that allows you to refute tim's wild claims, right?
i havent heard from Tim in a short while so presumably he has accepted the findings.
you are a person who refutes hoax believers and most people like that claim the HB jump to conslusions with no real knowledge or evidence. may i say you seem to have done the same here.
i havent heard from Tim in a short while so presumably he has accepted the findings.
Given his responses here and on CQ so far, do you honestly think that is a likely outcome? Tim has demonstrably done everything in his power to avoid accepting anything that doesn't agree with his predetermined conclusions. He has gone on for page after page with mathematically nonsensical drivel to justify his refusal to accept what plain numbers are telling him. Witness his latest rant where he is refusing to accept the numbers on the crater data set are what they are actually described as. He has shifted goalposts, refused to acknowledge fundamental things about mathematics and radiation, still refuses to grasp that it is possible to skirt the edge of the VAB rather than go right through the middle because spaceflight is a 3D issue not a 2D one, and insulted members of this board. He has lied about being banned from CQ when he was in fact clearly suspended for reasons involving not actually following the rules of civility on a forum he joined voluntarily. His attitude is like walking into a church and demanding that they stop talking about God because he wants to talk about something else.Quoteyou are a person who refutes hoax believers and most people like that claim the HB jump to conslusions with no real knowledge or evidence. may i say you seem to have done the same here.
As has been pointed out already, our years of experience has helped reach these conclusions. It's not arrived at on a whim.
Sudden spelling fail noted.Colour me cynical, but benparry seems deeply uninterested with any conversation absent timfinch. One would think that he would forge ahead with productive conversation were he interested, no? Surely, he must be interested in learning in his own right? No?
Well, NO. ben does not post much at all without the presence of tim. Given the sheer volume of knowledge herein, and ben's claim to be strangely ignorant of the Apollo facts, ben's reluctance to post absent tim seems odd to me. So how about it, ben? Do you want to know more? Or are you content to slavishly follow tim around the internet while learning nothing? Or do you really want to know exactly how to refute tim's nonsense? Surely, by now you are able to read basic graphs, right? And surely that allows you to refute tim's wild claims, right?
Hi abiddan
many thanks for your comments.You're welcome.
since you seem fully conversant with all my study on the moon landings could you please post here a list of websites i have visited on them.Why should I? How would I know? and why would I care anyway? What I do know is that you have been here, CQ and facebook and have apparently learned nothing from those ventures.
my point in asking the original question was i unable to completley refute tims claims and wondered if anybody here had any pertenant information which would. that has happened.I don't believe you. You got nothing here that you haven't been spoonfed elsewhere. The answers remain the same wherever you choose to roam.
i havent heard from Tim in a short while so presumably he has accepted the findings.Nope.
However, you claim i am uninterested in learning. apart from the facebook forums i have been a member of / still a member of which have been documented here i am a semi avid researcher of such materials. Bob Breaunig's site, clavius, this site with other threads and many other resources have been used by me to further my knowledge. i now believe i have a general understanding (not thorough) of quite a few issues.Have you asked questions at those sites? Of course not because those sites do not have such a facility. You could ask here since the owners of both of those sites are members here.
can i also point out that this thread is 143 pages long. i have looked at every single post on there and the reason i dont post much is because the general cut and thrust was between Tim and people like Luke. i didnt feel i had the expertise or experience to jump in on people like Luke, BKnight, Jay, Jason etc who clearly are better equipped than me but if you feel i have committed an offense then no problem.An "offence"? Hyperbole noted.
when i was accused earlier on of being Tim or working with him i quoted something which i will quote again. you are a person who refutes hoax believers and most people like that claim the HB jump to conslusions with no real knowledge or evidence. may i say you seem to have done the same here.Long experience informs opinion.
Sudden spelling fail noted.Colour me cynical, but benparry seems deeply uninterested with any conversation absent timfinch. One would think that he would forge ahead with productive conversation were he interested, no? Surely, he must be interested in learning in his own right? No?
Well, NO. ben does not post much at all without the presence of tim. Given the sheer volume of knowledge herein, and ben's claim to be strangely ignorant of the Apollo facts, ben's reluctance to post absent tim seems odd to me. So how about it, ben? Do you want to know more? Or are you content to slavishly follow tim around the internet while learning nothing? Or do you really want to know exactly how to refute tim's nonsense? Surely, by now you are able to read basic graphs, right? And surely that allows you to refute tim's wild claims, right?
Hi abiddanmany thanks for your comments.You're welcome.since you seem fully conversant with all my study on the moon landings could you please post here a list of websites i have visited on them.Why should I? How would I know? and why would I care anyway? What I do know is that you have been here, CQ and facebook and have apparently learned nothing from those ventures.my point in asking the original question was i unable to completley refute tims claims and wondered if anybody here had any pertenant information which would. that has happened.I don't believe you. You got nothing here that you haven't been spoonfed elsewhere. The answers remain the same wherever you choose to roam.i havent heard from Tim in a short while so presumably he has accepted the findings.Nope.However, you claim i am uninterested in learning. apart from the facebook forums i have been a member of / still a member of which have been documented here i am a semi avid researcher of such materials. Bob Breaunig's site, clavius, this site with other threads and many other resources have been used by me to further my knowledge. i now believe i have a general understanding (not thorough) of quite a few issues.Have you asked questions at those sites? Of course not because those sites do not have such a facility. You could ask here since the owners of both of those sites are members here.can i also point out that this thread is 143 pages long. i have looked at every single post on there and the reason i dont post much is because the general cut and thrust was between Tim and people like Luke. i didnt feel i had the expertise or experience to jump in on people like Luke, BKnight, Jay, Jason etc who clearly are better equipped than me but if you feel i have committed an offense then no problem.An "offence"? Hyperbole noted.when i was accused earlier on of being Tim or working with him i quoted something which i will quote again. you are a person who refutes hoax believers and most people like that claim the HB jump to conslusions with no real knowledge or evidence. may i say you seem to have done the same here.Long experience informs opinion.
You think I need your permission for that?Sudden spelling fail noted.Colour me cynical, but benparry seems deeply uninterested with any conversation absent timfinch. One would think that he would forge ahead with productive conversation were he interested, no? Surely, he must be interested in learning in his own right? No?
Well, NO. ben does not post much at all without the presence of tim. Given the sheer volume of knowledge herein, and ben's claim to be strangely ignorant of the Apollo facts, ben's reluctance to post absent tim seems odd to me. So how about it, ben? Do you want to know more? Or are you content to slavishly follow tim around the internet while learning nothing? Or do you really want to know exactly how to refute tim's nonsense? Surely, by now you are able to read basic graphs, right? And surely that allows you to refute tim's wild claims, right?
Hi abiddanmany thanks for your comments.You're welcome.since you seem fully conversant with all my study on the moon landings could you please post here a list of websites i have visited on them.Why should I? How would I know? and why would I care anyway? What I do know is that you have been here, CQ and facebook and have apparently learned nothing from those ventures.my point in asking the original question was i unable to completley refute tims claims and wondered if anybody here had any pertenant information which would. that has happened.I don't believe you. You got nothing here that you haven't been spoonfed elsewhere. The answers remain the same wherever you choose to roam.i havent heard from Tim in a short while so presumably he has accepted the findings.Nope.However, you claim i am uninterested in learning. apart from the facebook forums i have been a member of / still a member of which have been documented here i am a semi avid researcher of such materials. Bob Breaunig's site, clavius, this site with other threads and many other resources have been used by me to further my knowledge. i now believe i have a general understanding (not thorough) of quite a few issues.Have you asked questions at those sites? Of course not because those sites do not have such a facility. You could ask here since the owners of both of those sites are members here.can i also point out that this thread is 143 pages long. i have looked at every single post on there and the reason i dont post much is because the general cut and thrust was between Tim and people like Luke. i didnt feel i had the expertise or experience to jump in on people like Luke, BKnight, Jay, Jason etc who clearly are better equipped than me but if you feel i have committed an offense then no problem.An "offence"? Hyperbole noted.when i was accused earlier on of being Tim or working with him i quoted something which i will quote again. you are a person who refutes hoax believers and most people like that claim the HB jump to conslusions with no real knowledge or evidence. may i say you seem to have done the same here.Long experience informs opinion.
I'll Tell you what Abaddon you believe whatever you wish too. you are incorrect but never mind.
You say about asking questions. if you cast your eye back over the threads you will find quite a few questions that i have asked. You may well even have provided an answer for them. so for the learning nothing that couldn't be further from the truth.So after asking at CQ all about radiation and receiving explanations, you learned so much that you signed up here and asked THE EXACT SAME QUESTIONS all over again because....reasons.
finally its nice to hear you say opinion because it certainly isn't fact. i do find it amusing though that after all your character assassinations the best answers you could try to get me with is to do with my spelling lol.It is a common tactic used by CTists to intentionally bork their interlocutors names.
You think I need your permission for that?Sudden spelling fail noted.Colour me cynical, but benparry seems deeply uninterested with any conversation absent timfinch. One would think that he would forge ahead with productive conversation were he interested, no? Surely, he must be interested in learning in his own right? No?
Well, NO. ben does not post much at all without the presence of tim. Given the sheer volume of knowledge herein, and ben's claim to be strangely ignorant of the Apollo facts, ben's reluctance to post absent tim seems odd to me. So how about it, ben? Do you want to know more? Or are you content to slavishly follow tim around the internet while learning nothing? Or do you really want to know exactly how to refute tim's nonsense? Surely, by now you are able to read basic graphs, right? And surely that allows you to refute tim's wild claims, right?
Hi abiddanmany thanks for your comments.You're welcome.since you seem fully conversant with all my study on the moon landings could you please post here a list of websites i have visited on them.Why should I? How would I know? and why would I care anyway? What I do know is that you have been here, CQ and facebook and have apparently learned nothing from those ventures.my point in asking the original question was i unable to completley refute tims claims and wondered if anybody here had any pertenant information which would. that has happened.I don't believe you. You got nothing here that you haven't been spoonfed elsewhere. The answers remain the same wherever you choose to roam.i havent heard from Tim in a short while so presumably he has accepted the findings.Nope.However, you claim i am uninterested in learning. apart from the facebook forums i have been a member of / still a member of which have been documented here i am a semi avid researcher of such materials. Bob Breaunig's site, clavius, this site with other threads and many other resources have been used by me to further my knowledge. i now believe i have a general understanding (not thorough) of quite a few issues.Have you asked questions at those sites? Of course not because those sites do not have such a facility. You could ask here since the owners of both of those sites are members here.can i also point out that this thread is 143 pages long. i have looked at every single post on there and the reason i dont post much is because the general cut and thrust was between Tim and people like Luke. i didnt feel i had the expertise or experience to jump in on people like Luke, BKnight, Jay, Jason etc who clearly are better equipped than me but if you feel i have committed an offense then no problem.An "offence"? Hyperbole noted.when i was accused earlier on of being Tim or working with him i quoted something which i will quote again. you are a person who refutes hoax believers and most people like that claim the HB jump to conslusions with no real knowledge or evidence. may i say you seem to have done the same here.Long experience informs opinion.
I'll Tell you what Abaddon you believe whatever you wish too. you are incorrect but never mind.You say about asking questions. if you cast your eye back over the threads you will find quite a few questions that i have asked. You may well even have provided an answer for them. so for the learning nothing that couldn't be further from the truth.So after asking at CQ all about radiation and receiving explanations, you learned so much that you signed up here and asked THE EXACT SAME QUESTIONS all over again because....reasons.finally its nice to hear you say opinion because it certainly isn't fact. i do find it amusing though that after all your character assassinations the best answers you could try to get me with is to do with my spelling lol.It is a common tactic used by CTists to intentionally bork their interlocutors names.
no you dont need my permission but you seem to think it is ok to just insult me whenever you wish.Point out any insult
surely that is against the rules here.Would be up to the mod to determine that, but it is moot as it didn't happen.
secondly i did ask that question at CQ but Tim didnt delve into nearly as much detail as he has here.Nothing stopping either of you so doing. Have at it.
finally after casting you eye back on the questions i have asked (i assume you have done this so you have some facts not opinions to come back with) and knowing the facebook groups i have been in which you can look through to see comments i have made and seen the comments i have made here you think i am a HB. ReallyMy honest answer? Naw, you don't want that. Really.
no you dont need my permission but you seem to think it is ok to just insult me whenever you wish.Point out any insultsurely that is against the rules here.Would be up to the mod to determine that, but it is moot as it didn't happen.secondly i did ask that question at CQ but Tim didnt delve into nearly as much detail as he has here.Nothing stopping either of you so doing. Have at it.finally after casting you eye back on the questions i have asked (i assume you have done this so you have some facts not opinions to come back with) and knowing the facebook groups i have been in which you can look through to see comments i have made and seen the comments i have made here you think i am a HB. ReallyMy honest answer? Naw, you don't want that. Really.
no you dont need my permission but you seem to think it is ok to just insult me whenever you wish. surely that is against the rules here. secondly i did ask that question at CQ but Tim didnt delve into nearly as much detail as he has here.How do you know that timfinch didn't go into further detail on CQ?
finally after casting you eye back on the questions i have asked (i assume you have done this so you have some facts not opinions to come back with) and knowing the facebook groups i have been in which you can look through to see comments i have made and seen the comments i have made here you think i am a HB. ReallyYou want facts? OK. After starting the ball rolling on CQ, you bailed on 21-Nov-2017 never to be seen again. No posts, not even a login. timfinch, OTOH kept plugging away until 12-Apr-2018 at which point he claimed here on this site to have been banned (that was a lie).
well i have been accused of being Tim, working with Tim, then you came back with accusing me of having no interest and being a silent member. as alluded to above that is incorrect.Then why did you vanish without trace from CQ? timfinch bashed on for a further 4 months there before attempting to weasel out with nary a comment from you, not even a login. Somehow you seem to be familiar with his posts there.
yes it would be down to the administrators to say that. i am in no way attempting to manage this or any other part here.Because self-appointed mods never sit well on any site. This is true regardless of the topic at hand.
if you cast your eye over this thread you will find he did have at it. for all of 143 pages. i do not believe the moon landings were fake so there is no need for me to have at it.So just to be clear. You introduced TF to CQ and then abandoned ship for 4 months, never logging in to contribute, ask, or even read, yet you somehow know what TF may or may not have said for those intervening 4 months.
finally yes i would like your answer. do you believe i am a hoax believer and if so i would find it interesting to see your evidence and proof for this.Asked and answered.
if you don't have any then you shouldn't make silly comments.What was that you said about insults?
no you dont need my permission but you seem to think it is ok to just insult me whenever you wish. surely that is against the rules here. secondly i did ask that question at CQ but Tim didnt delve into nearly as much detail as he has here.How do you know that timfinch didn't go into further detail on CQ?finally after casting you eye back on the questions i have asked (i assume you have done this so you have some facts not opinions to come back with) and knowing the facebook groups i have been in which you can look through to see comments i have made and seen the comments i have made here you think i am a HB. ReallyYou want facts? OK. After starting the ball rolling on CQ, you bailed on 21-Nov-2017 never to be seen again. No posts, not even a login. timfinch, OTOH kept plugging away until 12-Apr-2018 at which point he claimed here on this site to have been banned (that was a lie).
Then you arrive here with the exact same story "I have this friend..." and recycle the exact same story all over again.
Are you really suggesting that this should not be a matter of some suspicion? Then, piling Pelion upon Ossa, you reluctantly link us to facebook pages (and we had to batter that out of you) where the very same double act is performed.
And you are claiming to be perplexed that a certain rodent is being detected?
well i have been accused of being Tim, working with Tim, then you came back with accusing me of having no interest and being a silent member. as alluded to above that is incorrect.Then why did you vanish without trace from CQ? timfinch bashed on for a further 4 months there before attempting to weasel out with nary a comment from you, not even a login. Somehow you seem to be familiar with his posts there.yes it would be down to the administrators to say that. i am in no way attempting to manage this or any other part here.Because self-appointed mods never sit well on any site. This is true regardless of the topic at hand.if you cast your eye over this thread you will find he did have at it. for all of 143 pages. i do not believe the moon landings were fake so there is no need for me to have at it.So just to be clear. You introduced TF to CQ and then abandoned ship for 4 months, never logging in to contribute, ask, or even read, yet you somehow know what TF may or may not have said for those intervening 4 months.finally yes i would like your answer. do you believe i am a hoax believer and if so i would find it interesting to see your evidence and proof for this.Asked and answered.if you don't have any then you shouldn't make silly comments.What was that you said about insults?
i didn't know. after CQ we didnt speak for a long time and there was no need for me to log into there as i didnt have issues answering people or finding details.There is no "after CQ". Both accounts are still live.
I'm not quite sure why Tim claiming to have been banned is my fault.Nobody said it was. Strawman.
After a while i contacted Tim to see how he was and have a general chat. he provided me with more questions regarding the same topic and as i had asked some other questions on this forum i decided to try here to finally finish it off.Not what actually happened here. Any conversations you may or may not have had with TF are none of our business and unverifiable in any case.
i started with 'i have a friend' because i didnt know if the same people who were on cosmoquest were on here and i thought it was a polite way to start off a thread.We have the same internet handles. Surely that gave you a clue, no?
yes i am suggesting that. no non cynical person would believe that.It has actually happened plenty of times. Patrick Tekeli springs to mind, a man with so many socks that there are not enough drawers in the universe. I know you are not him because he is dead.
if somebody asks me a question my mind doesnt immediately go through a whole list of things as to why i shouldnt answer. i just answer it to the best of my knowledge.Irrelevant. Most here would do likewise. The problem is that the corpus CT uses these very tactics to insinuate themselves like a bacterial infection into truth, knowledge and honesty. Perhaps you have found yourself unintentionally jumping through those hoops without foreknowledge that these are games we have all seen CTists perform over and over and over. It is a form of the "good cop, bad cop" routine. Again.
you seem to be confused about the facebook pages. this information was happily given.Read back up thread. It was not happily given. The amount of dodging and obfuscation was a sight to behold, all for a link that was at your fingertips.
i actually gave more links than was nessecary.Who exactly determined what was "necessary"? Given the links, the members could determine if they were sufficient.
there was no double act formed. i actually dont believe the radiation issue was discussed on the facebook groups. it was other topics such as the size of the earth.And now you are claiming that the links you provided were off-topic. And you knew it.
so yes i am perplexed.Well, if providing the links requested perplexes you, then I must perforce agree. You are indeed perplexed.
if you feel you are some higher being that has to look after everybody here then thats fine but i again repeat what Luke said. lets focus on the facts and what is asked on the forum.Strawman and I did that already.
lets not delve into any side stories.No, you are attempting to cast the "side story" as unimportant. From my perspective, it may be the most important aspect.
i understand many people have created sock accounts etc and tried to fool others here but at the end of the day i havent and i have shown i havent so i am not really clear as to why my name is still being soiled.Because you have not done that. All I or anyone knows is whatever you self present. As we stand, the evidence is that you and TF are one and the same individual. Have you other evidence to present?
in my opinion the moon landings did happen and also in my opinion the radiation issue with Tim is now closed.Neither of those are matters of opinion. It is a fact that the moon landings happened as advertised and it is a fact that TF does not accept the preceding fact.
as i say he hasnt contacted me for quite some time so i can only assume he has accepted the findings or simply realised he isnt going to get past the expertise here.That is naive. TF wants the moon hoax as a matter of religious belief and those are not subject to reason.
which ever is the case none of this means i am a hoax believer and if you think i am or you think i have some alterier motive then you are wrong. plain and simple.WTF? "alterier"? Really? Is that some breed of dog?
i didn't know. after CQ we didnt speak for a long time and there was no need for me to log into there as i didnt have issues answering people or finding details.There is no "after CQ". Both accounts are still live.I'm not quite sure why Tim claiming to have been banned is my fault.Nobody said it was. Strawman.After a while i contacted Tim to see how he was and have a general chat. he provided me with more questions regarding the same topic and as i had asked some other questions on this forum i decided to try here to finally finish it off.Not what actually happened here. Any conversations you may or may not have had with TF are none of our business and unverifiable in any case.i started with 'i have a friend' because i didnt know if the same people who were on cosmoquest were on here and i thought it was a polite way to start off a thread.We have the same internet handles. Surely that gave you a clue, no?yes i am suggesting that. no non cynical person would believe that.It has actually happened plenty of times. Patrick Tekeli springs to mind, a man with so many socks that there are not enough drawers in the universe. I know you are not him because he is dead.if somebody asks me a question my mind doesnt immediately go through a whole list of things as to why i shouldnt answer. i just answer it to the best of my knowledge.Irrelevant. Most here would do likewise. The problem is that the corpus CT uses these very tactics to insinuate themselves like a bacterial infection into truth, knowledge and honesty. Perhaps you have found yourself unintentionally jumping through those hoops without foreknowledge that these are games we have all seen CTists perform over and over and over. It is a form of the "good cop, bad cop" routine. Again.
you seem to be confused about the facebook pages. this information was happily given.Read back up thread. It was not happily given. The amount of dodging and obfuscation was a sight to behold, all for a link that was at your fingertips.i actually gave more links than was nessecary.Who exactly determined what was "necessary"? Given the links, the members could determine if they were sufficient.there was no double act formed. i actually dont believe the radiation issue was discussed on the facebook groups. it was other topics such as the size of the earth.And now you are claiming that the links you provided were off-topic. And you knew it.so yes i am perplexed.Well, if providing the links requested perplexes you, then I must perforce agree. You are indeed perplexed.if you feel you are some higher being that has to look after everybody here then thats fine but i again repeat what Luke said. lets focus on the facts and what is asked on the forum.Strawman and I did that already.lets not delve into any side stories.No, you are attempting to cast the "side story" as unimportant. From my perspective, it may be the most important aspect.
Are you and TF one and the same?
Are you and TF two individuals playing a game?
Are you and TF two individuals who are new to all of this?
And so on. The only method I have to make this determination is the evidence I have before me, and what am I to make of that?i understand many people have created sock accounts etc and tried to fool others here but at the end of the day i havent and i have shown i havent so i am not really clear as to why my name is still being soiled.Because you have not done that. All I or anyone knows is whatever you self present. As we stand, the evidence is that you and TF are one and the same individual. Have you other evidence to present?in my opinion the moon landings did happen and also in my opinion the radiation issue with Tim is now closed.Neither of those are matters of opinion. It is a fact that the moon landings happened as advertised and it is a fact that TF does not accept the preceding fact.as i say he hasnt contacted me for quite some time so i can only assume he has accepted the findings or simply realised he isnt going to get past the expertise here.That is naive. TF wants the moon hoax as a matter of religious belief and those are not subject to reason.which ever is the case none of this means i am a hoax believer and if you think i am or you think i have some alterier motive then you are wrong. plain and simple.WTF? "alterier"? Really? Is that some breed of dog?
And you are wrong. I may indeed be the only one to post publically, but you don't have any awareness of private messages in the background.
abaddon
i have absolutely no interest in carrying on this ridiculous conversation.
you are the only person still questioning this so i'll let you carry on doing that if you wish.
if i have any questions in the future i will be happy to ask here. if you wish to answer do so. if you don't then don't. any questions i do ask will be to further my knowledge.That is how fora work.
as i hadn't been on cq for a while quite a few names were new to me. apologies for trying to appear pleasant.Apologies for observing that you failed to do so.
If Tim is up for a skype call with you to show you he is really him and i am me i will be more than happy to proceed.No. You are erecting a challenge which cannot be met with rules biased to the claimant. I will not fall for that one.
if you can tell me a way to share a facebook messenger message (all of it) i will be happy to share that with you.Facebook is a useless hole of oblivion to me. I don't do facebook beyond browsing it occasionally. Last facebook page I browsed was belonging to a wingnut who claimed to be the wife of GOD. No thanks.
i have no interest in pretending to be somebody i'm not.Then you are in good company here, because none of the regulars here do either.
your wrong about the FB. as soon as Tim pointed out to me which one it was i happily shared it. (as i said quite a few times i have been in and out of a few over time)You miss the point. And emphasize it. You now claim that you had to defer to TF to even find it.
i gave more links to FB groups than asked. actually ones Tim was never a member of. this was to show i actually believed they were real. so no not off Topic it was to show we were different people and had the views we claimed we did.Setting up facebook socks is a trivial exercise. Do not pretend that you are unaware of that.
so i think i have covered everything there. the main thing is we are who we say. if a skype call is needed i can do that. again i havent spoken to Tim for a while but you can ask him here or on facebook.If you are incapable of making your case here, what makes you think skype would help?
Abaddon can i just say now i won't stand for my name being soiled anywhereThen stop doing it.
but also i won't simply go back and forth with nit pick arguments.It is not a "nit-pick".
so if you wish to believe that i am a HB fine. I'm telling you i'm not. if you choose not to believe then fine. if i ask any more questions here to further my knowledge it obviously is up to you if you wish to answer.And I will happily hand you whatever references I have to hand without prejudice of any sort. Not a problem.
HOWEVERSure. Nobody has control over you here. But everyone here has control over themselves. I would have thought that was self evident.
i won't reply to anymore of you comments on this or any other thread which relates to me being who i say i am. to me that is insulting and i have no interest in continuing to prove to you who i say i am.
many thanks for any contribution you made to showing where Tim was wrong. all entries on this thread have been interesting to me and have furthered my knowledge very much.I genuinely hope you did. The membership of this site is a motley of engineers, chemists, physicists and so forth, even gillian the grammar nazi (LOL). There is a vast repository of knowledge of even the most obscure details here.
And you are wrong. I may indeed be the only one to post publically, but you don't have any awareness of private messages in the background.
abaddon
i have absolutely no interest in carrying on this ridiculous conversation.
you are the only person still questioning this so i'll let you carry on doing that if you wish.if i have any questions in the future i will be happy to ask here. if you wish to answer do so. if you don't then don't. any questions i do ask will be to further my knowledge.That is how fora work.as i hadn't been on cq for a while quite a few names were new to me. apologies for trying to appear pleasant.Apologies for observing that you failed to do so.If Tim is up for a skype call with you to show you he is really him and i am me i will be more than happy to proceed.No. You are erecting a challenge which cannot be met with rules biased to the claimant. I will not fall for that one.if you can tell me a way to share a facebook messenger message (all of it) i will be happy to share that with you.Facebook is a useless hole of oblivion to me. I don't do facebook beyond browsing it occasionally. Last facebook page I browsed was belonging to a wingnut who claimed to be the wife of GOD. No thanks.i have no interest in pretending to be somebody i'm not.Then you are in good company here, because none of the regulars here do either.your wrong about the FB. as soon as Tim pointed out to me which one it was i happily shared it. (as i said quite a few times i have been in and out of a few over time)You miss the point. And emphasize it. You now claim that you had to defer to TF to even find it.i gave more links to FB groups than asked. actually ones Tim was never a member of. this was to show i actually believed they were real. so no not off Topic it was to show we were different people and had the views we claimed we did.Setting up facebook socks is a trivial exercise. Do not pretend that you are unaware of that.so i think i have covered everything there. the main thing is we are who we say. if a skype call is needed i can do that. again i havent spoken to Tim for a while but you can ask him here or on facebook.If you are incapable of making your case here, what makes you think skype would help?Abaddon can i just say now i won't stand for my name being soiled anywhereThen stop doing it.but also i won't simply go back and forth with nit pick arguments.It is not a "nit-pick".so if you wish to believe that i am a HB fine. I'm telling you i'm not. if you choose not to believe then fine. if i ask any more questions here to further my knowledge it obviously is up to you if you wish to answer.And I will happily hand you whatever references I have to hand without prejudice of any sort. Not a problem.HOWEVERSure. Nobody has control over you here. But everyone here has control over themselves. I would have thought that was self evident.
i won't reply to anymore of you comments on this or any other thread which relates to me being who i say i am. to me that is insulting and i have no interest in continuing to prove to you who i say i am.many thanks for any contribution you made to showing where Tim was wrong. all entries on this thread have been interesting to me and have furthered my knowledge very much.I genuinely hope you did. The membership of this site is a motley of engineers, chemists, physicists and so forth, even gillian the grammar nazi (LOL). There is a vast repository of knowledge of even the most obscure details here.
Use it.
<snip for brevity>Respect is earned, not a default.
after your final comment it appears we have reached a modicum of agreement. i wish you well.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again--I don't care if Ben is Tim or Ben is working with Tim or if Ben really is who he says he is, and I think not taking him at his word is honestly rude. I do think Ben might take a more active part when Tim is around and make it clear that, yes, the explanations being given make sense to him, but I'm also not going to judge people for their argument style or their willingness to let knowledgeable give answers.Meh, I have stated that I am willing to give a bye provisionally And sorry for the barb, that was in good nature, I appreciate your contributions.
I do think the idea that Tim has vanished because he's acknowledged that he's wrong is at best an optimistic one. He can't admit he's wrong about the tiniest details.
I want to pick up where I left off. You guys were explaining how the Apollo shielding was effective in reducing the protron flux of the VAB to an inconsequential amount. It may have been that attempt that caused a biological disruption that put me in the hospital but I am on antibiotics now and can proceed without caution. Feel free to illuminate me and all others. How effective is apollo 8 gm/cm^2 shielding against >5 mev protons. P.S. I have a fresh bag of popcorn.
iT is is true but >7 mev electrons are shielded by the hull anyway. >15 mev electrons populate the outer reaches of the VAB, especially during peak solar activity. >15 mev electrons are not detectable by a normal radiation detector as they pass right through without depositing enough energy to be detected. 8 gm/c^2 shielding is useless and allows >15 mev electrons to pass right through.
2. Given the indicated radiation dosages in Rads/sec for each zone, what will be the dosages that the
astronauts receive in each zone?
Blue: = 27.6 minutes x ( 60 sec/ 1 minute) x (0.0001 Rads/sec) = 0.17 Rads
Yellow = 6.1 minutes x 60 sec/minute x 0.005 rads/sec = 1.83 Rads
Orange = 15.3 minutes x (60 sec/minute) x 0.01 rads/sec = 9.18 Rads
Green = 3.8 minutes x (60 sec/minute) x 0.001 rads/sec = 0.23 Rads
3. What will be the total radiation dosage in Rads for the transit through the belts?
0.17 + 1.83 + 9.18 + 0.23 = 11.4 Rads
Recognizing all of this radiation is from high energy protons adds clarity to the deception. Can you see it now?
I'm sorry but I thought you had seen this...
Did I not mention that current detectors are incapable of measuring >15 mev electron flux? We have no Idea beyond speculation what the flux density is at any point in the VAB but we do know for certain that it increases with solar activity.iT is is true but >7 mev electrons are shielded by the hull anyway. >15 mev electrons populate the outer reaches of the VAB, especially during peak solar activity. >15 mev electrons are not detectable by a normal radiation detector as they pass right through without depositing enough energy to be detected. 8 gm/c^2 shielding is useless and allows >15 mev electrons to pass right through.
Get your facts straight. >15 mev electrons are also >7 mev. Earlier you were concerned with protons, now it's electrons? Although >15 mev electrons may be in the outer reaches of the VABs, they are NOT the most populous. What IS their actual ratio/intensity? If > 15mev electrons pass right through a detector, how would we know they exist?
I'm sure you are aware this article is about shield design in LEO and the fluxes in high inclination orbit. I am also sure you are aware that aluminum shielding produces secondary particle radiation and suprathermal proton bremsstrahlung. If you have any questions so ever about the shielding ability of high energy protons then take a look at the ORION data. It is eye opening.
So if electrons with energy higher than 15 MeV pass right through the hull, what do they do to humans?I imagine the same thing a high speed projectile that passes through the body does. It blows anything in it's path out of it's way. We can certainly be sure it is nothing good as if it was we would be showering ing GCR.
Pass right through?
So if electrons with energy higher than 15 MeV pass right through the hull, what do they do to humans?I imagine the same thing a high speed projectile that passes through the body does. It blows anything in it's path out of it's way. We can certainly be sure it is nothing good as if it was we would be showering ing GCR.
Pass right through?
t mention that current detectors are incapable of measuring >15 mev electron flux? We have no Idea beyond speculation what the flux density is at any point in the VAB but we do know for certain that it increases with solar activity.
So if electrons with energy higher than 15 MeV pass right through the hull, what do they do to humans?I imagine the same thing a high speed projectile that passes through the body does. It blows anything in it's path out of it's way. We can certainly be sure it is nothing good as if it was we would be showering ing GCR.
Pass right through?
That seems so relevant....So if electrons with energy higher than 15 MeV pass right through the hull, what do they do to humans?I imagine the same thing a high speed projectile that passes through the body does. It blows anything in it's path out of it's way. We can certainly be sure it is nothing good as if it was we would be showering ing GCR.
Pass right through?
Neutrinos pass through most detectors as well...
Bob Braeunig is a government shill. I never got past his blatant deception in the illustration of the path of the Apollo 11 through the VAB. That destroyed any credibility the man might have had in my eyes.So if electrons with energy higher than 15 MeV pass right through the hull, what do they do to humans?I imagine the same thing a high speed projectile that passes through the body does. It blows anything in it's path out of it's way. We can certainly be sure it is nothing good as if it was we would be showering ing GCR.
Pass right through?
Two options: 1): It passes right through the human body without depositing any energy there. That means it does not interact with the human body. Therefore it does zero damage. A bullet passing through the human body DOES deposit energy while passing through. Therefore it does damage.
2): It deposits some or all of its energy in the human body, and therefore does SOME damage. But the damage is proportional to the FLUX of the particle. Not just the existence of the particle.
Edited to add: Bob Braeunig had a large section on his radiation page, where he calculated the secondary radiation. In short, the wavelengths produced did not penetrate to the cabin.
You have been lied to. Here is the actual path through the VAB. One must be aware the the center of the VAB is not aligned with the earths equatorial plane rather it is aligned with the magnetic equator which is offset 11.5 degrees. This results in the lunar orbit being 17.15 degrees into the magnetic equatorial plane. The only region of the VAB not encountered in a VAB transit is the 2*10^8 flux at the very heart. It's path is through the 1*10^8 region (half as much).
Also, the CM didn't just use aluminium in its construction. There was a stainless steel plate in it too. Also, the other components of the spacecraft provided shielding. The SM - 38 tonnes - shielded the CM from one end, the LM - 15 tonnes - from the other on the outbound trip. Only the sides were "open" to space.Heavy metals are a anathema to high energy protons due to secondary emissions are more dangerous than the primary proton radiation that created them. No one would add steel to the mix.
How does that factor into your calculations?
It's physics. It works even if you don't understand it or believe it.There is no magic in physics, only in Moon Hoax deniers excuses. Show me the math!
Do you ever wonder what it is like to be caught in the death grip of a boa constrictor?
You have been lied to.
Here is the actual path through the VAB.
No matter what YOU think, tim, there was a sheet of stainless steel in the CM's wall. Beneath the phenolic resin and the aluminium face plate. So the secondary radiation created by the very light nuclei would hit this steel and STOP. It could not reach the crew.I have never questioned the construction of the Apollo.. I simply contend not a gram of material was added for the purpose of shielding and the structural material offered some protection from electrons, it offered none and even worse it increased overall exposure or would have if they had ventured beyond LEO.
Your inability to research the construction of the CM is not an argument against the Apollo moon landings.
If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem. Make that work without magic.
The December 2014 Orion test flight was flown in preparation for manned explorations to the Moon and to Mars.
With a trajectory designed principally to examine the heat shield performance at re-entry, Orion had to make a highly elliptical orbit taking it some 3,600miles/5,800km off the surface of the planet into the region of the lower (or inner) Van Allen belt. As a result, even though Orion’s apogee was well shy of the worst part of this inner belt, (another 2,344 miles further out) Orion carried instrumentation for registering the radiation environment in the craft’s interior.[1]
You like that? have another...Actually a good question. I used it because we all know the VAB expansds thousands of miles during Solar max and not having any reference I thought it a fairly conservative estimate.We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long
Along the geomagentic equator maybe, but as you have been told and shown repeatedly, the Apollo spacecraft did not take that route (indeed it was virtually impossible for it to do so due to the different inclinations ot the orbit and the geomagentic plane) so why do you think using the full thickness of the belt is valid?
Jason with regard to this 37000 figure do you know of a 3d picture or chat which shows the 3d path the vehicles took to transverse the edges. I have seen many 2d's but not 3d
Ben here is the video
brill thanks for that
These animations make it clear how the worst of the VAB were avoided.
Unfortunately, they also demonstrate how TF is unable to fathom 3 dimensions.
ETA: I am wondering what TF will make of the contour lines?
It would be more rewarding for you to explain why all extraterrestrial flights do not take this mystical low exposure path through the VAB or as you would like us to believe use apollo shielding which eliminates practically all radiation exposure. I am more that willing to extrapolate Orion exposure out to the extents of the VAB to prove my point but you don't want to do that do you?The December 2014 Orion test flight was flown in preparation for manned explorations to the Moon and to Mars.
With a trajectory designed principally to examine the heat shield performance at re-entry, Orion had to make a highly elliptical orbit taking it some 3,600miles/5,800km off the surface of the planet into the region of the lower (or inner) Van Allen belt. As a result, even though Orion’s apogee was well shy of the worst part of this inner belt, (another 2,344 miles further out) Orion carried instrumentation for registering the radiation environment in the craft’s interior.[1]
Please, you're quoting these charlatans now?
http://www.aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm
How about you explain why Orion's mission profile was designed that way, maybe bring us some results.
How about you explain how China's lunar surface show evidence of human activity at the Apollo sites?
You like that? have another...Actually a good question. I used it because we all know the VAB expansds thousands of miles during Solar max and not having any reference I thought it a fairly conservative estimate.We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long
Along the geomagentic equator maybe, but as you have been told and shown repeatedly, the Apollo spacecraft did not take that route (indeed it was virtually impossible for it to do so due to the different inclinations ot the orbit and the geomagentic plane) so why do you think using the full thickness of the belt is valid?
Jason with regard to this 37000 figure do you know of a 3d picture or chat which shows the 3d path the vehicles took to transverse the edges. I have seen many 2d's but not 3d
Ben here is the video
brill thanks for that
These animations make it clear how the worst of the VAB were avoided.
Unfortunately, they also demonstrate how TF is unable to fathom 3 dimensions.
ETA: I am wondering what TF will make of the contour lines?
Now if you rotate the geomagnetic equator 11.5 degrees to the north and slow the revolution down to something realistic then this would be an outstanding representation
ONEBIGMONKEY, I am unaware of any proof of a manned landing. If there was such evidence then why is there a debate. Nothing seen validates the presence of a person and nothing returned proves it was returned by a man. Lunar rovers have been around for a half century or more. You can all the crap you like on the moon without ever sending men to unload it. Prove that they can conduct the transit with less than a .25 mgy/day exposure and I will surrender and join the opposition.
Uhmmm...they ARE both aligned with the magnetic poles already.
Uhmmm...they ARE both aligned with the magnetic poles already.
Am I reading this correctly. Tim has suggested we have to realign the magnetic axis with respect to the van Allen belts to obtain that correct orbital path of the craft through the van Allen belts? Is this what Tim is claiming?
What was the thumb rule Brauenig used? 40% of the proton energy for a captured/Shielded proton is released in the form of secondary radiation. Did I get that right. Do you want to use that thumb rule?If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem. Make that work without magic.
First of all, if you think the amended graph you posted with your version of the Apollo flight path added added any relevance regarding the amount of protons aluminum can shield you are VERY wrong there, also. The statement you made above is equally as wrong, which shows how little you really understand about shielding and its relation to flux. Example, how much of a 2x10EE8 proton per square centimeter per second flux, with energies between .1 MeV and 1 MeV, would 1 mm of aluminum stop?
What was the thumb rule Brauenig used? 40% of the proton energy for a captured/Shielded proton is released in the form of secondary radiation. Did I get that right. Do you want to use that thumb rule?If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem. Make that work without magic.
First of all, if you think the amended graph you posted with your version of the Apollo flight path added added any relevance regarding the amount of protons aluminum can shield you are VERY wrong there, also. The statement you made above is equally as wrong, which shows how little you really understand about shielding and its relation to flux. Example, how much of a 2x10EE8 proton per square centimeter per second flux, with energies between .1 MeV and 1 MeV, would 1 mm of aluminum stop?
My answer is 3What was the thumb rule Brauenig used? 40% of the proton energy for a captured/Shielded proton is released in the form of secondary radiation. Did I get that right. Do you want to use that thumb rule?If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem. Make that work without magic.
First of all, if you think the amended graph you posted with your version of the Apollo flight path added added any relevance regarding the amount of protons aluminum can shield you are VERY wrong there, also. The statement you made above is equally as wrong, which shows how little you really understand about shielding and its relation to flux. Example, how much of a 2x10EE8 proton per square centimeter per second flux, with energies between .1 MeV and 1 MeV, would 1 mm of aluminum stop?
Use whatever you feel you need to, but I want you to answer my question, as posted. I am off to bed now, so you have time to work on it.
This is getting embarrassing.
My answer is 3
Time for a recap:13. Tim is unable to interpret 2D representations of 3D movements.
1. Tim claimed that CRaTER data did no fall below 0.22 as he failed to read a log graph.
2. Tim claimed the moon was prohibitively radioactive as he confused radiation with radioactivity.
3. Tim did not understand the correlation between solar cycle and GCR.
4. Tim tried to use data for cycle 24 when Apollo occurred in cycle 20.
5. Tim presented average data and claimed this was a minimum and maximum, but did not understand the data was in fact
modulated about average values.
6. Tim does not understand that an average has values less than the average and greater than the average.
7. Tim included SPEs in a plot and claimed the tail of the data increased, despite there being no record of SPEs in the Apollo flights.
8. Tim presented a child's game as proof of the missions, cited the data, despite his own source telling him that the CM was
shielded.
9. Tim is incorrectly interpreting the CM path by presenting graph of speed versus position.
10. Tim has shown he does not understand the flux energy profiles of particles in the VABs.
11. Tim does not differentiate between radiation background and radiation hazard.
12. Tim does not understand how to apply stopping power using when given surface density.
I could add, but these are the main points.
You have been lied to. Here is the actual path through the VAB. One must be aware the the center of the VAB is not aligned with the earths equatorial plane rather it is aligned with the magnetic equator which is offset 11.5 degrees. This results in the lunar orbit being 17.15 degrees into the magnetic equatorial plane. The only region of the VAB not encountered in a VAB transit is the 2*10^8 flux at the very heart. It's path is through the 1*10^8 region (half as much).
Always remember and never forget that the lowest GCR background radiation (exclusive of any Solar radiation you could anally extract) was 1.4 mgy/day. You have to somehow reduce VAB transit radiation to something less than .08 mgy/day and lunar operation to zero to arrive at the .22 mgy/day of apollo 11. I am going to have to get more popcorn.
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate. It simply delays the inevitable. I will make this simple. The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB. The Apollo flight path is delineated. The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different. It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65. If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard. Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on. I can easily be silenced. Show me something real.
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate. It simply delays the inevitable. I will make this simple. The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB. The Apollo flight path is delineated. The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different. It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65. If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard. Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on. I can easily be silenced. Show me something real.The Apollo TLI was not a straight line. Only an idiot would think that.
No matter what YOU think, tim, there was a sheet of stainless steel in the CM's wall. Beneath the phenolic resin and the aluminium face plate. So the secondary radiation created by the very light nuclei would hit this steel and STOP. It could not reach the crew.I have never questioned the construction of the Apollo.. I simply contend not a gram of material was added for the purpose of shielding and the structural material offered some protection from electrons, it offered none and even worse it increased overall exposure or would have if they had ventured beyond LEO.
Your inability to research the construction of the CM is not an argument against the Apollo moon landings.
You have been lied to. Here is the actual path through the VAB. One must be aware the the center of the VAB is not aligned with the earths equatorial plane rather it is aligned with the magnetic equator which is offset 11.5 degrees. This results in the lunar orbit being 17.15 degrees into the magnetic equatorial plane. The only region of the VAB not encountered in a VAB transit is the 2*10^8 flux at the very heart. It's path is through the 1*10^8 region (half as much).
You've been deceived by some HB, that is not the path as it is not a straight line but it is curved in 2-D as well as curved in 3-D pulling away from the VARB. Bob's 2-D rendering is far more accurate than this.
No matter what YOU think, tim, there was a sheet of stainless steel in the CM's wall. Beneath the phenolic resin and the aluminium face plate. So the secondary radiation created by the very light nuclei would hit this steel and STOP. It could not reach the crew.I have never questioned the construction of the Apollo.. I simply contend not a gram of material was added for the purpose of shielding and the structural material offered some protection from electrons, it offered none and even worse it increased overall exposure or would have if they had ventured beyond LEO.
Your inability to research the construction of the CM is not an argument against the Apollo moon landings.
Only correct part of that was, that there wasn't a specific material added to only shield the astronauts from radiation. All the material used was structural, and the radiation shielding properties of those were and are well understood. Do you know what this secondary radiation is?
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate. It simply delays the inevitable. I will make this simple. The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB. The Apollo flight path is delineated. The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different. It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65. If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard. Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on. I can easily be silenced. Show me something real.Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate. It simply delays the inevitable. I will make this simple. The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB. The Apollo flight path is delineated. The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different. It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65. If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard. Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on. I can easily be silenced. Show me something real.Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.
He's continued to insist linear arithmetic is sufficient for working with flux/energy curves (hint; there are not equal numbers of particles in the higher end of the energy range!)
Car? Why would I teleport a car?You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate. It simply delays the inevitable. I will make this simple. The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB. The Apollo flight path is delineated. The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different. It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65. If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard. Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on. I can easily be silenced. Show me something real.Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.
If your car gets stuck in the ice make sure to get pictures!
What actually is the mechanism of this curve? Is the lunar plane curved also? Is it a parabolic curve. Or are you simply stating that because the universe is curved then the TLI must also be curved?You have been lied to. Here is the actual path through the VAB. One must be aware the the center of the VAB is not aligned with the earths equatorial plane rather it is aligned with the magnetic equator which is offset 11.5 degrees. This results in the lunar orbit being 17.15 degrees into the magnetic equatorial plane. The only region of the VAB not encountered in a VAB transit is the 2*10^8 flux at the very heart. It's path is through the 1*10^8 region (half as much).
You've been deceived by some HB, that is not the path as it is not a straight line but it is curved in 2-D as well as curved in 3-D pulling away from the VARB. Bob's 2-D rendering is far more accurate than this.
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate. It simply delays the inevitable. I will make this simple. The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB. The Apollo flight path is delineated. The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different. It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65. If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard. Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on. I can easily be silenced. Show me something real.
No,, that's not the general path Apollo traveled, where did you get this piece of misinformation?
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate. It simply delays the inevitable. I will make this simple. The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB. The Apollo flight path is delineated. The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different. It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65. If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard. Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on. I can easily be silenced. Show me something real.Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.
What actually is the mechanism of this curve? Is the lunar plane curved also? Is it a parabolic curve. Or are you simply stating that because the universe is curved then the TLI must also be curved?You have been lied to. Here is the actual path through the VAB. One must be aware the the center of the VAB is not aligned with the earths equatorial plane rather it is aligned with the magnetic equator which is offset 11.5 degrees. This results in the lunar orbit being 17.15 degrees into the magnetic equatorial plane. The only region of the VAB not encountered in a VAB transit is the 2*10^8 flux at the very heart. It's path is through the 1*10^8 region (half as much).Orbits are not straight.
You've been deceived by some HB, that is not the path as it is not a straight line but it is curved in 2-D as well as curved in 3-D pulling away from the VARB. Bob's 2-D rendering is far more accurate than this.
There are no straight paths, orbital mechanics is not your strong suite either.You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate. It simply delays the inevitable. I will make this simple. The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB. The Apollo flight path is delineated. The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different. It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65. If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard. Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on. I can easily be silenced. Show me something real.
No,, that's not the general path Apollo traveled, where did you get this piece of misinformation?
The TLI or Holtzmann maneuver places the craft in orbit around the earth on a plane with the moon. After this orbit is established a rocket is fired to expand the orbit into an elliptical one that intersects the moon. All lunar landings have used this approach. The lunar plane is the TLI plane.
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate. It simply delays the inevitable. I will make this simple. The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB. The Apollo flight path is delineated. The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different. It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65. If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard. Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on. I can easily be silenced. Show me something real.Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.
Back up your opinion with facts. FActs like the actual inclination of apollo 11 upon entering the VAB as compared to the Orion EFT. We are beyond the opinion stage and have moved into the "put up or shut phase".
Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing. You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it. You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic. Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter. It makes you look obnoxious. Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."Gillianren, It is not that I cannot do the calculations. Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties. I see these attempts as mere distraction to prevent from engaging the elephant in the room. They would lead down a meandering path to know where for no other reason than to prevent addressing the real topic. They lack the intellectual integrity to address these issues because their entire beliefs system is built on a foundation of obvious lies aqnd will crumble with the slightest nudge. I am nudging....
You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate. It simply delays the inevitable. I will make this simple. The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB. The Apollo flight path is delineated. The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different. It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65. If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard. Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on. I can easily be silenced. Show me something real.Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.
Back up your opinion with facts. FActs like the actual inclination of apollo 11 upon entering the VAB as compared to the Orion EFT. We are beyond the opinion stage and have moved into the "put up or shut phase".
Is that were they keep the Orion facts also? Provide the correct numbers or spectate. We are here to demonstrate knowledge of the truth. Show me your truth. I showed you mine ;-)You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate. It simply delays the inevitable. I will make this simple. The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB. The Apollo flight path is delineated. The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different. It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65. If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard. Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on. I can easily be silenced. Show me something real.Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.
Back up your opinion with facts. FActs like the actual inclination of apollo 11 upon entering the VAB as compared to the Orion EFT. We are beyond the opinion stage and have moved into the "put up or shut phase".
You can find all the relevant orbital information on the website "Apollo By The Numbers".
I provided you with real numbers and not opinions. Silence me by countering them with something other than your opinion. Show me the money or accept them as true. if the glove fits...You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate. It simply delays the inevitable. I will make this simple. The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB. The Apollo flight path is delineated. The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different. It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65. If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard. Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on. I can easily be silenced. Show me something real.Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.
Back up your opinion with facts. FActs like the actual inclination of apollo 11 upon entering the VAB as compared to the Orion EFT. We are beyond the opinion stage and have moved into the "put up or shut phase".
I asked you this toward the beginning of the thread, cite a source the trajectory of Orion and Apollo are the same. But I understand why you never answered it, you don't know and they are very different. Again you know nothing about orbital mechanics, along with radiation.
Or are you simply stating that because the universe is curved then the TLI must also be curved?
And the dumb questions just keep on giving.What actually is the mechanism of this curve? Is the lunar plane curved also? Is it a parabolic curve. Or are you simply stating that because the universe is curved then the TLI must also be curved?You have been lied to. Here is the actual path through the VAB. One must be aware the the center of the VAB is not aligned with the earths equatorial plane rather it is aligned with the magnetic equator which is offset 11.5 degrees. This results in the lunar orbit being 17.15 degrees into the magnetic equatorial plane. The only region of the VAB not encountered in a VAB transit is the 2*10^8 flux at the very heart. It's path is through the 1*10^8 region (half as much).
You've been deceived by some HB, that is not the path as it is not a straight line but it is curved in 2-D as well as curved in 3-D pulling away from the VARB. Bob's 2-D rendering is far more accurate than this.
Provide that the craft left the lunar orbital plane. If it did not then it's path can be represented by a straight line on a 2d drawing. That's what I am talking about! What have you brought to the feast of inequities?Or are you simply stating that because the universe is curved then the TLI must also be curved?
What ARE you gibbering on about??? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about here.
Why don't you provide EVIDENCE for your claim that the trajectories - ALL NINE OF THEM - was the same as used for Orion?
Provide that the craft left the lunar orbital plane. If it did not then it's path can be represented by a straight line on a 2d drawing. That's what I am talking about! What have you brought to the feast of inequities?
Why don't you provide EVIDENCE for your claim that the trajectories - ALL NINE OF THEM - was the same as used for Orion?
You would not ask this question if you understood how and why the path of lunar injection is determined. Let me see if I can get my research assistant freed up long enough to do your research for you.
You are? OK Put up or shut up. What are those figures?You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate. It simply delays the inevitable. I will make this simple. The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB. The Apollo flight path is delineated. The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different. It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65. If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard. Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on. I can easily be silenced. Show me something real.Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.
Back up your opinion with facts. FActs like the actual inclination of apollo 11 upon entering the VAB as compared to the Orion EFT. We are beyond the opinion stage and have moved into the "put up or shut phase".
Oh, you don't understand basic ballistics let alone orbital mechanics. Two more for the list.Why don't you provide EVIDENCE for your claim that the trajectories - ALL NINE OF THEM - was the same as used for Orion?You would not ask this question if you understood how and why the path of lunar injection is determined. Let me see if I can get my research assistant freed up long enough to do your research for you.
If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem. Make that work without magic.
You are clearly not smarter than a broom. If your claims were true then ISS is fake, as was MIR, as is every satellite ever claimed. Satellite TV is a myth and NASA is in collusion with ESA, Roscosmos, ISRO, CSNA, JAXA, and so forth to achieve...what?Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing. You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it. You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic. Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter. It makes you look obnoxious. Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."Gillianren, It is not that I cannot do the calculations. Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties. I see these attempts as mere distraction to prevent from engaging the elephant in the room. They would lead down a meandering path to know where for no other reason than to prevent addressing the real topic. They lack the intellectual integrity to address these issues because their entire beliefs system is built on a foundation of obvious lies aqnd will crumble with the slightest nudge. I am nudging....
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/JSC_OrionEFT-1_PressKit_accessible.pdfIt's a presskit. Had you a point? Of course you hadn't.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection
When I made the statement that you were mentally challenged, I was suspended. Let's see if the moderators are fair and balanced. "Dumb as a broom" is a much more egregious offense don't you think?You are clearly not smarter than a broom. If your claims were true then ISS is fake, as was MIR, as is every satellite ever claimed. Satellite TV is a myth and NASA is in collusion with ESA, Roscosmos, ISRO, CSNA, JAXA, and so forth to achieve...what?Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing. You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it. You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic. Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter. It makes you look obnoxious. Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."Gillianren, It is not that I cannot do the calculations. Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties. I see these attempts as mere distraction to prevent from engaging the elephant in the room. They would lead down a meandering path to know where for no other reason than to prevent addressing the real topic. They lack the intellectual integrity to address these issues because their entire beliefs system is built on a foundation of obvious lies aqnd will crumble with the slightest nudge. I am nudging....
Do you not comprehend that NASA was reduced to renting seats on Soyuz to even get to the ISS because of cranks like you?
The inclination is listed in the flight path data. Do I need to extract it and reprint it in crayon for you? Do you need help with the big words?https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/JSC_OrionEFT-1_PressKit_accessible.pdfIt's a presskit. Had you a point? Of course you hadn't.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection
So what is it you expect of me? Should I repeat the magic tick and call it quits? Honestly, are you claiming the apollo craft was capable of shielding greater than 90% of the harmful primary and secondary radiation of the VAB. Is that your claim?If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem. Make that work without magic.
No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved. So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations. Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?
No, you need to demonstrate your claim that the Apollo trajectory was the same. And you cannot. Everyone else knows you cannot. Apollo TLI=ORION EFT, that is your claim. Prove it. While you are about it, demonstrate that a curve has an angle. Only you believe that. Furthermore, demonstrate that Orion followed a straight line, or Apollo for that matter. You cannot, because you are clueless.The inclination is listed in the flight path data. Do I need to extract it and reprint it in crayon for you? Do you need help with the big words?https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/JSC_OrionEFT-1_PressKit_accessible.pdfIt's a presskit. Had you a point? Of course you hadn't.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection
Honesty.So what is it you expect of me?If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem. Make that work without magic.
No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved. So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations. Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?
Should I repeat the magic tick and call it quits?No. Just honesty would do.
Honestly,It is to laugh.
are you claiming the apollo craft was capable of shielding greater than 90% of the harmful primary and secondary radiation of the VAB. Is that your claim?No, I claim it was invisible pixies. Prove they don't exist. That is how comedically borked your position is.
I am placing the admins on notice. Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him. He no longer exist in my mind or sight.
I am not here to massage ego's and placate sensibilities. I am here to shine the light of truth on the deception. I have not been offensive and I would not be unkind except for the constant barrage of insults. I am a counter puncher. I am never the first striker.I am placing the admins on notice. Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him. He no longer exist in my mind or sight.
to be fair Tim you have also not answered in an adult way. thinks like shall I color in the reply and do you need help with the big words doesn't do anything for you. it shows you up quite a bit.
I am placing the admins on notice. Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him. He no longer exist in my mind or sight.Reality doesn't care. I simply ask the questions to which you have no answer and you don't much like it.
My court? Is that because I have all the balls? And you have none?Stay focused. You wanted verification that the Orion EFT's flight path mirrored the Apollos's flight path. I have provided proof. Do you now accept this as fact?
What is the secondary radiation? EM or particles?
I am not here to massage ego's and placate sensibilities. I am here to shine the light of truth on the deception. I have not been offensive and I would not be unkind except for the constant barrage of insults. I am a counter puncher. I am never the first striker.I am placing the admins on notice. Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him. He no longer exist in my mind or sight.
to be fair Tim you have also not answered in an adult way. thinks like shall I color in the reply and do you need help with the big words doesn't do anything for you. it shows you up quite a bit.
No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.You lie like a cheap rug. I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions. Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.
Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
That is not true. I did not know Gillianren was a woman until she accused me of misogyny. I have never intentionally done any such thing and I challenge you to prove it. Where did I say anything remotely misogynistic?I am placing the admins on notice. Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him. He no longer exist in my mind or sight.
to be fair Tim you have also not answered in an adult way. thinks like shall I color in the reply and do you need help with the big words doesn't do anything for you. it shows you up quite a bit.
I am not here to massage ego's and placate sensibilities. I am here to shine the light of truth on the deception. I have not been offensive and I would not be unkind except for the constant barrage of insults. I am a counter puncher. I am never the first striker.
firstly you were the first striker because it is your theory. secondly you have tried very hard to shine a light on the deception but unfortunately you have failed because nothing you have suggested has any merit and has been defended quite easily. sometimes even by me. thirdly you say you are not offensive. that is incorrect. you have been a little sexist to Gillian in my opinion and attempted to belittle and embarrass others here by comparing things they should do to childrens things like crayons.
No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.You lie like a cheap rug. I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions. Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.
Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
That is not true. I did not know Gillianren was a woman until she accused me of misogyny. I have never intentionally done any such thing and I challenge you to prove it. Where did I say anything remotely misogynistic?I am placing the admins on notice. Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him. He no longer exist in my mind or sight.
to be fair Tim you have also not answered in an adult way. thinks like shall I color in the reply and do you need help with the big words doesn't do anything for you. it shows you up quite a bit.
I am not here to massage ego's and placate sensibilities. I am here to shine the light of truth on the deception. I have not been offensive and I would not be unkind except for the constant barrage of insults. I am a counter puncher. I am never the first striker.
firstly you were the first striker because it is your theory. secondly you have tried very hard to shine a light on the deception but unfortunately you have failed because nothing you have suggested has any merit and has been defended quite easily. sometimes even by me. thirdly you say you are not offensive. that is incorrect. you have been a little sexist to Gillian in my opinion and attempted to belittle and embarrass others here by comparing things they should do to childrens things like crayons.
No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.You lie like a cheap rug. I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions. Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.
Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
again you have offended. lie like a cheap rug. Tim you have been shown the flight path of the Apollo vehicles. they did not interact with the VAB inner belt. they skirted the outer belt.
I will repeat what Gillian has said quite a few times.
the entire scientific community, thousands of people over 5 decades all agree that this is the case and the manned lunar landings were real. you keep saying that there has been a desire to push dis information and lies but cant it be true that you are simply wrong.
I believe I said this next quote earlier in this thread and was shot down (by Gillian I think). the disbelief of the lunar landings is psychological.
It is what you make of it. If you are searching for worms you will find them as you ignore gold nuggets.That is not true. I did not know Gillianren was a woman until she accused me of misogyny. I have never intentionally done any such thing and I challenge you to prove it. Where did I say anything remotely misogynistic?I am placing the admins on notice. Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him. He no longer exist in my mind or sight.
to be fair Tim you have also not answered in an adult way. thinks like shall I color in the reply and do you need help with the big words doesn't do anything for you. it shows you up quite a bit.
I am not here to massage ego's and placate sensibilities. I am here to shine the light of truth on the deception. I have not been offensive and I would not be unkind except for the constant barrage of insults. I am a counter puncher. I am never the first striker.
firstly you were the first striker because it is your theory. secondly you have tried very hard to shine a light on the deception but unfortunately you have failed because nothing you have suggested has any merit and has been defended quite easily. sometimes even by me. thirdly you say you are not offensive. that is incorrect. you have been a little sexist to Gillian in my opinion and attempted to belittle and embarrass others here by comparing things they should do to childrens things like crayons.
you didn't know Gillian was a woman ??
phrases you have used toward her that you wouldn't say to a man for example I consider a little sexist. you have also said that not many women foray into theories like this. sounds a little sexist to me !!
We are burning up daylight here. Can anyone refute the flight paths or is it time to acknowledge the truth of the matter?
Refer to the links in the post. The entire flight path history of all apollo flights are there waiting for your discovery. Review the TLI and it explains why the inclination of the orbit is selected. It explains why they orbit through the SAA and not an equatorial orbit with much less radiation.We are burning up daylight here. Can anyone refute the flight paths or is it time to acknowledge the truth of the matter?
You haven't provided an Apollo flight path to refute. You provided Apollo Earth orbit data.
When I made the statement that you were mentally challenged, I was suspended. Let's see if the moderators are fair and balanced. "Dumb as a broom" is a much more egregious offense don't you think?You are clearly not smarter than a broom. If your claims were true then ISS is fake, as was MIR, as is every satellite ever claimed. Satellite TV is a myth and NASA is in collusion with ESA, Roscosmos, ISRO, CSNA, JAXA, and so forth to achieve...what?Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing. You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it. You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic. Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter. It makes you look obnoxious. Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."Gillianren, It is not that I cannot do the calculations. Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties. I see these attempts as mere distraction to prevent from engaging the elephant in the room. They would lead down a meandering path to know where for no other reason than to prevent addressing the real topic. They lack the intellectual integrity to address these issues because their entire beliefs system is built on a foundation of obvious lies aqnd will crumble with the slightest nudge. I am nudging....
Do you not comprehend that NASA was reduced to renting seats on Soyuz to even get to the ISS because of cranks like you?
No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.You lie like a cheap rug. I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions. Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.
Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
again you have offended. lie like a cheap rug. Tim you have been shown the flight path of the Apollo vehicles. they did not interact with the VAB inner belt. they skirted the outer belt.
I will repeat what Gillian has said quite a few times.
the entire scientific community, thousands of people over 5 decades all agree that this is the case and the manned lunar landings were real. you keep saying that there has been a desire to push dis information and lies but cant it be true that you are simply wrong.
I believe I said this next quote earlier in this thread and was shot down (by Gillian I think). the disbelief of the lunar landings is psychological.
Ben you are confusing me. Are you implying that disagreeing with a woman is the misogynistic. Gillian is a sniper on the hill taking pot shots and refusing to engage. Most assuredly I have little respect for her position but that does not imply a lack of respect for her gender.
Your remark is without merit or substance. It addresses the issue not at all. Be contributor and not a detractor, if for no other reason than to provide ammo for the gun that shoots me off my pedestal. Teach me humility that I might loose my arrogance.When I made the statement that you were mentally challenged, I was suspended. Let's see if the moderators are fair and balanced. "Dumb as a broom" is a much more egregious offense don't you think?You are clearly not smarter than a broom. If your claims were true then ISS is fake, as was MIR, as is every satellite ever claimed. Satellite TV is a myth and NASA is in collusion with ESA, Roscosmos, ISRO, CSNA, JAXA, and so forth to achieve...what?Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing. You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it. You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic. Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter. It makes you look obnoxious. Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."Gillianren, It is not that I cannot do the calculations. Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties. I see these attempts as mere distraction to prevent from engaging the elephant in the room. They would lead down a meandering path to know where for no other reason than to prevent addressing the real topic. They lack the intellectual integrity to address these issues because their entire beliefs system is built on a foundation of obvious lies aqnd will crumble with the slightest nudge. I am nudging....
Do you not comprehend that NASA was reduced to renting seats on Soyuz to even get to the ISS because of cranks like you?
Only to brooms
The only remark that I made to her was to apologize for the perceived insult to her gender. It is true that I would not make such an apology to a man but other than that there has been no indiscretion on my part. Ben, you like the others obfuscate to distract from the subject matter. You want to make gender bias the subject when it is really nothing to do with gender. This is about lunar trajectory and anything else is a diversion. Stay on point.No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.You lie like a cheap rug. I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions. Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.
Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
again you have offended. lie like a cheap rug. Tim you have been shown the flight path of the Apollo vehicles. they did not interact with the VAB inner belt. they skirted the outer belt.
I will repeat what Gillian has said quite a few times.
the entire scientific community, thousands of people over 5 decades all agree that this is the case and the manned lunar landings were real. you keep saying that there has been a desire to push dis information and lies but cant it be true that you are simply wrong.
I believe I said this next quote earlier in this thread and was shot down (by Gillian I think). the disbelief of the lunar landings is psychological.
Ben you are confusing me. Are you implying that disagreeing with a woman is the misogynistic. Gillian is a sniper on the hill taking pot shots and refusing to engage. Most assuredly I have little respect for her position but that does not imply a lack of respect for her gender.
Certainly not but you have made comments that perhaps you wouldn't say to a man. You also say she is taking pot shots. One particular potshot which you haven't answered yet is could it simply be that you are wrong.
I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything? Bueller? Anyone?
Wrong. You are massaging your own ego.I am not here to massage ego's and placate sensibilities.I am placing the admins on notice. Until Abaddon is disciplined as I frequently am, I will not respond to him. He no longer exist in my mind or sight.
to be fair Tim you have also not answered in an adult way. thinks like shall I color in the reply and do you need help with the big words doesn't do anything for you. it shows you up quite a bit.
I am here to shine the light of truth on the deception.Wrong. You have failed to demonstrate any deception beyond your own.
I have not been offensiveWrong. You have hurled abuse left right and center.
and I would not be unkind except for the constant barrage of insults.Wrong. you get push back BECAUSE you hurl insult at every step.
I am a counter puncher.Wrong. You have no punch to start with.
I am never the first striker.Wrong. You are clearly the first striker.
No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.You lie like a cheap rug. I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions. Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.
Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
Refer to the links in the post. The entire flight path history of all apollo flights are there waiting for your discovery. Review the TLI and it explains why the inclination of the orbit is selected. It explains why they orbit through the SAA and not an equatorial orbit with much less radiation.We are burning up daylight here. Can anyone refute the flight paths or is it time to acknowledge the truth of the matter?
You haven't provided an Apollo flight path to refute. You provided Apollo Earth orbit data.
What was it you said about hurling insults? Remind me.No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.You lie like a cheap rug.
Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions.No, you have not. At best, you have provided 2D representations of 3D topography and proudly proceeded to demonstrate that 3D spatial reasoning is somehow beyond your comprehension.
Show some intellectual integrityMore insults? How refreshing.
and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.Ever stick your finger through a hole in a donut? You are telling us that you cannot figure out how to do that. This is the level of your discourse.
It is both but what has that to do with accepting the illustration or rejecting it. You have eluded addressing this simple point all day. Take a position.No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.You lie like a cheap rug. I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions. Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.
Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
Will you answer this very simple question: Is the secondary radiation particle or EM?
Or will you by evading again or use personal insults again admit you don't know the difference?
Sure. We have all of the evidence and you have nothing.I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything? Bueller? Anyone?
Snigger. Missionary or what?It is both but what has that to do with accepting the illustration or rejecting it. You have eluded addressing this simple point all day. Take a position.No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.You lie like a cheap rug. I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions. Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.
Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
Will you answer this very simple question: Is the secondary radiation particle or EM?
Or will you by evading again or use personal insults again admit you don't know the difference?
Try to remain on point. Do you reject the flight similarities of the Orion EFT and the Apollo's and if so what is the basis and where are the facts?Refer to the links in the post. The entire flight path history of all apollo flights are there waiting for your discovery. Review the TLI and it explains why the inclination of the orbit is selected. It explains why they orbit through the SAA and not an equatorial orbit with much less radiation.We are burning up daylight here. Can anyone refute the flight paths or is it time to acknowledge the truth of the matter?
You haven't provided an Apollo flight path to refute. You provided Apollo Earth orbit data.
I did. I also have the book. If you look hard enough you'll find the actual TLI data. You're just demonstrating that you are another hoax believer who is convinced he is the only one who knows anything. You're nowhere near the level of understanding required to claim expertise in any of this.
When you're finished you can explain how it is that a hand held camera filmed an exactly correct view of Earth from cislunar space, or how Chinese images show evidence of human activity at the Apollo landing sites.
I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?
I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?
1. Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.
2. What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?
3. Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.
4. How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.
5. Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.
6. How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?
These are indeed all good questions but most distract from the focus of the original inquiry.
From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line. As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.
Yes, clearly the calculations prove that, backed up by the total dosimeters that each of the crew wore.So what is it you expect of me? Should I repeat the magic tick and call it quits? Honestly, are you claiming the apollo craft was capable of shielding greater than 90% of the harmful primary and secondary radiation of the VAB. Is that your claim?If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem. Make that work without magic.
No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved. So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations. Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?
Only if the assumption the dosimeters actually represent something more than an ELO mission. Which is the heart of the debate. We have yet to demonstrate that assumption is a valid one.Yes, clearly the calculations prove that, backed up by the total dosimeters that each of the crew wore.So what is it you expect of me? Should I repeat the magic tick and call it quits? Honestly, are you claiming the apollo craft was capable of shielding greater than 90% of the harmful primary and secondary radiation of the VAB. Is that your claim?If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem. Make that work without magic.
No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved. So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations. Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?
But you clearly do not understand TLI. What hope is there that you might understand misogyny?The only remark that I made to her was to apologize for the perceived insult to her gender. It is true that I would not make such an apology to a man but other than that there has been no indiscretion on my part. Ben, you like the others obfuscate to distract from the subject matter. You want to make gender bias the subject when it is really nothing to do with gender. This is about lunar trajectory and anything else is a diversion. Stay on point.No. You have provided an OPINION based solely on your lack of understanding and inability to read the material.You lie like a cheap rug. I have provided you with flight profiles for both the Orion EFT and all the Apollo missions. Show some intellectual integrity and either accept it or refute it and desist in the obfusticating.
Is the secondary radiation EM or particles?
again you have offended. lie like a cheap rug. Tim you have been shown the flight path of the Apollo vehicles. they did not interact with the VAB inner belt. they skirted the outer belt.
I will repeat what Gillian has said quite a few times.
the entire scientific community, thousands of people over 5 decades all agree that this is the case and the manned lunar landings were real. you keep saying that there has been a desire to push dis information and lies but cant it be true that you are simply wrong.
I believe I said this next quote earlier in this thread and was shot down (by Gillian I think). the disbelief of the lunar landings is psychological.
Ben you are confusing me. Are you implying that disagreeing with a woman is the misogynistic. Gillian is a sniper on the hill taking pot shots and refusing to engage. Most assuredly I have little respect for her position but that does not imply a lack of respect for her gender.
Certainly not but you have made comments that perhaps you wouldn't say to a man. You also say she is taking pot shots. One particular potshot which you haven't answered yet is could it simply be that you are wrong.
We are burning up daylight here. Can anyone refute the flight paths or is it time to acknowledge the truth of the matter?
You haven't provided an Apollo flight path to refute. You provided Apollo Earth orbit data.
Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on. Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission? This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no. Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy. ;)
I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything? Bueller? Anyone?
The dosimeters "represent" nothing. They simply are a measure of what happened.Only if the assumption the dosimeters actually represent something more than an ELO mission. Which is the heart of the debate. We have yet to demonstrate that assumption is a valid one.Yes, clearly the calculations prove that, backed up by the total dosimeters that each of the crew wore.So what is it you expect of me? Should I repeat the magic tick and call it quits? Honestly, are you claiming the apollo craft was capable of shielding greater than 90% of the harmful primary and secondary radiation of the VAB. Is that your claim?If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem. Make that work without magic.
No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved. So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations. Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?
From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line. As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.
Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on. Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission? This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no. Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy. ;)
The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon. any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line. As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.
That is a truly epic fail of an observation. The TLI flight path was 30 degrees to the ecliptic plane. The lunar orbit is inclined by 5.1 degrees and the only relevance this has is where it intersects the transfer orbit. Apollo flight paths are Earth orbits, as are the Orion.
Sadly for you that is all they have in common. The eccentricity of Apollo took it around the weaker areas of the belt and took it out to a path that intersected the Moon. Orion was only eccentric enough to allow it to travel through the inner belt.
How in heavens name can you say they are the same? They are completely different.
I am eager to see your refutation and a correction to the illustration. Show me.Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on. Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission? This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no. Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy. ;)
No.
Snigger. Tim thinks that TLI requires orbit in the "lunar plane". 3D spatial reasoning fail. Orbital mechanics fail.I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?
1. Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.
2. What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?
3. Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.
4. How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.
5. Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.
6. How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?
These are indeed all good questions but most distract from the focus of the original inquiry.
From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line. As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.
Only if the assumption the dosimeters actually represent something more than an ELO mission. Which is the heart of the debate. We have yet to demonstrate that assumption is a valid one.Yes, clearly the calculations prove that, backed up by the total dosimeters that each of the crew wore.So what is it you expect of me? Should I repeat the magic tick and call it quits? Honestly, are you claiming the apollo craft was capable of shielding greater than 90% of the harmful primary and secondary radiation of the VAB. Is that your claim?If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem. Make that work without magic.
No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved. So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations. Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?
I am eager to see your refutation and a correction to the illustration. Show me.Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on. Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission? This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no. Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy. ;)
No.
Saturn V had multiple stages. What's the problem? Oh, I know, you think direct ascent was the method.The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon. any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line. As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.
That is a truly epic fail of an observation. The TLI flight path was 30 degrees to the ecliptic plane. The lunar orbit is inclined by 5.1 degrees and the only relevance this has is where it intersects the transfer orbit. Apollo flight paths are Earth orbits, as are the Orion.
Sadly for you that is all they have in common. The eccentricity of Apollo took it around the weaker areas of the belt and took it out to a path that intersected the Moon. Orion was only eccentric enough to allow it to travel through the inner belt.
How in heavens name can you say they are the same? They are completely different.
How does your remark address the question: Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the Apollo flight?Only if the assumption the dosimeters actually represent something more than an ELO mission. Which is the heart of the debate. We have yet to demonstrate that assumption is a valid one.Yes, clearly the calculations prove that, backed up by the total dosimeters that each of the crew wore.So what is it you expect of me? Should I repeat the magic tick and call it quits? Honestly, are you claiming the apollo craft was capable of shielding greater than 90% of the harmful primary and secondary radiation of the VAB. Is that your claim?If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem. Make that work without magic.
No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved. So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations. Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?
You have yet to show that the dosimeters are incorrect during the outward/inward journey to the Mon. You specify fluxes recorded in less active solar cycle and then placed those values in a more active solar cycle(Apollo's) when clearly those taken in the less active cycle will generally be greater than those of the solar cycle during which Apollo traveled. In short you compare apples to oranges and declared they are the same.
You have shown that they have dissimilar flight paths? I missed that. Please guide me to that nugget of wisdom that I might partake. I am ready to concede this stage of the debate as soon as you do. Show me the money!I am eager to see your refutation and a correction to the illustration. Show me.Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on. Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission? This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no. Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy. ;)
No.
You have been shown, many times.
The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon. any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line. As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.
That is a truly epic fail of an observation. The TLI flight path was 30 degrees to the ecliptic plane. The lunar orbit is inclined by 5.1 degrees and the only relevance this has is where it intersects the transfer orbit. Apollo flight paths are Earth orbits, as are the Orion.
Sadly for you that is all they have in common. The eccentricity of Apollo took it around the weaker areas of the belt and took it out to a path that intersected the Moon. Orion was only eccentric enough to allow it to travel through the inner belt.
How in heavens name can you say they are the same? They are completely different.
I listed the fight paths of all the lunar flights and the Orion EFT. Where is the disconnect? Show me your rebuttal. Show me where it says something different that the NASA figures I quoted.The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon. any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line. As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.
That is a truly epic fail of an observation. The TLI flight path was 30 degrees to the ecliptic plane. The lunar orbit is inclined by 5.1 degrees and the only relevance this has is where it intersects the transfer orbit. Apollo flight paths are Earth orbits, as are the Orion.
Sadly for you that is all they have in common. The eccentricity of Apollo took it around the weaker areas of the belt and took it out to a path that intersected the Moon. Orion was only eccentric enough to allow it to travel through the inner belt.
How in heavens name can you say they are the same? They are completely different.
I fail to see what that has to do with it! You claimed Orion and Apollo had the same paths. They are not even close.
Are you man enough to admit even one of your numerous blunders?
You ignored itYou have shown that they have dissimilar flight paths? I missed that.I am eager to see your refutation and a correction to the illustration. Show me.Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on. Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission? This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no. Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy. ;)
No.
You have been shown, many times.
Please guide me to that nugget of wisdom that I might partake.We did, you didn't.
I am ready to concede this stage of the debate as soon as you do.This is not a debate. You came to a gunfight armed with a twig. You demonstrated that you fail at so much that it was an impossible mountain of ignorance to climb.
Show me the money!We did. You refused to look.
The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon. any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.
It is both but what has that to do with accepting the illustration or rejecting it. You have eluded addressing this simple point all day. Take a position.
That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion. If you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon. any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.
This is a) crap, and b) already covered in this thread. The only requirement of a flight to the Moon is that it intersects the point in space where the Moon will be in order to go into orbit. It matters not one whit what plane that is on. What does influence the choice of plane is the latitude of the landing site and what plane you want to go into lunar orbit on. If getting to the Moon is the only requirement you can go there on any damn orbital plane you want.
If no one can provide a rebuttal then let all concede the fact that The Orion's flight pat mirrored the Apollo's flight path. There is much work to be done and yet we spend an enormous amount of time in denial. Where is the intellectual integrity in this group and why is there no moderation?
Will this obfuscation never end? Deal with the elephant in the room and then we can proceed with the other jungle animals. Is the flight paths similar?
It is both but what has that to do with accepting the illustration or rejecting it. You have eluded addressing this simple point all day. Take a position.
Very good. The very first hit on google. Now, what is the EM part?
Well, obviously, TF does not, and indeed seems incapable of understanding that, but it fits well with the inability to comprehend three dimensions. Hence my question to tim. If he is indeed correct then it is impossible to insert your finger in a ring donut. This is quite obviously absurd, but it is the logical consequence of tim's assertions.The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon. any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.
This is a) crap, and b) already covered in this thread. The only requirement of a flight to the Moon is that it intersects the point in space where the Moon will be in order to go into orbit. It matters not one whit what plane that is on. What does influence the choice of plane is the latitude of the landing site and what plane you want to go into lunar orbit on. If getting to the Moon is the only requirement you can go there on any damn orbital plane you want.
That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion. If you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon. any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.
This is a) crap, and b) already covered in this thread. The only requirement of a flight to the Moon is that it intersects the point in space where the Moon will be in order to go into orbit. It matters not one whit what plane that is on. What does influence the choice of plane is the latitude of the landing site and what plane you want to go into lunar orbit on. If getting to the Moon is the only requirement you can go there on any damn orbital plane you want.
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.QuoteNope. 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.
That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion. If you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon. any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.
This is a) crap, and b) already covered in this thread. The only requirement of a flight to the Moon is that it intersects the point in space where the Moon will be in order to go into orbit. It matters not one whit what plane that is on. What does influence the choice of plane is the latitude of the landing site and what plane you want to go into lunar orbit on. If getting to the Moon is the only requirement you can go there on any damn orbital plane you want.
It's not an unsubstantiated position. Here is the discussion.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.QuoteNope. 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.
That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion.
If you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.
Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing. You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it. You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic. Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter. It makes you look obnoxious. Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."Gillianren, It is not that I cannot do the calculations. Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties.
Fuel? I noticed a lack of an alternate flight plan in yur rebuttal. Was that an oversight or is it you have nothing tangible, only a gut feel?That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion.
No, that is physics. What exactly would stop a craft from entering a lunar orbit on any plane with an apogee of 240,000 miles, if the Moon is there and the spacecraft performs a lunar orbit inserion burn to slow itself down to be captured by the Moon's gravity?QuoteIf you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.
Utter crap. You have demonstrated a total unwillingness to change your own opinion watever is provided.
We already know all of that, the simple fact is that you do not.That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion. If you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon. any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.
This is a) crap, and b) already covered in this thread. The only requirement of a flight to the Moon is that it intersects the point in space where the Moon will be in order to go into orbit. It matters not one whit what plane that is on. What does influence the choice of plane is the latitude of the landing site and what plane you want to go into lunar orbit on. If getting to the Moon is the only requirement you can go there on any damn orbital plane you want.
It's not an unsubstantiated position. Here is the discussion.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.QuoteNope. 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.
I recommend a inquiry into the selection of the lunar flight plan that encompasses the theory and benefits and limitations of all choices. When it is known why they chose the method used it becomes obvious why all the missions have essentially the same flight plan.
Others have decided that you're a misogynist, but your sexism is so mild that it's barely noticeable compared to what most women deal with on a daily basis. So now that we've disposed of that, can you answer my question? It's a really, really easy one.
Gillianren, the only reason I entertain this forum and the abuse it provides because I had hoped I was incorrect. I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception. I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be. I have been distracted, deceived and lied to. I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with. Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors. Will you please stop asking the same question over and over? It has become tiresome and it is distracting.Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing. You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it. You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic. Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter. It makes you look obnoxious. Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."Gillianren, It is not that I cannot do the calculations. Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties.
No. You have not. You have constantly evaded the simplest question, and until you answer it, I see no point in engaging further except to ask it again.
How do you know that the answer is not simply that you have misunderstood what you're citing as evidence?
For what it's worth, I do not accuse you of misogyny. I did, on the other hand, point out that your words about how I am "special in your mind" were creepy. Which they are. You never engaged on that point. I mentioned that I have dealt with other men who treat me a certain way because I am female, but that was not relevant to you. Others have decided that you're a misogynist, but your sexism is so mild that it's barely noticeable compared to what most women deal with on a daily basis. So now that we've disposed of that, can you answer my question? It's a really, really easy one.
Yeah, fuel. Kind of important for a moon trip don't you think? Oh and the word is "whatever"Fuel?That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion.
No, that is physics. What exactly would stop a craft from entering a lunar orbit on any plane with an apogee of 240,000 miles, if the Moon is there and the spacecraft performs a lunar orbit inserion burn to slow itself down to be captured by the Moon's gravity?QuoteIf you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.
Utter crap. You have demonstrated a total unwillingness to change your own opinion watever is provided.
I noticed a lack of an alternate flight plan in yur rebuttal.Really? You are unaware of any other flight plan ever? Do you expect that level of ignorance to be taken seriously? Oh and the word is "your".
Was that an oversight or is it you have nothing tangible, only a gut feel?Nope, it is that we have facts and evidence and you have nothing. Oh and "gut feel"? That's called superstition. You have lots of that.
Fuel? I noticed a lack of an alternate flight plan in yur rebuttal. Was that an oversight or is it you have nothing tangible, only a gut feel?
I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with. Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors. Will you please stop asking the same question over and over? It has become tiresome and it is distracting.
Gillianren, the only reason I entertain this forum and the abuse it provides because I had hoped I was incorrect. I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception. I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be. I have been distracted, deceived and lied to. I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with. Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors. Will you please stop asking the same question over and over? It has become tiresome and it is distracting.Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing. You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it. You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic. Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter. It makes you look obnoxious. Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."Gillianren, It is not that I cannot do the calculations. Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties.
No. You have not. You have constantly evaded the simplest question, and until you answer it, I see no point in engaging further except to ask it again.
How do you know that the answer is not simply that you have misunderstood what you're citing as evidence?
For what it's worth, I do not accuse you of misogyny. I did, on the other hand, point out that your words about how I am "special in your mind" were creepy. Which they are. You never engaged on that point. I mentioned that I have dealt with other men who treat me a certain way because I am female, but that was not relevant to you. Others have decided that you're a misogynist, but your sexism is so mild that it's barely noticeable compared to what most women deal with on a daily basis. So now that we've disposed of that, can you answer my question? It's a really, really easy one.
As demonstrated by? Can you provide the lunar plane for each of the flights? Do you assume it is a constant and does not reflect the irregularities of the earth"s orbit on the solar orbital plane?Fuel? I noticed a lack of an alternate flight plan in yur rebuttal. Was that an oversight or is it you have nothing tangible, only a gut feel?
I noticed that not one of the Apollo or Orion flights is actually 'on the lunar plane' either....
As demonstrated by? Can you provide the lunar plane for each of the flights? Do you assume it is a constant and does not reflect the irregularities of the earth"s orbit on the solar orbital plane?
I listed the fight paths of all the lunar flights and the Orion EFT. Where is the disconnect? Show me your rebuttal. Show me where it says something different that the NASA figures I quoted.The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon. any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line. As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.
That is a truly epic fail of an observation. The TLI flight path was 30 degrees to the ecliptic plane. The lunar orbit is inclined by 5.1 degrees and the only relevance this has is where it intersects the transfer orbit. Apollo flight paths are Earth orbits, as are the Orion.
Sadly for you that is all they have in common. The eccentricity of Apollo took it around the weaker areas of the belt and took it out to a path that intersected the Moon. Orion was only eccentric enough to allow it to travel through the inner belt.
How in heavens name can you say they are the same? They are completely different.
I fail to see what that has to do with it! You claimed Orion and Apollo had the same paths. They are not even close.
Are you man enough to admit even one of your numerous blunders?
I thought we had moved on from the CraTer data. I am more than willing to engage the subject but not before we resolve this sticking point. You made a claim that I am asking you to justify. If you can not then I am forced to regard it as an unsubstantiated opinion.As demonstrated by? Can you provide the lunar plane for each of the flights? Do you assume it is a constant and does not reflect the irregularities of the earth"s orbit on the solar orbital plane?
When you can provide more than a few wikipedia articles and google hits I'll play your game. When you can admit you are wrong about anything instead of, say, insisting that the units given for the CraTER data must actually mean something other than what they say because you don't understand why they were presneted that way, I'll play your game. When you can stop being childish I'll play your game. For now I'm happy with my own understanding of orbital mechanics, which actually chimes with the reality of spaceflight in general, thank you.
There is a large amount of barking but little biting in this dog.
I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?
1. Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.
2. What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?
3. Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.
4. How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.
5. Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.
6. How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?
Show me on the graph where the bad man hurt you? If both crafts entered into the VAB at the same inclination traveling in the same direction then they share a similar flight path. The onus is on you to prove the numbers are incorrect. Remember, they are not my numbers, they are NASA's numbers. Show me something.I listed the fight paths of all the lunar flights and the Orion EFT. Where is the disconnect? Show me your rebuttal. Show me where it says something different that the NASA figures I quoted.The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon. any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line. As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.
That is a truly epic fail of an observation. The TLI flight path was 30 degrees to the ecliptic plane. The lunar orbit is inclined by 5.1 degrees and the only relevance this has is where it intersects the transfer orbit. Apollo flight paths are Earth orbits, as are the Orion.
Sadly for you that is all they have in common. The eccentricity of Apollo took it around the weaker areas of the belt and took it out to a path that intersected the Moon. Orion was only eccentric enough to allow it to travel through the inner belt.
How in heavens name can you say they are the same? They are completely different.
I fail to see what that has to do with it! You claimed Orion and Apollo had the same paths. They are not even close.
Are you man enough to admit even one of your numerous blunders?
I just explained to you how they differed. You diverted by going about an irrelevant flight path.
Orion carves an ellipse that comes back on itself at 3600 miles out. It takes it straight through the heart of the inner belt.
Apollo ellipses extend out to 240,000 miles. They do not come through that region at any point.
Nope. You, I, gillian and everyone else are simply guests here. You only entertain this forum because a)it is the only one which has not chucked you out yet and b)so far you remain an amusing chew toy.Gillianren, the only reason I entertain this forum and the abuse it provides because I had hoped I was incorrect.Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing. You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it. You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic. Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter. It makes you look obnoxious. Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."Gillianren, It is not that I cannot do the calculations. Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties.
No. You have not. You have constantly evaded the simplest question, and until you answer it, I see no point in engaging further except to ask it again.
How do you know that the answer is not simply that you have misunderstood what you're citing as evidence?
For what it's worth, I do not accuse you of misogyny. I did, on the other hand, point out that your words about how I am "special in your mind" were creepy. Which they are. You never engaged on that point. I mentioned that I have dealt with other men who treat me a certain way because I am female, but that was not relevant to you. Others have decided that you're a misogynist, but your sexism is so mild that it's barely noticeable compared to what most women deal with on a daily basis. So now that we've disposed of that, can you answer my question? It's a really, really easy one.
I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception.I don't care about your government. It means nothing to me, nor does it mean much to the other 96% of humans who are not americans.
I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be.Nope. When presented with evidence you hurled insults and sprinted.
I have not had a single question resolvedYou had all of them resolved.
in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with.Truth has no neccesity to be either nice or to your liking. And neither of those words can be applied to you.
Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors.For a given level of weed.
Will you please stop asking the same question over and over?Will you?
It has become tiresome and it is distracting.Not at all. it is amusing to watch you make a pretzel out of your brain.
I say again. I will not acquiesce. We must come to terms on the two flight paths before I surrender to a different discussion. Either accept the illustration as fact or provide an alternative one. We are at an impasse.There is a large amount of barking but little biting in this dog.
I take it that one is referring to oneself.I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?
1. Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.
2. What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?
3. Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.
4. How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.
5. Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.
6. How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?
Now answer the questions 2-6, tonight please. Not in flounce-google time.
Show me on the graph where the bad man hurt you?
If both crafts entered into the VAB at the same inclination traveling in the same direction then they share a similar flight path.
The onus is on you to prove the numbers are incorrect. Remember, they are not my numbers, they are NASA's numbers. Show me something.
As demonstrated by? Can you provide the lunar plane for each of the flights? Do you assume it is a constant and does not reflect the irregularities of the earth"s orbit on the solar orbital plane?Fuel? I noticed a lack of an alternate flight plan in yur rebuttal. Was that an oversight or is it you have nothing tangible, only a gut feel?
I noticed that not one of the Apollo or Orion flights is actually 'on the lunar plane' either....
I say again. I will not acquiesce. We must come to terms on the two flight paths before I surrender to a different discussion. Either accept the illustration as fact or provide an alternative one. We are at an impasse.
Show me on the graph where the bad man hurt you? If both crafts entered into the VAB at the same inclination traveling in the same direction then they share a similar flight path.
There is a large amount of barking but little biting in this dog. Will someone post their version of the two flight plans so we can contrast them. Why so much extraneous conversation and so few facts?There were three fundamental plans. Name them. You can't.
Where are your facts and figures. Not once have you posted a corrected illustration or even provided conflicting inclinations. Show me something tangible. I want to believe you but I need you to help me believe you. I thirst for the truth. Don't leave me parched and neglected.Show me on the graph where the bad man hurt you?
Now now, you know that graphs aren't your friend.QuoteIf both crafts entered into the VAB at the same inclination traveling in the same direction then they share a similar flight path.
Why? Not when their eccentricity is different. That's simply not possible from orbital mechanics. The two ellipses are different both spatially and in velocity. That has an effect on the position in the VAB and time in the VAB.QuoteThe onus is on you to prove the numbers are incorrect. Remember, they are not my numbers, they are NASA's numbers. Show me something.
They aren't NASA's numbers, they are Newton's numbers. Now show us you understand Newton.
Apogee would reflect the length of the elliptical and has nothing to do with the plane of the elliptical. From a side view each would appear as straight lines of different lengths on the same angle.Show me on the graph where the bad man hurt you? If both crafts entered into the VAB at the same inclination traveling in the same direction then they share a similar flight path.
Which part of 'one had an apogee in the belt and one shot right through' isn't clear in terms of describing their flight paths as different?
Apogee would reflect the length of the elliptical and has nothing to do with the plane of the elliptical. From a side view each would appear as straight lines of different lengths on the same angle.
Dancing like a butterfly. Is it in your mind the path cannot be accurately described on a 2d illustration and if so then why the proliferation of such depictions? NASA used a 2d representation and so did Braeuninig. Why can't you?Apogee would reflect the length of the elliptical and has nothing to do with the plane of the elliptical. From a side view each would appear as straight lines of different lengths on the same angle.
Which is irrelevant as a 3D spaceflight problem. Different eliptical eccentricity = different path even if it is on the same plane. It also, incidentally, has a huge effect on time by virtue of speed. But no doubt you won't grasp that either.
The inmates have taking control of the prison? We are warden-less?
1. Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.
2. What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?
3. Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.
4. How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.
5. Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.
6. How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?
Rotate your drawing to a side view and how would each of those orbits be seen? two straight lines of different lengths?Apogee would reflect the length of the elliptical and has nothing to do with the plane of the elliptical. From a side view each would appear as straight lines of different lengths on the same angle.
Which is irrelevant as a 3D spaceflight problem. Different eliptical eccentricity = different path even if it is on the same plane. It also, incidentally, has a huge effect on time by virtue of speed. But no doubt you won't grasp that either.
I led off with a question that you refused to address. It was a simple question. Did the Orion EFT mirror the apollo's path into the VAB. If it did not show the facts to explain the differences. You have provide no answers yet you demand your unrelated questions be answered in short order. Tit for tat. Show me yours and then I will show you mine.The inmates have taking control of the prison? We are warden-less?
... and there's one of the inmates barking at the moon from the confines of the asylum. LO doesn't patrol 24-7. I cannot speak for him, but I wouldn't irk him about the running of the forum. He's the only mod, he has a job, family and other interests. He runs the forum voluntarily. Do you run internet forums? No. So don't throw stones as the glass might fall around you.
1. Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.
2. What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?
3. Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.
4. How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.
5. Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.
6. How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?
Talking about throwing stones. If you want to talk about moderation, then I'll invoke it and ask LO for you to answer these questions tonight while Mag 40 is putting together a figure for you.
I won't accept flounce-Google time. They are one the table now, show you understand and support your claims about the radiation being prohibitive.
Rotate your drawing to a side view and how would each of those orbits be seen? two straight lines of different lengths?
are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane? If so, why and by how much?Rotate your drawing to a side view and how would each of those orbits be seen? two straight lines of different lengths?
Yes, but since neither craft was travelling in a straight line it doesn't matter.
2D representations are used because they are simple to construct. They are not intended to be totally accurate representations to be used in the manner you try to here. As an example, in a 2D representation, whether from the side or from above, Pluto and Neptune have intersecting orbits. In the actual 3D reality their orbital paths never actually intersect.
Gillianren, the only reason I entertain this forum and the abuse it provides because I had hoped I was incorrect. I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception. I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be. I have been distracted, deceived and lied to. I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with. Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors. Will you please stop asking the same question over and over? It has become tiresome and it is distracting.
I gave you my answer. Now if you want me to answer it in your voice then tell me what to say. I will say it to remove the incessant ringing in my ears.Gillianren, the only reason I entertain this forum and the abuse it provides because I had hoped I was incorrect. I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception. I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be. I have been distracted, deceived and lied to. I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with. Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors. Will you please stop asking the same question over and over? It has become tiresome and it is distracting.
When you provide a satisfactory answer, I'll stop asking it.
You are not an expert in the field. We all know that. So is it not more reasonable to assume that you don't understand the numbers than that the numbers disprove Apollo? Or is it simply impossible for you to ever be wrong about what the numbers show?
are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane? If so, why and by how much?
I remind you that a circle, an ellipse and a straight line look the same when viewed along the plane of reference. They all appear as lines of varying lengths.
are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane? If so, why and by how much?
Then it is to say any geometric two dimensional depiction would appear as a straight line when viewed from the side view of the plane. Is this not correct?
Apogee would reflect the length of the elliptical and has nothing to do with the plane of the elliptical. From a side view each would appear as straight lines of different lengths on the same angle.
Hahahaha. Tim still cannot fathom 3 dimensions.Where are your facts and figures. Not once have you posted a corrected illustration or even provided conflicting inclinations. Show me something tangible. I want to believe you but I need you to help me believe you. I thirst for the truth. Don't leave me parched and neglected.Show me on the graph where the bad man hurt you?
Now now, you know that graphs aren't your friend.QuoteIf both crafts entered into the VAB at the same inclination traveling in the same direction then they share a similar flight path.
Why? Not when their eccentricity is different. That's simply not possible from orbital mechanics. The two ellipses are different both spatially and in velocity. That has an effect on the position in the VAB and time in the VAB.QuoteThe onus is on you to prove the numbers are incorrect. Remember, they are not my numbers, they are NASA's numbers. Show me something.
They aren't NASA's numbers, they are Newton's numbers. Now show us you understand Newton.
Now if both orbits are on an identical plane and they enter the VAB at the same inclination will not their path mirror each other? When viewed along that plane is not the entry point identical? remember the VAB encircles the earth and as long as the inclinations are identical then the regions of the VAB are identical. The center of the VAB is 360 degrees uniform.are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane? If so, why and by how much?
That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.
Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.
(https://i.imgur.com/05C5Utc.png)
Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.
Hahahaha. Tim still cannot fathom 3 dimensions.
I led off with a question that you refused to address. It was a simple question. Did the Orion EFT mirror the apollo's path into the VAB. If it did not show the facts to explain the differences. You have provide no answers yet you demand your unrelated questions be answered in short order. Tit for tat. Show me yours and then I will show you mine.The inmates have taking control of the prison? We are warden-less?
... and there's one of the inmates barking at the moon from the confines of the asylum. LO doesn't patrol 24-7. I cannot speak for him, but I wouldn't irk him about the running of the forum. He's the only mod, he has a job, family and other interests. He runs the forum voluntarily. Do you run internet forums? No. So don't throw stones as the glass might fall around you.
1. Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.
2. What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?
3. Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.
4. How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.
5. Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.
6. How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?
Talking about throwing stones. If you want to talk about moderation, then I'll invoke it and ask LO for you to answer these questions tonight while Mag 40 is putting together a figure for you.
I won't accept flounce-Google time. They are one the table now, show you understand and support your claims about the radiation being prohibitive.
Now if both orbits are on an identical plane and they enter the VAB at the same inclination will not their path mirror each other?
When viewed along that plane is not the entry point identical? remember the VAB encircles the earth and as long as the inclinations are identical then the regions of the VAB are identical.
So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.
I gave you my answer. Now if you want me to answer it in your voice then tell me what to say. I will say it to remove the incessant ringing in my ears.Gillianren, the only reason I entertain this forum and the abuse it provides because I had hoped I was incorrect. I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception. I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be. I have been distracted, deceived and lied to. I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with. Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors. Will you please stop asking the same question over and over? It has become tiresome and it is distracting.
When you provide a satisfactory answer, I'll stop asking it.
You are not an expert in the field. We all know that. So is it not more reasonable to assume that you don't understand the numbers than that the numbers disprove Apollo? Or is it simply impossible for you to ever be wrong about what the numbers show?
We are making progress. You admit the inclinations are the same. What stands between us is the spatial recognition of the problem. When discussing two dimension geometry then it is incorrect to think in 3 dimensional terms. It is the two dimensions realities that we should be embracing. Apples and apples. Is it to safe to say that when viewed from a two dimensional perspective the paths are different only in length? Can we say this is technically correct?So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.
No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.
We are making progress. You admit the inclinations are the same. What stands between us is the spatial recognition of the problem. When discussing two dimension geometry then it is incorrect to think in 3 dimensional terms. It is the two dimensions realities that we should be embracing. Apples and apples. Is it to safe to say that when viewed from a two dimensional perspective the paths are different only in length? Can we say this is technically correct?So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.
No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.
Yours is a much more global view than mine. I am unconcerned with the whole. I am only concerned with a single aspect. I am not trying to win the war rather a single battle. It is like cutting down a giant redwood. It is not done in a single blow, rather is is one nick at a time. This is my nick.I gave you my answer. Now if you want me to answer it in your voice then tell me what to say. I will say it to remove the incessant ringing in my ears.Gillianren, the only reason I entertain this forum and the abuse it provides because I had hoped I was incorrect. I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception. I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be. I have been distracted, deceived and lied to. I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with. Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors. Will you please stop asking the same question over and over? It has become tiresome and it is distracting.
When you provide a satisfactory answer, I'll stop asking it.
You are not an expert in the field. We all know that. So is it not more reasonable to assume that you don't understand the numbers than that the numbers disprove Apollo? Or is it simply impossible for you to ever be wrong about what the numbers show?
So your answer is "because the government is lying?" Because that's not an answer. That's a dodge. That is not a simpler and more reasonable answer than your being wrong; it is extremely complicated, given everything they'd have to lie about. "You are wrong" is a simpler answer, and you can't acknowledge that.
Now if both orbits are on an identical plane and they enter the VAB at the same inclination will not their path mirror each other?
When viewed along that plane is not the entry point identical?
remember the VAB encircles the earth and as long as the inclinations are identical then the regions of the VAB are identical.
The center of the VAB is 360 degrees uniform.
If it is dependent on the angle of perception then why have you such a difficult time with the 2d angle of perception? It would be a simple matter to acknowledge that when viewed in 2d from the side perspective then the illustration is correct and add the caveat then it it not representative of a 3d perspective. Instead you claim the two dimensional perspective is erroneous and that is disingenuous or an outright fabrication. So the question remains unanswered. Is the 2d illustration I posted correct?We are making progress. You admit the inclinations are the same. What stands between us is the spatial recognition of the problem. When discussing two dimension geometry then it is incorrect to think in 3 dimensional terms. It is the two dimensions realities that we should be embracing. Apples and apples. Is it to safe to say that when viewed from a two dimensional perspective the paths are different only in length? Can we say this is technically correct?So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.
No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.
It depends on what angle you're looking at them from. Once again, I'm quite sure my four-year-old would understand that.
Ask yourself this simple question: Why would the Orion not simply enter the VAB on a zero inclination? Why did they choose an inclination of a lunar plane TLI?Quote from: timfinchNow if both orbits are on an identical plane and they enter the VAB at the same inclination will not their path mirror each other?
Absolutely not at all. One craft is travelling 7000mph faster. The ellipse it makes will be totally different to the slower craft.
Orion will start to curve in on its apogee whilst Apollo carries on curving outwards. That apogee passes through areas that the Apollo ellipse doesn't ever come near to.QuoteWhen viewed along that plane is not the entry point identical?
No. One is travelling faster.Quoteremember the VAB encircles the earth and as long as the inclinations are identical then the regions of the VAB are identical.
For the sake of argument, if you assume they both hit the VAB at the same point(they don't btw), that is the only point they will both pass through. From then on, their speeds determine the shape of the ellipse.QuoteThe center of the VAB is 360 degrees uniform.
And only Orion passes through it.
Come on, stop this act of yours. It is obvious even to layman that they aren't the same. You are just trying to faff about to cover up all the other errors you have made.
So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations. Exactly what are those two inclinations that would result in different paths through the VAB. Remember from the side view changes in elevation would result in line moving up or down. How much up or down are the two paths and why?
Apollo traversed a less dense portion of the VARB, whereas Orion was directed toward the more intense portion to check out the radiation protection for the electronics. The electronics are a couple of generations ahead of those in Apollo, but far more susceptible to radiation damage.
Yours is a much more global view than mine. I am unconcerned with the whole. I am only concerned with a single aspect. I am not trying to win the war rather a single battle. It is like cutting down a giant redwood. It is not done in a single blow, rather is is one nick at a time. This is my nick.
Ask yourself this simple question: Why would the Orion not simply enter the VAB on a zero inclination? Why did they choose an inclination of a lunar plane TLI?
If it is dependent on the angle of perception then why have you such a difficult time with the 2d angle of perception?
You missed the tree.
You admit the inclinations are the same.
When discussing two dimension geometry then it is incorrect to think in 3 dimensional terms.
You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception.
It goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on.
This being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths.
If you cannot see that
What has the location of the launch site have to do with the inclination of the orbit> They could select any orbit they would like. Cape canaveral is 28.4 degrees from what? The equator?Ask yourself this simple question: Why would the Orion not simply enter the VAB on a zero inclination? Why did they choose an inclination of a lunar plane TLI?
Lets out large sigh ::)
Cape Kennedy sits at 28.4 degrees. It is the optimal flight path.
Three dimensions still escape you.Now if both orbits are on an identical plane and they enter the VAB at the same inclination will not their path mirror each other?are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane? If so, why and by how much?
That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.
Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.
(https://i.imgur.com/05C5Utc.png)
Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.
When viewed along that plane is not the entry point identical?Nope. Because even in an imaginary 2 d verse they are rotating. Unless in your imaginary 2 d verse they are not. In which case, imagine a unicorn. Now the unicorn is real, yes?
remember the VAB encircles the earthLie.
and as long as the inclinations are identical then the regions of the VAB are identical.Lie.
The center of the VAB is 360 degrees uniform.Lie.
You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception.
And you go through some impressive gymnastics to avoid acknowledging that which is in front of you.QuoteIt goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on.
Not contested, here or anywhere else. However, that doesn't stop them being different things with different properties.QuoteThis being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths.
So is the one drawn from above. Reconcile that if you insist on staying in 2-dimensions.QuoteIf you cannot see that
No-one has failed to see that. The only thing being constested is the relevance when it comes to discussing the problems of space flight in the 3-dimensional space it took place in.
Care to address the pictures I put up?
What has the location of the launch site have to do with the inclination of the orbit> They could select any orbit they would like. Cape canaveral is 28.4 degrees from what? The equator?
So Jason, say the devil's name. Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective. Yes or no?
CRaTER consists of six silicon detectors in thin/thick pairs separated by sections of Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP). The Tissue Equivalent Plastic (such as A-150 manufactured by Standard Imaging) simulates soft body tissue (muscle) and has been used for both ground-based as well as space-based (i.e. Space Station) experiments.
The thin detectors (140 μm) are optimized for high energy deposits and the thick detectors (1000 μm) are optimized for low energy deposits, in particular, for protons. In nominal operating mode, an event is triggered when the energy deposit in any single detector rises above its threshold energy. A measurement is then made of the energy deposit in all six detectors. Directional information can be inferred for events that deposit energy into more than one detector (detection coincidences). Endcaps shield the detectors from protons with less than ~13MeV. Extra mass placed around the edges of the detectors provides additional shielding from some particles which may be able to penetrate through the sides of the instrument.
So Jason, say the devil's name. Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective. Yes or no?
Jason has provided a concrete model.
You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception. It goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on. They all appear to be a straight line. The only question that remained to be answered is are they on the same plane. You all agree that they are. This being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths. This is a truism. If you cannot see that then you are spatially challenged and any further discussion is pointless as you lack the ability to evaluate the information from the proper perspective.
I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page (http://crater.sr.unh.edu/instrument.shtml) and read up on the instrument's description
cGy/day is a rate, not a total. It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next. It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph.
Or, more accurately, a cardboard model that took me five minutes to knock up on the fly. Amazing what you can do when you actually grasp 3D geometry...
There are truths and there are not so true truths and generally perspective is to blame. If we all assume a 2d perspective as viewed from the side, is not the illustration I provide correct? We can move beyond this as soon as we acknowledge it is a correct two demensional perspective of the flight paths of the Orion EFT and the Apollo mission. Can we do that? There has been no claims on my part that it is the complete picture. My only claim is that it is technically correct from that perspective.. Break me off some crumbs. Let's move beyond this.So Jason, say the devil's name. Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective. Yes or no?
Jason has provided a concrete model. Two different ellipses, one avoids the torus, one does not. That's possible in 3D orbital mechanics.
The 2D representation is a coplanar issue dependent on rotation. The 3D model shows the problem in all spatial dimensions. That is not difficult to understand. Two different ellipses, two different flight paths.
If we all assume a 2d perspective as viewed from the side is not the illustration I provide correct. We can move beyond this as soon as we acknowledge it is a correct two dnsional perspective of the flight paths of the Orion EFT and the Apollo mission. Can we do that?
There has been no claims on my part that it is the complete picture.
There are truths and there are not so true truths and generally perspective is to blame. If we all assume a 2d perspective as viewed from the side is not the illustration I provide correct. We can move beyond this as soon as we acknowledge it is a correct two dnsional perspective of the flight paths of the Orion EFT and the Apollo mission. Can we do that? There has been no claims on my part that it is the complete picture. My only claim is that it is technically correct from that perspective.. Break me off some crumbs. Let's move beyond this.
If we all assume a 2d perspective as viewed from the side is not the illustration I provide correct. We can move beyond this as soon as we acknowledge it is a correct two dnsional perspective of the flight paths of the Orion EFT and the Apollo mission. Can we do that?
Tim, everyone here, literally, has done that. You are the one who will not move on.QuoteThere has been no claims on my part that it is the complete picture.
Then deal with the complete picture.
I was hoping for a concession speech but I won't belabor the point. But let's move on. If we change the perspective to a view looking down on the orbital plane is there a portion of the VAB that is skirted by the apollo craft?
You are stating that you cannot understand 3D representation so it must be reduced to 2D representation but we have already established that you are unable to even understand that.
So Jason, say the devil's name. Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective. Yes or no?
There are truths and there are not so true truths and generally perspective is to blame. If we all assume a 2d perspective as viewed from the side, is not the illustration I provide correct? We can move beyond this as soon as we acknowledge it is a correct two demensional perspective of the flight paths of the Orion EFT and the Apollo mission. Can we do that? There has been no claims on my part that it is the complete picture. My only claim is that it is technically correct from that perspective.. Break me off some crumbs. Let's move beyond this.So Jason, say the devil's name. Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective. Yes or no?
Jason has provided a concrete model. Two different ellipses, one avoids the torus, one does not. That's possible in 3D orbital mechanics.
The 2D representation is a coplanar issue dependent on rotation. The 3D model shows the problem in all spatial dimensions. That is not difficult to understand. Two different ellipses, two different flight paths.
You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception. It goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on. They all appear to be a straight line. The only question that remained to be answered is are they on the same plane. You all agree that they are. This being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths. This is a truism. If you cannot see that then you are spatially challenged and any further discussion is pointless as you lack the ability to evaluate the information from the proper perspective.
It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path. It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it. The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB. If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether. Is this not true?I was hoping for a concession speech but I won't belabor the point. But let's move on. If we change the perspective to a view looking down on the orbital plane is there a portion of the VAB that is skirted by the apollo craft?
There is nothing to concede because literally no-one challenged the similar inclinations, only the significance of that similarity. How about you deal with the actual 3D model that has been presented and stop trying to reduce 3D spaceflight to a 2D issue. You have ignored the spatial and temporal realities of the two spacecraft orbital paths. Let's have the same from you that you demand from us: do you acknowldge that in 3D it is possible for two orbits on the same plane to interact differently with a torus on another plane?
It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path. It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it. The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB. If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether. Is this not true?
The others disagree with you. They accept the fact that the Orion and the apollo have very similar inclinations. If you have data indicating otherwise please share it with the group. The would love the opportunity to rub my nose in it.You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception. It goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on. They all appear to be a straight line. The only question that remained to be answered is are they on the same plane. You all agree that they are. This being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths. This is a truism. If you cannot see that then you are spatially challenged and any further discussion is pointless as you lack the ability to evaluate the information from the proper perspective.
You missed my point exactly, Apollo was on a different plane by those 7 degrees. Do you really have reading comprehension issues?
You are spatially challenged and find it difficult to transition between perspectives. I understand and you have my sympathies. I cannot fix that which is terminally broken. I will just move on without you and hope you find success with your impairment.It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path. It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it. The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB. If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether. Is this not true?
You have literally been given pictures of a 3D representation of why that is not the case. Two ellipses on the same angle, one passed through, one missed. THhs is getting boring.
It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path. It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it. The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB. If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether. Is this not true?
You are spatially challenged and find it difficult to transition between perspectives. I understand and you have my sympathies. I cannot fix that which is terminally broken. I will just move on without you and hope you find success with your impairment.
You are spatially challenged and find it difficult to transition between perspectives. I understand and you have my sympathies. I cannot fix that which is terminally broken. I will just move on without you and hope you find success with your impairment.
It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path. It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it. The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB. If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether. Is this not true?
Did I mention I am just home from the hospital and that I am weak and in recovery?
Did I mention I am just home from the hospital and that I am weak and in recovery? This has been taxing and I must rest. I will rejoin the conversation tomorrow. I am optimistic that we are making progress. I cannot wait to re-engage in the CraTer Data discussion but there still remains work to be done on the path through the VAB. Until tomorrow my fellow seekers.
If it is dependent on the angle of perception then why have you such a difficult time with the 2d angle of perception?
Because it doesn't tell the whole story.
Have some fun pictures to think about, then tell me it doesn't matter if you only consider the 2D perspective from one angle. See how these two ellipses are on the same plane but pass through or around the ring entirely differently?
if you viewed your model from the side with the representation of your VAB being horizontal then your orbit would be at 90 degrees to the VAB
We know that is is closer to 18 degrees which would mean it passed right through it and not above it.
I meant no disrespect.
No. It is not true. The VAB does not surround the earth completely. Even the most abject hoaxmonsters do not believe any such thing. The notion is horribly stupid. Even jack white would crawl out of his grave because that is simply a dumb idea.It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path. It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it. The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB. If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether. Is this not true?I was hoping for a concession speech but I won't belabor the point. But let's move on. If we change the perspective to a view looking down on the orbital plane is there a portion of the VAB that is skirted by the apollo craft?
There is nothing to concede because literally no-one challenged the similar inclinations, only the significance of that similarity. How about you deal with the actual 3D model that has been presented and stop trying to reduce 3D spaceflight to a 2D issue. You have ignored the spatial and temporal realities of the two spacecraft orbital paths. Let's have the same from you that you demand from us: do you acknowldge that in 3D it is possible for two orbits on the same plane to interact differently with a torus on another plane?
Nope. we are the ones wondering how tim can put on his pants in the morning. The evidence suggests that they end up on his head.if you viewed your model from the side with the representation of your VAB being horizontal then your orbit would be at 90 degrees to the VAB
And I'm the one who's spatially challenged?
Yup. There is a term for that. Well two terms, but you can select either or both. Tim ticks both.QuoteWe know that is is closer to 18 degrees which would mean it passed right through it and not above it.
This is actually irrelevant to the point. I never contended it was an accurate model of Apollo. I didn't measure angles or create precise orbits. The point was to get you to understand that two ellipses on the same plane do not ave the same path and therefore cannot be compared in the way you insisted.
QuoteI meant no disrespect.
Crap. Your disrespect for me, my time and my efforts was clear. All because you cannot bear to admit you were wrong about something.
I was hoping for a concession speech but I won't belabor the point.
You do have reading comprehension issues, all of us are in agreement with the LEO inclination of around 30 degrees, but when the SIV-B fired it WAS NOT fired in the same attitude as the orbit. They were changing the plane by those 7 degrees, from the moment of ignition they were NOT in the same plane.The others disagree with you. They accept the fact that the Orion and the apollo have very similar inclinations. If you have data indicating otherwise please share it with the group. The would love the opportunity to rub my nose in it.You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception. It goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on. They all appear to be a straight line. The only question that remained to be answered is are they on the same plane. You all agree that they are. This being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths. This is a truism. If you cannot see that then you are spatially challenged and any further discussion is pointless as you lack the ability to evaluate the information from the proper perspective.
You missed my point exactly, Apollo was on a different plane by those 7 degrees. Do you really have reading comprehension issues?
Dancing like a butterfly. Is it in your mind the path cannot be accurately described on a 2d illustration and if so then why the proliferation of such depictions? NASA used a 2d representation and so did Braeuninig. Why can't you?Apogee would reflect the length of the elliptical and has nothing to do with the plane of the elliptical. From a side view each would appear as straight lines of different lengths on the same angle.
Which is irrelevant as a 3D spaceflight problem. Different eliptical eccentricity = different path even if it is on the same plane. It also, incidentally, has a huge effect on time by virtue of speed. But no doubt you won't grasp that either.
ladies and gents.Nope. Because
firstly can I apologise again. everybody here has answered tim on every single point he has asked and I am now genuinely embarrassed by his responses. I invited Tim here to propose his theory and it is clear no amount of work by anybody will do.
Tim. you should be ashamed. people here have given a lot of their time to help you and you have trolled your way through well more than 100 pages. I intend to block you on facebook as I am very bored now with the conversation.
I read earlier that abaddon has asked the mod not to block you which is fine and I will continue to read this thread without commenting but I am genuinely embarrassed.
can I just say many thanks to everybody here for the responses. I have learnt a lot and I am very satisfied that I was correct in what I said to tim at the very start when we met which in a nutshell was it depends in what part of space they were in and for how long.
again sorry for wasting everybodies time.
Because it's really tough to ship a 3d model with a magazine subscription?
Materials designed for a lay audience simplify. People actually plotting orbits, however, don't use these kinds of simplifications. They use math.
An ellipse is an ellipse is an ellipse. You keep trying to find a way of simplifying the problem into a straight-line path at a constant velocity.
You do have reading comprehension issues, all of us are in agreement with the LEO inclination of around 30 degrees, but when the SIV-B fired it WAS NOT fired in the same attitude as the orbit. They were changing the plane by those 7 degrees, from the moment of ignition they were NOT in the same plane.
..but instead of manning up and admitting his earlier error, he put on an arrogant air and pretended he was lecturing everyone else on how graphs work.
You do have reading comprehension issues, all of us are in agreement with the LEO inclination of around 30 degrees, but when the SIV-B fired it WAS NOT fired in the same attitude as the orbit. They were changing the plane by those 7 degrees, from the moment of ignition they were NOT in the same plane.
Yeah, but all that means is you draw the Apollo line at 7 degrees above the Orion line, in a straight line. ::)
The obvious problem with this illustration is it simultaneously displays two vantage points. It shows the VAB from a 2d side view and the elliptical orbit from a top view. Pick a single view and stick with it and there would be no confusion.are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane? If so, why and by how much?
That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.
Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.
(https://i.imgur.com/05C5Utc.png)
Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.
Step away from this thread for a week and abandon all hope of catching up.I love planting a seed and watching it sprout. You now understand the data reflects multiple snapshots taken during the day and to provide a truly comprehensive picture one must collate those snapshots into a single daily dose . Good! the force is flowing through you Luke (JFB). Let it flow. You are on the right track.
I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page (http://crater.sr.unh.edu/instrument.shtml) and read up on the instrument's description:QuoteCRaTER consists of six silicon detectors in thin/thick pairs separated by sections of Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP). The Tissue Equivalent Plastic (such as A-150 manufactured by Standard Imaging) simulates soft body tissue (muscle) and has been used for both ground-based as well as space-based (i.e. Space Station) experiments.
The thin detectors (140 μm) are optimized for high energy deposits and the thick detectors (1000 μm) are optimized for low energy deposits, in particular, for protons. In nominal operating mode, an event is triggered when the energy deposit in any single detector rises above its threshold energy. A measurement is then made of the energy deposit in all six detectors. Directional information can be inferred for events that deposit energy into more than one detector (detection coincidences). Endcaps shield the detectors from protons with less than ~13MeV. Extra mass placed around the edges of the detectors provides additional shielding from some particles which may be able to penetrate through the sides of the instrument.
Go to the web page for a proper diagram of the instrument, but here's some quick-n-dirty ASCII art:
============ --- Deep Space (Zenith) Shield
|||||||||||| --- D1 (148 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D2 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (54 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D3 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D4 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (27 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D5 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D6 (1 mm)
============ --- Lunar Surface (Nadir) Shield
So, several things that are obvious right off the bat:
- This is why you have combined readings for D1 & D2, D3 & D4, D5 & D6. Each pair is at the same depth of "tissue", each sensor of the pair is optimized for different energies.
- This is why you don't sum up readings from all 6 detectors, because each pair is measuring energies at different "tissue" depths. D1 & D2 give the "skin" dose, D5 & D6 give the "deep tissue" dose.
- As per the description, an event is recorded when the energy deposited in a single detector rises above its threshold energy. Raw events are measured in keV/μm. Obviously, during analysis, these measurements are fed into a mathematical model that spits results out in cGy/day.
One particularly amusing aspect of Tim's confusion (=coughtrollerycough=) is the idea that, because the measurements are reported in cGy/day, that you must sum all the measurements taken on the same day to get the proper cGy/day amount.
cGy/day is a rate, not a total. It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next. It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph.
What has the location of the launch site have to do with the inclination of the orbit> They could select any orbit they would like. Cape canaveral is 28.4 degrees from what? The equator?Ask yourself this simple question: Why would the Orion not simply enter the VAB on a zero inclination? Why did they choose an inclination of a lunar plane TLI?
Lets out large sigh ::)
Cape Kennedy sits at 28.4 degrees. It is the optimal flight path.
Cape Kennedy sits at 28.4 degrees. It is the optimal flight path.What has the location of the launch site have to do with the inclination of the orbit> They could select any orbit they would like.
Cape canaveral is 28.4 degrees from what? The equator?
Why do you think it was chosen as the optimum site when a a norther location closer to the poles would have have allowed the VAB to be bypassed? What was the logic?Cape Kennedy sits at 28.4 degrees. It is the optimal flight path.What has the location of the launch site have to do with the inclination of the orbit> They could select any orbit they would like.
They can select any orbit with an inclination of 28.4 degrees or higher. Well, actually, they could select any orbit they like, but if the inclination is less than 28.4 degrees, then there will be a large cost in fuel to achieve it.
Let's take an orbit with an inclination of zero as an example. Such an orbit is above the equator. So if you launch from Cape Canaveral, how do you achieve an orbit with an inclination of zero? The rocket takes off at 28.4 degrees, then it has to travel south to get to the equator. That's a long way - the rocket will be in orbit by then. So if it just coasts to the equator, then it will continue south to at least 28.4 degrees south. If the rocket was launched straight east (or west, for that matter, although there are reasons not to do that) from Cape Canaveral, then 28.4 degrees south will be the southernmost point of the orbit (farther south than Rio de Janeiro, but not quite as far south as Buenos Aires). If they launched it either southward or northward, then the most southerly latitude the orbit reaches will be more south than 28.4 degrees.
So if you don't do anything to change the orbit after launch, the spacecraft will be oscillating north and south of the equator each orbit, by at least 28.4 degrees (and possibly more, depending on the direction of the rocket when it was launched).
To get into an orbit over the equator, there would have to be a course correction when the craft reaches the equator, to stop the southward motion. This can be done in theory, but you're going to need enough fuel to do it. And the amount of fuel will be a lot.
So, yes, in theory, you can achieve any orbit you like launching from Cape Canaveral, but if the inclination is less than 28.4 degrees, you have to carry enough fuel to do the course correction (which will cut down on how much payload you can carry, and possibly exceed the carrying capacity of your craft), and you need to have an engine that can do the burn. It's hard enough and expensive enough to get a spacecraft into orbit, that you don't want to choose suboptimal orbits (like having an inclination of less than the latitude of your launch site) unless you really need to.
The Soviet Union (and now the Russian Space Agency) were at something of a disadvantage in this regard, since their launch site is so far north. This limited the orbits they could easily achieve. (There is another reason south is better as well.) There's a reason the US launch site is in Florida, and not in North Dakota or Alaska. It's the same reason the Soviet (now Russian) launch site is as far south as they could make it, and the European Space Agency launches from the northern part of South America.Cape canaveral is 28.4 degrees from what? The equator?
Yes, the equator.
No, you are not thinking.It takes advantage of the spin of the earth and reduces the required energy and or cost..
Why are rockets launched eastward, and not to the west, north or south?
Step away from this thread for a week and abandon all hope of catching up.I love planting a seed and watching it sprout. You now understand the data reflects multiple snapshots taken during the day and to provide a truly comprehensive picture one must collate those snapshots into a single daily dose . Good! the force is flowing through you Luke (JFB). Let it flow. You are on the right track.
I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page (http://crater.sr.unh.edu/instrument.shtml) and read up on the instrument's description:QuoteCRaTER consists of six silicon detectors in thin/thick pairs separated by sections of Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP). The Tissue Equivalent Plastic (such as A-150 manufactured by Standard Imaging) simulates soft body tissue (muscle) and has been used for both ground-based as well as space-based (i.e. Space Station) experiments.
The thin detectors (140 μm) are optimized for high energy deposits and the thick detectors (1000 μm) are optimized for low energy deposits, in particular, for protons. In nominal operating mode, an event is triggered when the energy deposit in any single detector rises above its threshold energy. A measurement is then made of the energy deposit in all six detectors. Directional information can be inferred for events that deposit energy into more than one detector (detection coincidences). Endcaps shield the detectors from protons with less than ~13MeV. Extra mass placed around the edges of the detectors provides additional shielding from some particles which may be able to penetrate through the sides of the instrument.
Go to the web page for a proper diagram of the instrument, but here's some quick-n-dirty ASCII art:
============ --- Deep Space (Zenith) Shield
|||||||||||| --- D1 (148 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D2 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (54 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D3 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D4 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (27 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D5 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D6 (1 mm)
============ --- Lunar Surface (Nadir) Shield
So, several things that are obvious right off the bat:
- This is why you have combined readings for D1 & D2, D3 & D4, D5 & D6. Each pair is at the same depth of "tissue", each sensor of the pair is optimized for different energies.
- This is why you don't sum up readings from all 6 detectors, because each pair is measuring energies at different "tissue" depths. D1 & D2 give the "skin" dose, D5 & D6 give the "deep tissue" dose.
- As per the description, an event is recorded when the energy deposited in a single detector rises above its threshold energy. Raw events are measured in keV/μm. Obviously, during analysis, these measurements are fed into a mathematical model that spits results out in cGy/day.
One particularly amusing aspect of Tim's confusion (=coughtrollerycough=) is the idea that, because the measurements are reported in cGy/day, that you must sum all the measurements taken on the same day to get the proper cGy/day amount.
cGy/day is a rate, not a total. It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next. It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph.
what is the daily reading if the 24 snapshots are different?Step away from this thread for a week and abandon all hope of catching up.I love planting a seed and watching it sprout. You now understand the data reflects multiple snapshots taken during the day and to provide a truly comprehensive picture one must collate those snapshots into a single daily dose . Good! the force is flowing through you Luke (JFB). Let it flow. You are on the right track.
I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page (http://crater.sr.unh.edu/instrument.shtml) and read up on the instrument's description:QuoteCRaTER consists of six silicon detectors in thin/thick pairs separated by sections of Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP). The Tissue Equivalent Plastic (such as A-150 manufactured by Standard Imaging) simulates soft body tissue (muscle) and has been used for both ground-based as well as space-based (i.e. Space Station) experiments.
The thin detectors (140 μm) are optimized for high energy deposits and the thick detectors (1000 μm) are optimized for low energy deposits, in particular, for protons. In nominal operating mode, an event is triggered when the energy deposit in any single detector rises above its threshold energy. A measurement is then made of the energy deposit in all six detectors. Directional information can be inferred for events that deposit energy into more than one detector (detection coincidences). Endcaps shield the detectors from protons with less than ~13MeV. Extra mass placed around the edges of the detectors provides additional shielding from some particles which may be able to penetrate through the sides of the instrument.
Go to the web page for a proper diagram of the instrument, but here's some quick-n-dirty ASCII art:
============ --- Deep Space (Zenith) Shield
|||||||||||| --- D1 (148 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D2 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (54 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D3 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D4 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (27 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D5 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D6 (1 mm)
============ --- Lunar Surface (Nadir) Shield
So, several things that are obvious right off the bat:
- This is why you have combined readings for D1 & D2, D3 & D4, D5 & D6. Each pair is at the same depth of "tissue", each sensor of the pair is optimized for different energies.
- This is why you don't sum up readings from all 6 detectors, because each pair is measuring energies at different "tissue" depths. D1 & D2 give the "skin" dose, D5 & D6 give the "deep tissue" dose.
- As per the description, an event is recorded when the energy deposited in a single detector rises above its threshold energy. Raw events are measured in keV/μm. Obviously, during analysis, these measurements are fed into a mathematical model that spits results out in cGy/day.
One particularly amusing aspect of Tim's confusion (=coughtrollerycough=) is the idea that, because the measurements are reported in cGy/day, that you must sum all the measurements taken on the same day to get the proper cGy/day amount.
cGy/day is a rate, not a total. It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next. It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph.
=sigh=
I knw you’re pretending to be this dense (because otherwise there’s no way you could walk out the door without gravely injuring yourself), but even so this is getting tiresome. No, you do not need to “collate” anything. There’s no need to add readings together. cGy/day is a rate at a given instant. It could be cGy/hr, mGy/fortnight, kGy/sec, whatever.
Just do everyone a favor, take your bow, and piss off.
A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA...
the orbit would be perpendicular to the equator.A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA...
Please describe what a polar orbit is.
the orbit would be perpendicular to the equator.A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA...
Please describe what a polar orbit is.
Are you sure D5 & D6 do not measure radiation from the moon and not from cislunar space? I am asking for a friend.Step away from this thread for a week and abandon all hope of catching up.I love planting a seed and watching it sprout. You now understand the data reflects multiple snapshots taken during the day and to provide a truly comprehensive picture one must collate those snapshots into a single daily dose . Good! the force is flowing through you Luke (JFB). Let it flow. You are on the right track.
I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page (http://crater.sr.unh.edu/instrument.shtml) and read up on the instrument's description:QuoteCRaTER consists of six silicon detectors in thin/thick pairs separated by sections of Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP). The Tissue Equivalent Plastic (such as A-150 manufactured by Standard Imaging) simulates soft body tissue (muscle) and has been used for both ground-based as well as space-based (i.e. Space Station) experiments.
The thin detectors (140 μm) are optimized for high energy deposits and the thick detectors (1000 μm) are optimized for low energy deposits, in particular, for protons. In nominal operating mode, an event is triggered when the energy deposit in any single detector rises above its threshold energy. A measurement is then made of the energy deposit in all six detectors. Directional information can be inferred for events that deposit energy into more than one detector (detection coincidences). Endcaps shield the detectors from protons with less than ~13MeV. Extra mass placed around the edges of the detectors provides additional shielding from some particles which may be able to penetrate through the sides of the instrument.
Go to the web page for a proper diagram of the instrument, but here's some quick-n-dirty ASCII art:
============ --- Deep Space (Zenith) Shield
|||||||||||| --- D1 (148 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D2 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (54 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D3 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D4 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (27 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D5 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D6 (1 mm)
============ --- Lunar Surface (Nadir) Shield
So, several things that are obvious right off the bat:
- This is why you have combined readings for D1 & D2, D3 & D4, D5 & D6. Each pair is at the same depth of "tissue", each sensor of the pair is optimized for different energies.
- This is why you don't sum up readings from all 6 detectors, because each pair is measuring energies at different "tissue" depths. D1 & D2 give the "skin" dose, D5 & D6 give the "deep tissue" dose.
- As per the description, an event is recorded when the energy deposited in a single detector rises above its threshold energy. Raw events are measured in keV/μm. Obviously, during analysis, these measurements are fed into a mathematical model that spits results out in cGy/day.
One particularly amusing aspect of Tim's confusion (=coughtrollerycough=) is the idea that, because the measurements are reported in cGy/day, that you must sum all the measurements taken on the same day to get the proper cGy/day amount.
cGy/day is a rate, not a total. It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next. It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph.
Visualize. Both equatorial orbits and polar orbits would never cross the South Atlantic Anomalythe orbit would be perpendicular to the equator.A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA...
Please describe what a polar orbit is.
Which would mean it would pass over EVERY part of the Earth - including the SAA.
So going in an orbit from pole to pole wouldn't cross the SAA?
So going in an orbit from pole to pole wouldn't cross the SAA?
Maybe I was wrong. Looking at this illustration it wold run right down the middle of it.
I am human and as such the possibility always exist that I may have have had lapses in judgement. I am honest and a man of integrity. If it can be demonstrated that I have erred and I can understand the error then I will own it and change my position. I am flexible like that. Integrity demands nothing less.So going in an orbit from pole to pole wouldn't cross the SAA?
Maybe I was wrong. Looking at this illustration it wold run right down the middle of it.
Hmm... if you were wrong about that... do you think it's possible you were wrong about some of the other things you have believed?
Hmm... if you were wrong about that... do you think it's possible you were wrong about some of the other things you have believed?I am human and as such the possibility always exist that I may have have had lapses in judgement. I am honest and a man of integrity. If it can be demonstrated that I have erred and I can understand the error then I will own it and change my position. I am flexible like that. Integrity demands nothing less.
Hmm... if you were wrong about that... do you think it's possible you were wrong about some of the other things you have believed?I am human and as such the possibility always exist that I may have have had lapses in judgement. I am honest and a man of integrity. If it can be demonstrated that I have erred and I can understand the error then I will own it and change my position. I am flexible like that. Integrity demands nothing less.
The thing is, most rational people will recognize that they are likely the one that is wrong when all of the world's experts disagree with them about something.
People like you, on the other hand, arrogantly believe that they are right even when people with decades more experience disagree.
You are wrong. The facts... and simple logic... do not support the hoax theory. You just need to accept that.
"Because I said so" is the resort most often used when you have exhausted all reasonable attempts to explain something to someone who is simply incapable of, or refusing to, accept rational argument and explanation of the facts. It was not the starting point used by anyone here. It is pretty much the standpoint you have employed from the start and its use is entirely inappropriate given your lack of understanding of the things you are trying to examine.You are starting at the conclusion which is from the opposite end that draws my attention. What human activities do you speak of and which of these activities could not be easily replicated by machines? I do not contend that man did not go to the moon. I contend that no man has ever ventured beyond the VAB. The equipment of man has been to the moon many times and by many nations.
The facts are that Apollo went to the moon. Every piece of evidence supports that. You have absolutely nothing that contradicts it no matter how many times you claim you do. All you have is a small collection of numbers collected from dosimeters worn next to the skin inside a structure that (regardless of whether you believe this) will intercept radiation. The numbers you report are adjusted from the original raw figures, which are higher. If you put some effort in you might even find those numbers.
You do not have adequate data on which to draw the unreasonably firm conclusions that you espouse, and your claim that it invalidates everything else in the Apollo record is incorrect. You need to look at the point you actually make yourself: there is an overwhelming amount of verifiable evidence supporting Apollo, how can it be possible if you are correct? You might just have to grasp the reality that you are wrong.
China, India and Japan have all taken images at the Apollo sites showing human activity. Not hardware, not physical objects, but the activity around them. Your a priori conclusions based on faulty assumptions cannot explain that.
So to recap. This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB. We don't have to debate this point any longer. Right?
A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA...
Please describe what a polar orbit is.
So to recap. This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB. We don't have to debate this point any longer. Right?So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted. I am not the villain here. I am the bringer of the light and truth.So to recap. This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB. We don't have to debate this point any longer. Right?
The only one labouring this point is you, because you still refuse to accept or understand that a 2D representation does not have enough information to draw the conclusions you want to draw. You have been shown why this is not the case.
I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted. I am not the villain here. I am the bringer of the light and truth.So to recap. This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB. We don't have to debate this point any longer. Right?
The only one labouring this point is you, because you still refuse to accept or understand that a 2D representation does not have enough information to draw the conclusions you want to draw. You have been shown why this is not the case.
Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.
I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB. If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right. I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.So to recap. This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB. We don't have to debate this point any longer. Right?So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.
Maybe you should review the thread. You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding. Everything I have said about a logarithmic graph is true and I am willing and capable of defending. Cite a specific point and I will address it.I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted. I am not the villain here. I am the bringer of the light and truth.So to recap. This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB. We don't have to debate this point any longer. Right?
The only one labouring this point is you, because you still refuse to accept or understand that a 2D representation does not have enough information to draw the conclusions you want to draw. You have been shown why this is not the case.
Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.
The "truth" of someone who is willing to lie about how graphs work?
I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB. If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right. I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.So to recap. This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB. We don't have to debate this point any longer. Right?So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
Maybe you should review the thread. You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding. Everything I have said about a logarithmic graph is true and I am willing and capable of defending. Cite a specific point and I will address it.
You exaggerate. I contend that each entered the VAB at the same inclination and as such there is commonality and one can extrapolate exposure because of that commonality. The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.
You've been shown videos and models to explain that point. Quit with the obfuscation.
You claimed that two orbits with the same inclination had the same flight path through the belts, entered and left the belts at the same place, and so on. You have been shown why this is not true. Deal with that.
Maybe you should review the thread. You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding. Everything I have said about a logarithmic graph is true and I am willing and capable of defending. Cite a specific point and I will address it.I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted. I am not the villain here. I am the bringer of the light and truth.So to recap. This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB. We don't have to debate this point any longer. Right?
The only one labouring this point is you, because you still refuse to accept or understand that a 2D representation does not have enough information to draw the conclusions you want to draw. You have been shown why this is not the case.
Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.
The "truth" of someone who is willing to lie about how graphs work?
You exaggerate. I contend that each entered the VAB at the same inclination and as such there is commonality
I invented nothing. A logarithmic graph is defined by the fact that it's scale is logarithmic and not exponential. This remains an obstacle to your comprehension. if you had varying speeds then it is an average of those speeds that indicates the speed of travel. it is obvious if you take 24 readings over a day no single reading is an accurate indication of the daily exposure as conditions could vary considerably minute to minute. An average over that time period would be more of an accurate assessment of the daily dose.Maybe you should review the thread. You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding. Everything I have said about a logarithmic graph is true and I am willing and capable of defending. Cite a specific point and I will address it.
But you invented a whole new kind of graph which simply does not exist, all because you think there are minor graduations on an axis that it has been shown are not actually there.
And while we're on the subject of that data set, if I take note of my speedometer every ten minutes for an hour and get readings of 35, 38, 28, 32, 39 and 25mph, what is my speed over that hour? Did yu add them or average them? If the former, wy? Of the latter, why do you think you should add up radiation dose rates measured over one day to get an overall daily dose rate?
I have been shown no such thing. What I have been shown is a spatial impairment. Most lack the ability to perceive data in anything except a 3 dimensional context.You exaggerate. I contend that each entered the VAB at the same inclination and as such there is commonality
Except you have been shown why this is not the case. With a 3D model, with pictures, with words.
That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB. If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right. I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.So to recap. This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB. We don't have to debate this point any longer. Right?So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
I invented nothing. A logarithmic graph is defined by the fact that it's scale is logarithmic and not exponential. This remains an obstacle to your comprehension.
if you had varying speeds then it is an average of those speeds that indicates the speed of travel. it is obvious if you take 24 readings over a day no single reading is an accurate indication of the daily exposure as conditions could vary considerably minute to minute. An average over that time period would be more of an accurate assessment of the daily dose.
I have been shown no such thing. What I have been shown is a spatial impairment. Most lack the ability to perceive data in anything except a 3 dimensional context.
All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees. They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB. If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right. I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.So to recap. This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB. We don't have to debate this point any longer. Right?So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.
Why you find it difficult to envision a plane slicing through a donut at an angle is a mystery to me. Keep working on it. I am in your corner. You can do this.I have been shown no such thing. What I have been shown is a spatial impairment. Most lack the ability to perceive data in anything except a 3 dimensional context.
When dealing with a 3 dimensional situation it is entirely appropriate to consider it in 3 dimensions.
There is no spatial impairment here except in your case. You have been shown that it is possible for two orbits on the same inclination to have entirely different outcomes in relation to passing through or avoiding a torus on a different plane. Note that I never said I had produced an accurate depiction of the belts or the spacecraft, I was illustrating a point. But despite the obvious conclusion to be drawn you insist still there is commonality in the way two orbits interact with the torus just because they are on the same plane. Reality disagrees.
If that is true then why the misconception of bypassing the dangerous part of the VAB? There is no justification for the misconception.All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.
This is absolutely untrue. The first 20 seconds of one of the videos explicitly shows the equatorial plane and the geomagnetic plane as different.
Why you find it difficult to envision a plane slicing through a donut at an angle is a mystery to me.
If that is true then why the misconception of bypassing the dangerous part of the VAB? There is no justification for the misconception.
Did you . . . read the link I posted? Like, look at it at all? No, you did not, because if you did, the author did EXACTLY that.All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees. They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB. If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right. I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.So to recap. This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB. We don't have to debate this point any longer. Right?So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
The ellipse from a side view is a straight line. It is obvious that it passes through the highest regions of the VAB. Shift the view from a top vied looking down on the north pole where the elliptical path is clearly defined. Once again it is obvious that the path goes through the highest radiation zones of the VAB. The only view in which it doesn't is the imaginary one in which the path proceeds at a ninety degree angle and then moves along the outer boundary of the VAB which is fictitious bull defecations spoon fed to retarded children.Why you find it difficult to envision a plane slicing through a donut at an angle is a mystery to me.
Why you think someone who actually created a 3D model of what you describe can't visualise it is beyond me, and why you think the plane slicing the donut is actually the key point when the spacecraft's path on the ellipse is actually the key element is beyond me.
The only view in which it doesn't is the imaginary one in which the path proceeds at a ninety degree angle and then moves along the outer boundary of the VAB which is fictitious bull defecations spoon fed to retarded children.
The obvious problem with this illustration is it simultaneously displays two vantage points. It shows the VAB from a 2d side view and the elliptical orbit from a top view. Pick a single view and stick with it and there would be no confusion.are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane? If so, why and by how much?
That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.
Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.
(https://i.imgur.com/05C5Utc.png)
Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.
Could you kindly repost it it? I scrolled back 4 pages and didn't see it and I don't remember you posting it. Help me out here.Did you . . . read the link I posted? Like, look at it at all? No, you did not, because if you did, the author did EXACTLY that.All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees. They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB. If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right. I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.So to recap. This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB. We don't have to debate this point any longer. Right?So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
Go look at it again. Scroll down the section title 'Van Allen Radiation Belt Belts' in bold. Keep reading from there.
Is that the way the Van Allen Belt appears when you are looking down from the poles? Why do they call it a donut or toroidal?The obvious problem with this illustration is it simultaneously displays two vantage points. It shows the VAB from a 2d side view and the elliptical orbit from a top view. Pick a single view and stick with it and there would be no confusion.are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane? If so, why and by how much?
That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.
Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.
(https://i.imgur.com/05C5Utc.png)
Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.
It shows them both from a top view, there is nothing wrong with the illustration. You simply are afraid to concede because you think it makes you look stupid.
Quite clearly, to anyone who can understand an ellipse, the yellow line will pass through areas that the red line cannot. It will also do it every orbit.
I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted. I am not the villain here. I am the bringer of the light and truth.
Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.
Caution! There is a sniper in the trees taking pot shots...I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted. I am not the villain here. I am the bringer of the light and truth.
Don't shoot the messenger because you didn't understand the 2D representation in 3D space. This is like the graph debacle again. You didn't understand the representation of the pretty picture. You've been shown how how different ellipses can intersect a torus at different positions. Anyone with a set of eyes can see it, and anyone with integrity would have put their hand up and admitted their mistake.
Your howler on the position of the Cape and launch site, and the polar orbit shows you really are fumbling around in the dark. The polar orbit illustrates you are utterly clueless. You've read a few words on Wikipedia, threw them in here and hope they stuck. Polar orbit indeed, now that it funny.QuoteRenounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.
Polar orbit... that's all I have to say to you now. Polar orbit. What buffoonery.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."
I have repeatedly stated that I am uninterested in promoting or disproving a hoax theory. My goal is singular. I intend to prove that the reported mission dose of Apollo 11 is unrealistic. As a consequence of that goal if it can be deduced the existence of a hoax exist then consider it collateral damage. That is not my intent.
The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.
What kind of graph is this?I invented nothing. A logarithmic graph is defined by the fact that it's scale is logarithmic and not exponential. This remains an obstacle to your comprehension. if you had varying speeds then it is an average of those speeds that indicates the speed of travel. it is obvious if you take 24 readings over a day no single reading is an accurate indication of the daily exposure as conditions could vary considerably minute to minute. An average over that time period would be more of an accurate assessment of the daily dose.Maybe you should review the thread. You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding. Everything I have said about a logarithmic graph is true and I am willing and capable of defending. Cite a specific point and I will address it.
But you invented a whole new kind of graph which simply does not exist, all because you think there are minor graduations on an axis that it has been shown are not actually there.
And while we're on the subject of that data set, if I take note of my speedometer every ten minutes for an hour and get readings of 35, 38, 28, 32, 39 and 25mph, what is my speed over that hour? Did yu add them or average them? If the former, wy? Of the latter, why do you think you should add up radiation dose rates measured over one day to get an overall daily dose rate?
Can you stick your finger in a ring donut? Without touching the edges? You claim that this is an impossible task. And further, that nobody ever anywhere can do such a thing because it is physically impossible to do so. That is how daft your claim is.
Is that the way the Van Allen Belt appears when you are looking down from the poles? Why do they call it a donut or toroidal?
I have proven that Robert Braeunig has deceived you.
I have proven that there is no low radiation path through the VAB.
I have proven that the background radiation is as high as the reported mission dose of Apollo 11.
I have proven that the lunar soil is radioactive and I have proven that the moon itself is a source of radiation.
I have proven that a transit through the VAB is at a radiation level that is the significant component of a lunar transit.
What remains to be proven to convince you that the lunar landing could not have occurred?
I have repeatedly stated that I am uninterested in promoting or disproving a hoax theory. My goal is singular. I intend to prove that the reported mission dose of Apollo 11 is unrealistic. As a consequence of that goal if it can be deduced the existence of a hoax exist then consider it collateral damage. That is not my intent.
You suffer from a gross conceptional area. Rethink and repost. I am embarrassed for you.The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.
You have had this explained to you in excruciating detail. The plane the ellipses occur on has no significance to the way one intersects areas of the belts and the other does not.
Some of us have to live with such realities.Caution! There is a sniper in the trees taking pot shots...I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted. I am not the villain here. I am the bringer of the light and truth.
Don't shoot the messenger because you didn't understand the 2D representation in 3D space. This is like the graph debacle again. You didn't understand the representation of the pretty picture. You've been shown how how different ellipses can intersect a torus at different positions. Anyone with a set of eyes can see it, and anyone with integrity would have put their hand up and admitted their mistake.
Your howler on the position of the Cape and launch site, and the polar orbit shows you really are fumbling around in the dark. The polar orbit illustrates you are utterly clueless. You've read a few words on Wikipedia, threw them in here and hope they stuck. Polar orbit indeed, now that it funny.QuoteRenounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.
Polar orbit... that's all I have to say to you now. Polar orbit. What buffoonery.
Define a "gross conceptional area". Yet another clanger from tim.
You suffer from a gross conceptional area. Rethink and repost. I am embarrassed for you.
There it is. I am tired again. Off to bed. Look for me in 9 to 10 hours. Keep thinking and to thine ownself be trueYou are incapable of being true to yourself.
Is that the way the Van Allen Belt appears when you are looking down from the poles? Why do they call it a donut or toroidal?The obvious problem with this illustration is it simultaneously displays two vantage points. It shows the VAB from a 2d side view and the elliptical orbit from a top view. Pick a single view and stick with it and there would be no confusion.are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane? If so, why and by how much?
That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.
Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.
(https://i.imgur.com/05C5Utc.png)
Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.
It shows them both from a top view, there is nothing wrong with the illustration. You simply are afraid to concede because you think it makes you look stupid.
Quite clearly, to anyone who can understand an ellipse, the yellow line will pass through areas that the red line cannot. It will also do it every orbit.
You suffer from a gross conceptional area. Rethink and repost. I am embarrassed for you.
You suffer from a gross conceptional area. Rethink and repost. I am embarrassed for you.The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.
You have had this explained to you in excruciating detail. The plane the ellipses occur on has no significance to the way one intersects areas of the belts and the other does not.
The link is in the very nest of quotes you just quoted!Could you kindly repost it it? I scrolled back 4 pages and didn't see it and I don't remember you posting it. Help me out here.Did you . . . read the link I posted? Like, look at it at all? No, you did not, because if you did, the author did EXACTLY that.All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees. They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB. If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right. I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.So to recap. This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB. We don't have to debate this point any longer. Right?So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
Go look at it again. Scroll down the section title 'Van Allen Radiation Belt Belts' in bold. Keep reading from there.
Lie. Why must you lie so much? Is it that you are so daft that you don't grok science and thus have to lash out?All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees. They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB. If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right. I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.So to recap. This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB. We don't have to debate this point any longer. Right?So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
The link is in the very nest of quotes you just quoted!Could you kindly repost it it? I scrolled back 4 pages and didn't see it and I don't remember you posting it. Help me out here.Did you . . . read the link I posted? Like, look at it at all? No, you did not, because if you did, the author did EXACTLY that.All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees. They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB. If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right. I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.So to recap. This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB. We don't have to debate this point any longer. Right?So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
Go look at it again. Scroll down the section title 'Van Allen Radiation Belt Belts' in bold. Keep reading from there.
Still, here you go (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm).
Apollo 11's TLI launch point was very close to the descending node of the geomagnetic plane, which is a very advantageous place to start. As the spacecraft swings around Earth and heads out toward the Moon, it travels in the direction where the geomagnetic plane slopes away from it. In fact, by the time Apollo 11 reaches a distance of about three Earth radii, the geomagnetic axis is tilted almost exactly in the direction of the spacecraft, resulting in maximum separation between Apollo 11 and the geomagnetic plane. This optimal alignment is maintained until the spacecraft is well beyond the limits of the VARB.
"Because I said so" is the resort most often used when you have exhausted all reasonable attempts to explain something to someone who is simply incapable of, or refusing to, accept rational argument and explanation of the facts. It was not the starting point used by anyone here. It is pretty much the standpoint you have employed from the start and its use is entirely inappropriate given your lack of understanding of the things you are trying to examine.You are starting at the conclusion which is from the opposite end that draws my attention. What human activities do you speak of and which of these activities could not be easily replicated by machines? I do not contend that man did not go to the moon. I contend that no man has ever ventured beyond the VAB. The equipment of man has been to the moon many times and by many nations.
The facts are that Apollo went to the moon. Every piece of evidence supports that. You have absolutely nothing that contradicts it no matter how many times you claim you do. All you have is a small collection of numbers collected from dosimeters worn next to the skin inside a structure that (regardless of whether you believe this) will intercept radiation. The numbers you report are adjusted from the original raw figures, which are higher. If you put some effort in you might even find those numbers.
You do not have adequate data on which to draw the unreasonably firm conclusions that you espouse, and your claim that it invalidates everything else in the Apollo record is incorrect. You need to look at the point you actually make yourself: there is an overwhelming amount of verifiable evidence supporting Apollo, how can it be possible if you are correct? You might just have to grasp the reality that you are wrong.
China, India and Japan have all taken images at the Apollo sites showing human activity. Not hardware, not physical objects, but the activity around them. Your a priori conclusions based on faulty assumptions cannot explain that.
Well, that tells you many things. "I demand you give me the link you just gave me! That's right, the link I just quoted back at you." Tim is simply not here to learn anything because he can't or to make an argument because he hasn't got one or even to read because he has demonstrated that he can't. So what is tim here for? Well that is simple. Tim gets his jollies pretending to be a moron and causing the rest of us to jump through hoops feverishly researching his latest inept claim. What tim fails to realise is that we mostly don't have to feverishly do anything at all, having the facts at our fingertips. Tim does not understand this. Tim thinks that any crackpot question he chucks out causes a conniption. He does not appreciate the sheer scale of knowledge and expertise that exists on this site. Jay all on his lonesome is encyclopedic, Jason, Luke, gillian, nomuse, OBM, raven, Mag and on and on and on, can and do field a vast amount of knowledge of so many diverse subjects that I would be amazed if a topic arose that we couldn't get a handle on without needing to reach out elsewhere. On top of that, we are all old hands at this, we have all circulated the evidence, documents, maths, science and most anything one could conceive.The link is in the very nest of quotes you just quoted!Could you kindly repost it it? I scrolled back 4 pages and didn't see it and I don't remember you posting it. Help me out here.Did you . . . read the link I posted? Like, look at it at all? No, you did not, because if you did, the author did EXACTLY that.All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees. They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB. If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right. I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.So to recap. This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB. We don't have to debate this point any longer. Right?So why is that one right, but this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm) isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.
Go look at it again. Scroll down the section title 'Van Allen Radiation Belt Belts' in bold. Keep reading from there.
Still, here you go (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm).
Let me set the record straight. I am not who you think I am. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
I can not answer the multitude of questions arising the from the conspiracy theories and I lack the interest to do so.
What I am is a an inquiring mind and a opinionated person.
I am not subtle and I am prone to offend.
I make no excuses for that.
I am honest and diligent in my pursuit of the truth.
I form my opinions starting from a neutral point and spend the effort to sort through the technical jargon and the attempts to distract and divert.
My own opinion is not spontaneous and is derived from logical deduction and careful evaluation of the available data.
I am a simple mind incapable of disseminating complex and dynamic situations and require simple problems and concrete solutions to move beyond any point.
I can and will entertain any questions that observe these simple boundaries. Any attempt to expand the inquiry beyond a distinct and succinct point will be resisted by me.
I prefer a serial approach to problem solving and insist upon solving individual problems before moving to the next problem.
I find it confusing to keep track of multiple threads expanding out and exponentially with convoluted questions that do nothing to clarify the original question.
I adhere to the time worn US Navy's principle of "KISS" keep it simple stupid.
I also adhere to the adage that if you can not explain it simply then you do not know it well enough.
I am sure your experience and expertise has merit but it means nothing if you cannot justify it with corroborating data.
I will challenge you at every point...
...and expect nothing less from you.
Victory means nothing unless it is won. Anyone can be lucky but to be truly good you must be unbeatable. The challenge lies before you. Prove me wrong on any single issue.
Provide the data to support your assertion and make me change my opinion. Then and only then can you be assured that your truth is sound and justified.
There are no...
I blush intensely at being put among that list, Abaddon.
I blush intensely at being put among that list, Abaddon. I am no expert, but even an admitted non-expert such as myself can call out some of the absolute bull cack malarkey our friend timfinch here tried to pull just now.In all fairness, there is only one area of expertise that matters. Knowing what you do know and knowing what you do not, and being able to tell the difference. This is where timfinch fails every time. For example, timfinch "thinks" he knows the difference between log and linear graphs despite all contrary evidence. timfinch clearly cannot comprehend 3D yet is convinced he does. And so on.
No one took into account the geomagnatic pole differences with the geographical pole until our friend timfinch?
"Ho ho, very funny. Ha ha. It is to laugh." to quote Daffy Duck from 'Robin Hood Daffy'*.
*Definitely one of my favourite shorts of all time. Porky Pig's laugh is just so delightfully infectious, for one.
Why do you think it was chosen as the optimum site when a a norther location closer to the poles would have have allowed the VAB to be bypassed? What was the logic?
Tim doesn't do orbits or even 3 dimensions.Why do you think it was chosen as the optimum site when a a norther location closer to the poles would have have allowed the VAB to be bypassed? What was the logic?
You can launch into a polar orbit from anywhere. At a location closer to the equator, you can also launch into orbits with a lower inclination.
I laugh at the claim that if you can't explain it simply you don't know it well enough. Cutting out some bits of card and sticking them together constitutes a pretty simple explanation of the problem, wouldn't you say?
The problem with any explanation is not how simple the explainer makes it, it's how well the questioner understands it.
This leads me to conclude either Tim does not understand or else he knows damn well he is wrong and is just getting his kicks, thinking we're jumping through hoops and getting all flustered.
Bob has done some very astounding work in this area. tim would do well to read and hopefully understand what the implications of the trajectory around the most dense areas of the VARB and no tim, Bob is not a NASA shill, nor is anyone on this board....The link is in the very nest of quotes you just quoted!
Could you kindly repost it it? I scrolled back 4 pages and didn't see it and I don't remember you posting it. Help me out here.
Still, here you go (https://web.archive.org/web/20170728003559/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm).
Opinion?
It is a consequence and not an intention.
What is that quote about hoisting and petards.
You suffer from a gross conceptional error. Rethink and repost. I am embarrassed for you.The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.
You have had this explained to you in excruciating detail. The plane the ellipses occur on has no significance to the way one intersects areas of the belts and the other does not.
You suffer from a gross conceptional error. Rethink and repost. I am embarrassed for you.The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.
You have had this explained to you in excruciating detail. The plane the ellipses occur on has no significance to the way one intersects areas of the belts and the other does not.
When viewed from the top (looking down at the poles) in a 2d drawing the VAB would look something like this drawing. The spatially challenged, for some reason beyond my grasp, insist on displaying the VAB from a side view while displaying the elliptical orbits from a top view. I'm just saying....
When viewed from the top (looking down at the poles) in a 2d drawing the VAB would look something like this drawing. The spatially challenged, for some reason beyond my grasp, insist on displaying the VAB from a side view while displaying the elliptical orbits from a top view. I'm just saying....
I am sure you didn't mean what it appeared you said. I heard you say that the angle of the plane of the ellipse has nothing to do with the amount of radiation received transiting the VAB. Did I state your position correctly?
Learn how the quote function works.
I am sure you didn't mean what it appeared you said. I heard you say that the angle of the plane of the ellipse has nothing to do with the amount of radiation received transiting the VAB. Did I state your position correctly?
That may be my problem. I see that as a side view of the earth and the VAB and you see it as a top view. Can you please explain why the VAB in that depiction does not circle the earth like a donut?When viewed from the top (looking down at the poles) in a 2d drawing the VAB would look something like this drawing. The spatially challenged, for some reason beyond my grasp, insist on displaying the VAB from a side view while displaying the elliptical orbits from a top view. I'm just saying....
Did you forget that you have been shown a top down path OF THE Apollo?
3D spatial reasoning fail.
I am sure you didn't mean what it appeared you said. I heard you say that the angle of the plane of the ellipse has nothing to do with the amount of radiation received transiting the VAB. Did I state your position correctly?
That may be my problem. I see that as a side view of the earth and the VAB and you see it as a top view. Can you please explain why the VAB in that depiction does not circle the earth like a donut?When viewed from the top (looking down at the poles) in a 2d drawing the VAB would look something like this drawing. The spatially challenged, for some reason beyond my grasp, insist on displaying the VAB from a side view while displaying the elliptical orbits from a top view. I'm just saying....
Did you forget that you have been shown a top down path OF THE Apollo?
The angle of the plane of the ellipse to...what? Without a referrant, it's just a geometric plane. By definition, geometric planes don't have angles.
I am sure you didn't mean what it appeared you said. I heard you say that the angle of the plane of the ellipse has nothing to do with the amount of radiation received transiting the VAB. Did I state your position correctly?
Is the scale in that video log or linear?That may be my problem. I see that as a side view of the earth and the VAB and you see it as a top view. Can you please explain why the VAB in that depiction does not circle the earth like a donut?When viewed from the top (looking down at the poles) in a 2d drawing the VAB would look something like this drawing. The spatially challenged, for some reason beyond my grasp, insist on displaying the VAB from a side view while displaying the elliptical orbits from a top view. I'm just saying....
Did you forget that you have been shown a top down path OF THE Apollo?
Yes, BK simply linked the wrong video. Here is top-down in all it's animated glory...
It's a side view. Even a stopped clock............
Your lack of 3-D understanding is noted. But I will admit that this is a side view of both the VARB and the trajectory. That being said, if one views the top views you would not get the realization of missing the areas of denser radiation. All you would see is a curved line representing the trajectory leaving the VARB at 210 minutes into the TL phase, not how far above the zones it was.That may be my problem. I see that as a side view of the earth and the VAB and you see it as a top view. Can you please explain why the VAB in that depiction does not circle the earth like a donut?When viewed from the top (looking down at the poles) in a 2d drawing the VAB would look something like this drawing. The spatially challenged, for some reason beyond my grasp, insist on displaying the VAB from a side view while displaying the elliptical orbits from a top view. I'm just saying....
Did you forget that you have been shown a top down path OF THE Apollo?
Yes, BK simply linked the wrong video. Here is top-down in all it's animated glory...
It's a side view. Even a stopped clock............
Tim has been handed it multiple times.
Regarding the top-down view I posted. Maybe TF hasn't figured out the contour lines are the VAB contours of a conical plane through the VAB on the Apollo eliptical orbit. I guess conic sections gets added to the TF list.
Your lack of 3-D understanding is noted. But I will admit that this is a side view of both the VARB and the trajectory. That being said, if one views the top views you would not get the realization of missing the areas of denser radiation. All you would see is a curved line representing the trajectory leaving the VARB at 210 minutes into the TL phase, not how far above the zones it was.
Regardless at 210 minutes the CSM were 11246 miles from earth and virtually out of the VARB completely (it was still in the >7 MEV electron flux and < 100 Protons/Cm^2-sec.
There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension. It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.Apollo happened in 3 dimensions. Not our problem that you are incapable of figuring that out.
There is a distinct inabilityin this groupof ME to shift mytheirperspectives from a to a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension. It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.
When viewed from a 2d top view looking down on the north pole the VAB appears as a ring completely surrounding the earth starting at about 600 miles out. Any and all elliptical orbits greater than a 600 mile radius must pass through this ring. It would be obvious to the casual observer, that is if that observer is capable of spatially interpreting a two dimensional drawing.No, once again the contour lines in the animation are for a conic section through a torus. Why is this incomprehensible to you?
When viewed from a 2d top view looking down on the north pole the VAB appears as a ring completely surrounding the earth starting at about 600 miles out. Any and all elliptical orbits greater than a 600 mile radius must pass through this ring. It would be obvious to the casual observer, that is if that observer is capable of spatially interpreting a two dimensional drawing.
It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for. Does that seem fair to everybody? Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?
When viewed from a 2d top view looking down on the north pole the VAB appears as a ring completely surrounding the earth starting at about 600 miles out. Any and all elliptical orbits greater than a 600 mile radius must pass through this ring. It would be obvious to the casual observer, that is if that observer is capable of spatially interpreting a two dimensional drawing.So your claim actually is that it is physically impossible to put your finger through a ring donut. And somehow, you think this makes you look clever. On the internet. In public.
There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension. It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.
It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for. Does that seem fair to everybody? Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?
It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for. Does that seem fair to everybody? Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?Yay, rules lawyering as a substitute for an actual argument. How novel.
The question remains unanswered by your response.It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for. Does that seem fair to everybody? Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?
That is for LO to decide not the members.
You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB. Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension. It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.
Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.
I answered it. You seem to be utterly flummoxed by actual answers and unable to answer basic questions. Why?The question remains unanswered by your response.It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for. Does that seem fair to everybody? Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?
That is for LO to decide not the members.
So having and independent thought is trolling. Is that from the urban dictionary?It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for. Does that seem fair to everybody? Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?
Quit bleating. Your trolling was also part of the deal.
The question remains unanswered by your response.It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for. Does that seem fair to everybody? Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?
That is for LO to decide not the members.
I laughed so hard the neighbours turned up to see if I was OK.You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB. Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension. It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.
Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.
No, trolling at least requires some intelligence on the part of the practitioner.So having and independent thought is trolling. Is that from the urban dictionary?It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for. Does that seem fair to everybody? Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?
Quit bleating. Your trolling was also part of the deal.
Independent thought is good, what you have demonstrated is a complete lack of understanding of:So having and independent thought is trolling. Is that from the urban dictionary?It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for. Does that seem fair to everybody? Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?
Quit bleating. Your trolling was also part of the deal.
There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension. It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.I'm inclined (pun intended) to think you're just trolling now. This is entirely a 3D matter, and while 2D representations can help, you need to consider multiple 2D views of the situation.
When viewed from a 2d top view looking down on the north pole the VAB appears as a ring completely surrounding the earth starting at about 600 miles out. Any and all elliptical orbits greater than a 600 mile radius must pass through this ring. It would be obvious to the casual observer, that is if that observer is capable of spatially interpreting a two dimensional drawing.Again, a lack of rigour, or understanding...
You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB. Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension. It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.
Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.
Oh we are into a strange far country where dimensions do not exist, a far silver shore and then all turns to silvered glass. And then you see it.Shall we introduce the time like dimension now, or shall we save for later? We could begin writing the trajectory in Einstein notation using geocentric basis vectors with a transformation matrix for the geomagnetic vectors.
Iluvatar says no.Oh we are into a strange far country where dimensions do not exist, a far silver shore and then all turns to silvered glass. And then you see it.Shall we introduce the time like dimension now, or shall we save for later? We could begin writing the trajectory in Einstein notation using geocentric basis vectors with a transformation matrix for the geomagnetic vectors.
Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
Excellent summation....I'm inclined (pun intended) to think you're just trolling now. This is entirely a 3D matter, and while 2D representations can help, you need to consider multiple 2D views of the situation.
Hence :When viewed from a 2d top view looking down on the north pole the VAB appears as a ring completely surrounding the earth starting at about 600 miles out. Any and all elliptical orbits greater than a 600 mile radius must pass through this ring. It would be obvious to the casual observer, that is if that observer is capable of spatially interpreting a two dimensional drawing.Again, a lack of rigour, or understanding...
Looking down from the north geomagnetic pole the VAB appears as a ring. A plane at right angles to the polar axis intersects the belt region with symmetrical contours of radiation levels.
When viewed from the physical pole the ring is distorted, and a perpendicular plane intersects varying regions of activity.
Add to that the inclination of the Apollo 11 orbit, which you've been shown on Bob Braeunig's page, and you have a complex 3D system of volumes and trajectories which you cannot represent in a trivial 2D diagram.
Apparently 3D animation s, and even physical 3D models aren't helping you to visualise this at all ::)
How do you like this rendition?
Shall we introduce the time like dimension now, or shall we save for later? We could begin writing the trajectory in Einstein notation using geocentric basis vectors with a transformation matrix for the geomagnetic vectors.To post a more serious answer...No? If as seems evident TF literally finds the search for a method of determining his way out of the proverbial papery container, any discussion of SR or GR or QM seems sort of moot. Geometry is demonstrably outside his understanding. If it is, as seems demonstraed, beyond TF's ability to understand a mere three dimensions then it is no use chucking a forth fifth and subsequent dimensions into the mix. String theory supports 26.
How do you like this rendition?
How do you like this rendition?Personally, I like it a lot as it illustrates how wrong you really are.
It can clearly be seen that both elliptical orbits pass through the inner ring. A side view reals that each plane of the ellipticals are identical. As a consequence the passage through the High radiation inner ring should have similar profiles. This being the case then the Orion EFT's data set can be extrapolated out to the apollo.Oooo, new image ahead.
I remind you that they not only suspended me, they closed the thread to prevent anyone else from speculating along the lines of inquiry I had introduced. Cosmoquest is not interested in any version but their own. It is a waste of my time.How do you like this rendition?
Don't evade the points made. Your picture shows two elliptical orbits, they are different to each other. How in any way does that support your untenable claim?
BTW - Your userid is no longer suspended at CQ, I suggest you answer the questions there if you start up. I am 100% certain your antics here will be known about over there and will not be tolerated.
I remind you that they not only suspended me, they closed the thread to prevent anyone else from speculating aloong the lines of inquiry I had introduced. Cosmoquest is not interested in any version but their own. It is a waste of my time.How do you like this rendition?
Don't evade the points made. Your picture shows two elliptical orbits, they are different to each other. How in any way does that support your untenable claim?
BTW - Your userid is no longer suspended at CQ, I suggest you answer the questions there if you start up. I am 100% certain your antics here will be known about over there and will not be tolerated.
Why would they not let the dialogue continue during my absence? They never closed the thread here after they suspended me.I remind you that they not only suspended me, they closed the thread to prevent anyone else from speculating aloong the lines of inquiry I had introduced. Cosmoquest is not interested in any version but their own. It is a waste of my time.How do you like this rendition?
Don't evade the points made. Your picture shows two elliptical orbits, they are different to each other. How in any way does that support your untenable claim?
BTW - Your userid is no longer suspended at CQ, I suggest you answer the questions there if you start up. I am 100% certain your antics here will be known about over there and will not be tolerated.
Do you ever get anything right? The thread says PM a moderator to get it opened again. Of course you will steer clear of CQ, you can't jerk around over there!
No, again you lie. I cited the exact post in this very thread. Right now, I am cranking up my photoshop, illustrator, Indesign, et al to demonstrate that you have no clue about imagery. In fairness to LO, who bears the cost of hosting this site. I will place said images on a hosting site independantly. While you wait, you can simply foxtrot right oscar. It is my mission du jour to demonstrate that you have not a clue. Allow me the time to do so, because you know I will. Regardless of your claims.I remind you that they not only suspended me, they closed the thread to prevent anyone else from speculating along the lines of inquiry I had introduced. Cosmoquest is not interested in any version but their own. It is a waste of my time.How do you like this rendition?
Don't evade the points made. Your picture shows two elliptical orbits, they are different to each other. How in any way does that support your untenable claim?
BTW - Your userid is no longer suspended at CQ, I suggest you answer the questions there if you start up. I am 100% certain your antics here will be known about over there and will not be tolerated.
An unspeakable horror seized me. There was a darkness; then a dizzy, sickening sensation of sight that was not like seeing; I saw a Line that was no Line; Space that was not Space: I was myself, and not myself. When I could find voice, I shrieked loud in agony, "Either this is madness or it is Hell." "It is neither," calmly replied the voice of the Sphere, "it is Knowledge; it is Three Dimensions: open your eye once again and try to look steadily."
Another lie, you are not currently suspended on CQ, nor are you banned. You can't help yourself.Why would they not let the dialogue continue during my absence? They never closed the thread here after they suspended me.I remind you that they not only suspended me, they closed the thread to prevent anyone else from speculating aloong the lines of inquiry I had introduced. Cosmoquest is not interested in any version but their own. It is a waste of my time.How do you like this rendition?
Don't evade the points made. Your picture shows two elliptical orbits, they are different to each other. How in any way does that support your untenable claim?
BTW - Your userid is no longer suspended at CQ, I suggest you answer the questions there if you start up. I am 100% certain your antics here will be known about over there and will not be tolerated.
Do you ever get anything right? The thread says PM a moderator to get it opened again. Of course you will steer clear of CQ, you can't jerk around over there!
It can clearly be seen that both elliptical orbits pass through the inner ring. A side view reals that each plane of the ellipticals are identical. As a consequence the passage through the High radiation inner ring should have similar profiles. This being the case then the Orion EFT's data set can be extrapolated out to the apollo.
As a consequence the passage through the High radiation inner ring should have similar profiles. This being the case then the Orion EFT's data set can be extrapolated out to the apollo.
Feel free to use the Apollo 11 log or any other reference to show where and when these imagined course corrections occured. I think you are fabricating things to support your version of events but I will wait patiently while you perform the necessary gymnastics.It can clearly be seen that both elliptical orbits pass through the inner ring. A side view reals that each plane of the ellipticals are identical. As a consequence the passage through the High radiation inner ring should have similar profiles. This being the case then the Orion EFT's data set can be extrapolated out to the apollo.
Among other aspects you fail to grasp, once the TLI burn began Apollo was not in the same inclination as it had been in during LEO, so NO the ellipticals will not be the same, as Apollo was changing to more northerly path avoiding the worst of the VARB. Oh I forgot you don't understand orbital mechanics. Orion continued on the same inclination but at a higher apogee, so the data can not be extrapolated TO Apollo. Mary Bennett of Aulis makes the same mistake, perhaps you borrowed the incorrect conclusion from her?
Feel free to use the Apollo 11 log or any other reference to show where and when these imagined course corrections occured. I think you are fabricating things to support your version of events but I will wait patiently while you perform the necessary gymnastics.As a consequence the passage through the High radiation inner ring should have similar profiles. This being the case then the Orion EFT's data set can be extrapolated out to the apollo.
So you've moved your position from same profiles to similar profiles. I thought your straight line rendition implied identical paths.
You still don't get it. The eccentricity of the Apollo orbit enabled the spacecraft to avoid the inner VAB's high energy protons. The video link shows a projection of flux as contours on the orbital plane temporally and spatially. You don't understand that a plane through a torus at an angle to the vertical axis of the torus will produce contours that are related to the topology mapped by the torus, but we are working with contours of flux defined by a coordinate transformation between space like coordinates and magnetic field coordinates. Bob used this transformation in his calculation. We provided you with a link to the calculations. You hand waved it away. Please critique the math presented that deals with the orbital parameters versus the geomagnetic parameters, and the integrated flux as a spacelike and timelike function. Check that working rather than persisting with 2 dimensional arguments.
Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
Here is the thing. If it is safe to assume the radiation profiles of Apollo 11 and the Orion are similar for the first 3600 miles then it is interesting to note that the 15 mgy spread over a 8.33 day mission would result in a daily exposure rate of 1.8 mgy/day. Which is strange because the Apollo has a fraction of the Orion's shielding and it only received .22 mgy/day. Can someone help me through this maze of confusion?
I thought we all agreed after rigorous debate that Orion mirrored the apollo's path into the VAB. Did something happen while I was hospitalized?
I thought we all agreed after rigorous debate that Orion mirrored the apollo's path into the VAB. Did something happen while I was hospitalized?
You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB. Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension. It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.
Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.
I gave you a view perpendicular to the 30 degree inclination. Your confusion is either you trolling or you are even more ignorant than you appear to be.
(https://i.imgur.com/7aI1S9U.jpg)
The Apollo speed takes it into the VAB at the same elevation but not the same place. It's called 3D ::)
To further add to this nonsense, the Apollo TLI burns specifically fired to accentuate the position of the magnetic pole on the opposite side of the Earth, to achieve even more elevation(relative to the belts). I have no reason to suppose that Orion did that or any reason for doing so.
I am confused. if they had identical inclinations into the VAB and there were no rockets fired to alter course then what lets you believe the plane of either is different?Here is the thing. If it is safe to assume the radiation profiles of Apollo 11 and the Orion are similar for the first 3600 miles then it is interesting to note that the 15 mgy spread over a 8.33 day mission would result in a daily exposure rate of 1.8 mgy/day. Which is strange because the Apollo has a fraction of the Orion's shielding and it only received .22 mgy/day. Can someone help me through this maze of confusion?
No they aren't, the inclination of Apollo at 3600 miles was over 40 degrees and climbing, toward the less intense portions of the VARB, while Orion was plowing through the middle.
It matters not at what radial point you enter the VAB. The incident inclination determines the path through the regions. pick any point along the circle and it is the same as any other point as long as the plane of travel through the VAB is the same.You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB. Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension. It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.
Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.
I gave you a view perpendicular to the 30 degree inclination. Your confusion is either you trolling or you are even more ignorant than you appear to be.
(https://i.imgur.com/7aI1S9U.jpg)
The Apollo speed takes it into the VAB at the same elevation but not the same place. It's called 3D ::)
To further add to this nonsense, the Apollo TLI burns specifically fired to accentuate the position of the magnetic pole on the opposite side of the Earth, to achieve even more elevation(relative to the belts). I have no reason to suppose that Orion did that or any reason for doing so.
Read it and respond.
The view after TLI.I have had views like that while on acid.
(https://i.imgur.com/NBDXVyv.jpg)
I am confused.Here is the thing. If it is safe to assume the radiation profiles of Apollo 11 and the Orion are similar for the first 3600 miles then it is interesting to note that the 15 mgy spread over a 8.33 day mission would result in a daily exposure rate of 1.8 mgy/day. Which is strange because the Apollo has a fraction of the Orion's shielding and it only received .22 mgy/day. Can someone help me through this maze of confusion?
No they aren't, the inclination of Apollo at 3600 miles was over 40 degrees and climbing, toward the less intense portions of the VARB, while Orion was plowing through the middle.Quoteif they had identical inclinations into the VAB and there were no rockets fired to alter course then what lets you believe the plane of either is different?The two had similar inclinations at the time of ignition for the TLI, after that Apollo gained inclination, you did read my post?.
You are willfully ignorant. Learn some facts concerning 3-D, math, physics, graphing. Buy Kerbal and see if your illiterate vision is upheld or upset. Should you continue this behavior I can only define your actions as trollish, nothing else.
Did you read mine? Show me where there was an adjustment to the plane of travel. Convinced me TLI is not along the lunar plane.I am confused.Here is the thing. If it is safe to assume the radiation profiles of Apollo 11 and the Orion are similar for the first 3600 miles then it is interesting to note that the 15 mgy spread over a 8.33 day mission would result in a daily exposure rate of 1.8 mgy/day. Which is strange because the Apollo has a fraction of the Orion's shielding and it only received .22 mgy/day. Can someone help me through this maze of confusion?
No they aren't, the inclination of Apollo at 3600 miles was over 40 degrees and climbing, toward the less intense portions of the VARB, while Orion was plowing through the middle.Quoteif they had identical inclinations into the VAB and there were no rockets fired to alter course then what lets you believe the plane of either is different?The two had similar inclinations at the time of ignition for the TLI, after that Apollo gained inclination, you did read my post?.
You are willfully ignorant. Learn some facts concerning 3-D, math, physics, graphing. Buy Kerbal and see if your illiterate vision is upheld or upset. Should you continue this behavior I can only define your actions as trollish, nothing else.
It matters not at what radial point you enter the VAB. The incident inclination determines the path through the regions. pick any point along the circle and it is the same as any other point as long as the plane of travel through the VAB is the same.
...
Did you read mine? Show me where there was an adjustment to the plane of travel. Convinced me TLI is not along the lunar plane.
Here is the thing. If it is safe to assume the radiation profiles of Apollo 11 and the Orion are similar for the first 3600 miles then it is interesting to note that the 15 mgy spread over a 8.33 day mission would result in a daily exposure rate of 1.8 mgy/day. Which is strange because the Apollo has a fraction of the Orion's shielding and it only received .22 mgy/day. Can someone help me through this maze of confusion?
I am getting lost in the back and forth. Are we all in agreement that there is commonality in the first 3600 miles of travel for both the Orion and Apollo mission or not? If not, how do they differ in plane of travel or in any metric that would reduce radiation profiles of either. I need to get my ducks in a row.
No, no tim, you don't get off the hook so easy. If as you claim and posted that this is the actual top down view....Feel free to use the Apollo 11 log or any other reference to show where and when these imagined course corrections occured. I think you are fabricating things to support your version of events but I will wait patiently while you perform the necessary gymnastics.It can clearly be seen that both elliptical orbits pass through the inner ring. A side view reals that each plane of the ellipticals are identical. As a consequence the passage through the High radiation inner ring should have similar profiles. This being the case then the Orion EFT's data set can be extrapolated out to the apollo.
Among other aspects you fail to grasp, once the TLI burn began Apollo was not in the same inclination as it had been in during LEO, so NO the ellipticals will not be the same, as Apollo was changing to more northerly path avoiding the worst of the VARB. Oh I forgot you don't understand orbital mechanics. Orion continued on the same inclination but at a higher apogee, so the data can not be extrapolated TO Apollo. Mary Bennett of Aulis makes the same mistake, perhaps you borrowed the incorrect conclusion from her?
Isn't this still true? Is it rejected by anyone?
Feel free to use the Apollo 11 log or any other reference to show where and when these imagined course corrections occured. I think you are fabricating things to support your version of events but I will wait patiently while you perform the necessary gymnastics.From your own "wall-o-text" posting :
...Have you looked at the parameters of this burn? Do you understand that the pitch and yaw of a spacecraft when the engine is fired has an effect on the trajectory?
12:22 p.m.- Another firing of the third-stage engine, still attached to the command service module, boosts Apollo 11 out of orbit midway in its second trip around the Earth and onto its lunar trajectory at an initial speed of 24,200 miles an hour.
...
I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked. What is up with that? This vacillation is is confusing my simple mind. Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?No, you were told that two identical inclinations will follow different paths through the VABs if the eccentricity is different. Jason showed you with his model. We were getting past your 2 dimensional line misconception and highlighting Apollo and Orion have different 3 dimensional trajectories.
I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked. What is up with that? This vacillation is confusing my simple mind. Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?
I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked. What is up with that? This vacillation is confusing my simple mind. Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?You were "assured" of this? My reading of the thread is certainly not in agreement with this claim, so perhaps you can quote the posts in which these "assurances" were given...
I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked. What is up with that? This vacillation is is confusing my simple mind. Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?The ecliptic, the magnetic plane and the TLI plane are all different planes. How many times must you be shown?
It is a compilation of data from various sites. I posted the NASA flight profile data used to create the illustration a few pages back in the thread when I originally posted this. This is an illustration I created for informative purposes.Isn't this still true? Is it rejected by anyone?
I asked you before and you ignored me, where did you get this piece of misinformation?
what is the daily reading if the 24 snapshots are different?Step away from this thread for a week and abandon all hope of catching up.I love planting a seed and watching it sprout. You now understand the data reflects multiple snapshots taken during the day and to provide a truly comprehensive picture one must collate those snapshots into a single daily dose . Good! the force is flowing through you Luke (JFB). Let it flow. You are on the right track.
I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page (http://crater.sr.unh.edu/instrument.shtml) and read up on the instrument's description:QuoteCRaTER consists of six silicon detectors in thin/thick pairs separated by sections of Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP). The Tissue Equivalent Plastic (such as A-150 manufactured by Standard Imaging) simulates soft body tissue (muscle) and has been used for both ground-based as well as space-based (i.e. Space Station) experiments.
The thin detectors (140 μm) are optimized for high energy deposits and the thick detectors (1000 μm) are optimized for low energy deposits, in particular, for protons. In nominal operating mode, an event is triggered when the energy deposit in any single detector rises above its threshold energy. A measurement is then made of the energy deposit in all six detectors. Directional information can be inferred for events that deposit energy into more than one detector (detection coincidences). Endcaps shield the detectors from protons with less than ~13MeV. Extra mass placed around the edges of the detectors provides additional shielding from some particles which may be able to penetrate through the sides of the instrument.
Go to the web page for a proper diagram of the instrument, but here's some quick-n-dirty ASCII art:
============ --- Deep Space (Zenith) Shield
|||||||||||| --- D1 (148 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D2 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (54 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D3 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D4 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (27 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D5 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D6 (1 mm)
============ --- Lunar Surface (Nadir) Shield
So, several things that are obvious right off the bat:
- This is why you have combined readings for D1 & D2, D3 & D4, D5 & D6. Each pair is at the same depth of "tissue", each sensor of the pair is optimized for different energies.
- This is why you don't sum up readings from all 6 detectors, because each pair is measuring energies at different "tissue" depths. D1 & D2 give the "skin" dose, D5 & D6 give the "deep tissue" dose.
- As per the description, an event is recorded when the energy deposited in a single detector rises above its threshold energy. Raw events are measured in keV/μm. Obviously, during analysis, these measurements are fed into a mathematical model that spits results out in cGy/day.
One particularly amusing aspect of Tim's confusion (=coughtrollerycough=) is the idea that, because the measurements are reported in cGy/day, that you must sum all the measurements taken on the same day to get the proper cGy/day amount.
cGy/day is a rate, not a total. It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next. It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph.
=sigh=
I knw you’re pretending to be this dense (because otherwise there’s no way you could walk out the door without gravely injuring yourself), but even so this is getting tiresome. No, you do not need to “collate” anything. There’s no need to add readings together. cGy/day is a rate at a given instant. It could be cGy/hr, mGy/fortnight, kGy/sec, whatever.
Just do everyone a favor, take your bow, and piss off.
Ah TF simply makes stuff up out of whole cloth. once one works that out it becomes easy to see how he gets everything comprehensively wrong.I was assured earlier in the thread that no one contested that the plane of transit for each were identical now it seems you have backed tracked. What is up with that? This vacillation is confusing my simple mind. Does Apollohoax have polling features like cosmoquest?You were "assured" of this? My reading of the thread is certainly not in agreement with this claim, so perhaps you can quote the posts in which these "assurances" were given...
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/JSC_OrionEFT-1_PressKit_accessible.pdf
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection
It matters not at what radial point you enter the VAB. The incident inclination determines the path through the regions. pick any point along the circle and it is the same as any other point as long as the plane of travel through the VAB is the same.You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB. Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension. It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.
Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.
I gave you a view perpendicular to the 30 degree inclination. Your confusion is either you trolling or you are even more ignorant than you appear to be.
(https://i.imgur.com/7aI1S9U.jpg)
The Apollo speed takes it into the VAB at the same elevation but not the same place. It's called 3D ::)
To further add to this nonsense, the Apollo TLI burns specifically fired to accentuate the position of the magnetic pole on the opposite side of the Earth, to achieve even more elevation(relative to the belts). I have no reason to suppose that Orion did that or any reason for doing so.
Read it and respond.
It is a compilation of data from various sites. I posted the NASA flight profile data used to create the illustration a few pages back in the thread when I originally posted this. This is an illustration I created for informative purposes.Isn't this still true? Is it rejected by anyone?
I asked you before and you ignored me, where did you get this piece of misinformation?
You created it? Then that explains why the trajectory is incorrect, thanks for the information.
I am getting lost in the back and forth. Are we all in agreement that there is commonality in the first 3600 miles of travel for both the Orion and Apollo mission or not? If not, how do they differ in plane of travel or in any metric that would reduce radiation profiles of either. I need to get my ducks in a row.
And just because you are too clueless to figure it out does not mean nobody can.https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/JSC_OrionEFT-1_PressKit_accessible.pdf
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection
So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.
No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.
I think Jason was referring to the diagram you presented with the straight line. The inclinations in that diagram are the same, no one disputed rhat, but the paths through the VABs are different because of different orbital eccentricities.So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.
No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.
So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.
No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.
If you reject this illustration as being erroneous then correct it and we can move on to more fertile grounds. Your inability to do so is in it's own way a validation of the accuracy of the depictions.
I would ask at this point about apogee and perigee, but it is clear that at this point Tim's answer would be sausage.I am getting lost in the back and forth. Are we all in agreement that there is commonality in the first 3600 miles of travel for both the Orion and Apollo mission or not? If not, how do they differ in plane of travel or in any metric that would reduce radiation profiles of either. I need to get my ducks in a row.
The Orion starts circling back almost as soon as it enters the belt. It takes it into the more energetic central area. Apollo trajectory does not.
Which part of that painfully obvious proven point aren't you getting?
Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall? Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?
The answer appears that yes. TF fully understands the meaning of eccentricity. Just not the way the rest of ud do.If you reject this illustration as being erroneous then correct it and we can move on to more fertile grounds. Your inability to do so is in it's own way a validation of the accuracy of the depictions.
The conclusion you make is erroneous. Do you understand eccentricity?
Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
Why can't you simply answer the question?Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall? Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?
You are asking this question, while simultaneously suggesting passage through the VABs was not possible? Is this a question for your clarification or one where you'll argue with the answer from a position of pedantry?
Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
I think Jason was referring to the diagram you presented with the straight line. The inclinations in that diagram are the same, no one disputed rhat, but the paths through the VABs are different because of different orbital eccentricities.Lie.
Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter. The only relevant factor would be inclination.Super. except that it isn't.
If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter. The only relevant factor would inclination.Do you think the radiation is uniform? Yes or no. I appeal to LO that Tim answers this question. I want to ascertain his understanding of the VABs which I have asked about several times.
did you answer my question? You first.If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter. The only relevant factor would inclination.Do you think the radiation is uniform? Yes or no. I appeal to LO that Tim answers this question. I want to ascertain his understanding of the VABs which I have asked about several times.
Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
What do you think? Tell me what you know, is the radiation uniform?did you answer my question? You first.If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter. The only relevant factor would inclination.Do you think the radiation is uniform? Yes or no. I appeal to LO that Tim answers this question. I want to ascertain his understanding of the VABs which I have asked about several times.
Do you not read my post? I told you it is for a given radii. Do you need a translator?What do you think? Tell me what you know, is the radiation uniform?If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter. The only relevant factor would inclination.Do you think the radiation is uniform? Yes or no. I appeal to LO that Tim answers this question. I want to ascertain his understanding of the VABs which I have asked about several times.
Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
did you answer my question? You first.
Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
Let's talk about these differences. Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall? Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?In a very basic and simplistic view, yes, the VAB encompasses 360 degrees around Earth. Although that leaves out a lot of detail and makes a lot of assumptions.
For a given radii? You tell me. Are we working in three dimensions or two?Do you not read my post? I told you it is for a given radii. Do you need a translator?What do you think? Tell me what you know, is the radiation uniform?If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter. The only relevant factor would inclination.Do you think the radiation is uniform? Yes or no. I appeal to LO that Tim answers this question. I want to ascertain his understanding of the VABs which I have asked about several times.
Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
did you answer my question? You first.
Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
The Orion spent roughly two hours in the high radiation of the inner belt and supposedly the apollo spent a total of about 4 hours.Straight question - do you believe the Apollo trajectories took them through the same high-radiation regions as Orion? Supplementary point - if so, have you calculated the time spent in this region for Apollo, given the difference in velocities?
It matters not the speed when you really think about it.Except that it does, very obviously, from even the most basic understanding of maths...
The defining factors are time and radiation levels. We know that The Apollo 11 mission occurred during solar max and we know the electron belt expands during solar maximum. We also know that the Orion has had significant upgrades to it's shielding. Usings Orion's mission dose as a base line for the Apollo 11's mission wold be extremely conservative. Orion's mission dose is 15 mgy wich is 8 times higher than Apollo'sThe Orion mission had very different objectives to Apollo, and took a very different approach to achieving said objectives. You're comparing apples to kumquats!
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/JSC_OrionEFT-1_PressKit_accessible.pdfA press kit (do you even understand what that means) describing the planned mission, which clearly explains that it is a test flight, intended to provide information on how the spacecraft's systems perform in conditions which can't easily be replicated on Earth. This flight wasn't intended to be a typical profile for manned missions, and nowhere in any material I've seen on Orion has any such statement been made.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htmAnd? What do these numbers tell you? Have you made any effort to plot the orbits in three dimensions to get a better picture of them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injectionSince you're so keen on mapping everything into 2D sketches, maybe you can ponder the rather nice diagram at the top right of this page, which clearly shows that the post-TLI flight path wasn't on the equatorial plane. Perhaps it would be instructive to plot a similar diagram showing the relationship to the geomagnetic equator, and VAB...
Even in the diagram one you 'brought clarity to' (a claim, by the way, which was absolute crock as shown by myself and others) Does that look uniform for a given radius outward to you? Because I would get your eyes checked after your break if so.Do you not read my post? I told you it is for a given radii. Do you need a translator?What do you think? Tell me what you know, is the radiation uniform?If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter. The only relevant factor would inclination.Do you think the radiation is uniform? Yes or no. I appeal to LO that Tim answers this question. I want to ascertain his understanding of the VABs which I have asked about several times.
Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
did you answer my question? You first.
Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
QuoteIt matters not the speed when you really think about it.Except that it does, very obviously, from even the most basic understanding of maths...
We know that The Apollo 11 mission occurred during solar max and we know the electron belt expands during solar maximum.
Meh. Now that I have Adobe cranked up, mercy will be in short supply.Even in the diagram one you 'brought clarity to' (a claim, by the way, which was absolute crock as shown by myself and others) Does that look uniform for a given radius outward to you? Because I would get your eyes checked after your break if so.Do you not read my post? I told you it is for a given radii. Do you need a translator?What do you think? Tell me what you know, is the radiation uniform?If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter. The only relevant factor would inclination.Do you think the radiation is uniform? Yes or no. I appeal to LO that Tim answers this question. I want to ascertain his understanding of the VABs which I have asked about several times.
Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
did you answer my question? You first.
Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1444.0;attach=721;image
Do you not read my post? I told you it is for a given radii.
Do you need a translator?
Break time. BBL.Sorry Tim but "BBL" does not cut the evidential mustard.
It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for. Does that seem fair to everybody? Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?
Bob Braeunig is a government shill.
I am starting to believe that either you are actively in opposition of the truth because you really couldn't be this dumb.
You lie like a cheap rug.
Where is the intellectual integrity in this group
You are spatially challenged and find it difficult to transition between perspectives. I understand and you have my sympathies. I cannot fix that which is terminally broken. I will just move on without you and hope you find success with your impairment.
I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?
1. Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.
2. What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?
3. Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.
4. How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.
5. Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.
6. How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?
These are indeed all good questions but most distract from the focus of the original inquiry.
I thought we all agreed after rigorous debate that Orion mirrored the apollo's path into the VAB. Did something happen while I was hospitalized?
If you were smarter than the average three year old you would realize that a side view 2d representation is repeated over 360 degrees. What it is telling you that any point is identical at any other point around the circumference of the vab. Is is so difficult dealing with the spatially challenged. It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination. If it is the same inclination then the radiation is the same. If you were any denser you would sink into lead.Let's talk about these differences. Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall? Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?In a very basic and simplistic view, yes, the VAB encompasses 360 degrees around Earth. Although that leaves out a lot of detail and makes a lot of assumptions.
In a more realistic, and relevant view, it is not uniform, and it has a specific, approximately toroidal shape, aka a doughnut (donut for you folks on the west of the Atlantic) aligned closely with the Earth's geomagnetic axis - not the physical axis, ecliptic, or the Moon's orbital plane.
This torus is a three-dimensional shape, and the extent above and below the "geomagnetic equator" is well mapped. It is relatively straightforward to calculate an orbit which travels above and below the doughnut, or which only intersects particular parts of it.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that all orbits must be aligned to the same plane as the VAB, and must necessarily pass through the centre...
is Robert Brauenig a member of this group?It has been a day and Abaddon has not been suspended for for an act I received a suspension for. Does that seem fair to everybody? Is he privileged or am I simply not deserving of the respect each of you take for granted?
You were banned for trolling and insults. The "mentally challenged" insult was just one example and the last straw.
Abaddon did insult you, and it does need to stop. But I also take into consideration the years of valuable contributions he has made to this forum. One insult isn't going to get him banned. You, on the other hand, have been here for a month and have been a troll the entire time. That puts you on thinner ice than Abaddon. History matters.
I saw the moderator report you sent me about this last night, but since I can't reply to them I will just tell you now that yes, I have given Abaddon a free pass this time. But since he made that comment last night, I figure I've given you multiple free passes for comments you've made since then. For example:
You have insulted members of the forum and made unfounded accusations against them...Bob Braeunig is a government shill.I am starting to believe that either you are actively in opposition of the truth because you really couldn't be this dumb.You lie like a cheap rug.Where is the intellectual integrity in this groupYou are spatially challenged and find it difficult to transition between perspectives. I understand and you have my sympathies. I cannot fix that which is terminally broken. I will just move on without you and hope you find success with your impairment.
You have evaded important questions that have been repeatedly asked of you...I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?
1. Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.
2. What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?
3. Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.
4. How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.
5. Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.
6. How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?
These are indeed all good questions but most distract from the focus of the original inquiry.
And you have ignored our reponses that ought to resolve your questions, only to repeat those same questions as if we hadn't responded. You've even pretended we had previously agreed with you in cases where we had not. That is dishonest and I consider it trolling.I thought we all agreed after rigorous debate that Orion mirrored the apollo's path into the VAB. Did something happen while I was hospitalized?
So you're right, Abaddon did get away with an insult. But you've gotten away with many things that you shouldn't have. Consider yourself lucky and move on.
is Robert Brauenig a member of this group?
It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.
You are simply incapable of understanding the obvious. the elliptical inclination of orbit should be referenced to the magnetic equator if you are to ascertain the interaction of the VAB. Try to stay focused and on point. I grow frustrated with your opaqueness.Let's talk about these differences. Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall? Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?In a very basic and simplistic view, yes, the VAB encompasses 360 degrees around Earth. Although that leaves out a lot of detail and makes a lot of assumptions.
In a more realistic, and relevant view, it is not uniform, and it has a specific, approximately toroidal shape, aka a doughnut (donut for you folks on the west of the Atlantic) aligned closely with the Earth's geomagnetic axis - not the physical axis, ecliptic, or the Moon's orbital plane.
This torus is a three-dimensional shape, and the extent above and below the "geomagnetic equator" is well mapped. It is relatively straightforward to calculate an orbit which travels above and below the doughnut, or which only intersects particular parts of it.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that all orbits must be aligned to the same plane as the VAB, and must necessarily pass through the centre...
If you were smarter than the average three year old you would realize that a side view 2d representation is repeated over 360 degrees. What it is telling you that any point is identical at any other point around the circumference of the vab. Is is so difficult dealing with the spatially challenged. It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination. If it is the same inclination then the radiation is the same. If you were any denser you would sink into lead.Let's talk about these differences. Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall? Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?In a very basic and simplistic view, yes, the VAB encompasses 360 degrees around Earth. Although that leaves out a lot of detail and makes a lot of assumptions.
In a more realistic, and relevant view, it is not uniform, and it has a specific, approximately toroidal shape, aka a doughnut (donut for you folks on the west of the Atlantic) aligned closely with the Earth's geomagnetic axis - not the physical axis, ecliptic, or the Moon's orbital plane.
This torus is a three-dimensional shape, and the extent above and below the "geomagnetic equator" is well mapped. It is relatively straightforward to calculate an orbit which travels above and below the doughnut, or which only intersects particular parts of it.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that all orbits must be aligned to the same plane as the VAB, and must necessarily pass through the centre...
If you were smarter than the average three year old you would realize that a side view 2d representation is repeated over 360 degrees. What it is telling you that any point is identical at any other point around the circumference of the vab.
You are simply incapable of understanding the obvious. the elliptical inclination of orbit should be referenced to the magnetic equator if you are to ascertain the interaction of the VAB. Try to stay focused and on point. I grow frustrated with your opaqueness.Let's talk about these differences. Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall? Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?In a very basic and simplistic view, yes, the VAB encompasses 360 degrees around Earth. Although that leaves out a lot of detail and makes a lot of assumptions.
In a more realistic, and relevant view, it is not uniform, and it has a specific, approximately toroidal shape, aka a doughnut (donut for you folks on the west of the Atlantic) aligned closely with the Earth's geomagnetic axis - not the physical axis, ecliptic, or the Moon's orbital plane.
This torus is a three-dimensional shape, and the extent above and below the "geomagnetic equator" is well mapped. It is relatively straightforward to calculate an orbit which travels above and below the doughnut, or which only intersects particular parts of it.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that all orbits must be aligned to the same plane as the VAB, and must necessarily pass through the centre...
Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry. Why is this so difficult to understand? Speed is only important because of the component of time. The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received.The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone. A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone. Can't you see that?It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.
Are you aware that inclination is one orbital parameter that defines the orbital plane. If the spacecraft enters that plane at a higher speed, you map out an ellipse with a completely different eccentricity. The path is different through the van Allen belts.
The radiation in the VABs depends on radius, azimuth and polar angle, so does the ellipse on the orbital plane. It follows that the exposure of Apollo and Orion are different.
Point taken. Thank you.You are simply incapable of understanding the obvious. the elliptical inclination of orbit should be referenced to the magnetic equator if you are to ascertain the interaction of the VAB. Try to stay focused and on point. I grow frustrated with your opaqueness.Let's talk about these differences. Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall? Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?In a very basic and simplistic view, yes, the VAB encompasses 360 degrees around Earth. Although that leaves out a lot of detail and makes a lot of assumptions.
In a more realistic, and relevant view, it is not uniform, and it has a specific, approximately toroidal shape, aka a doughnut (donut for you folks on the west of the Atlantic) aligned closely with the Earth's geomagnetic axis - not the physical axis, ecliptic, or the Moon's orbital plane.
This torus is a three-dimensional shape, and the extent above and below the "geomagnetic equator" is well mapped. It is relatively straightforward to calculate an orbit which travels above and below the doughnut, or which only intersects particular parts of it.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that all orbits must be aligned to the same plane as the VAB, and must necessarily pass through the centre...
Tim...I can't speak for LO -- his forum his rules -- but learn how to debate without this kind of insult.
If other people don't seem to understand your point, DON'T assume they are stupid. Assume it is one of two things; you aren't explaining very well, or, you are wrong.
The torus you speak of is the VAB and it is centered on the geomagnetic equator which is 11.5 degrees above the equator. Try to remember that. it is useful knowledge.If you were smarter than the average three year old you would realize that a side view 2d representation is repeated over 360 degrees. What it is telling you that any point is identical at any other point around the circumference of the vab.
It's not though, the orbital plane is defined geocentrically with repsect to the ecliptic plane, the geomagnetic plane is not. The torus axis is inclined to the normal of the orbital plane. This has been explained to you several times now.
Your assumption would only apply if orbital plane, geomagnetic plane and ecliptic plane are all co-planar.
Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry. Why is this so difficult to understand? Speed is only important because of the component of time. The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received.The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone. A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone. Can't you see that?It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.
Are you aware that inclination is one orbital parameter that defines the orbital plane. If the spacecraft enters that plane at a higher speed, you map out an ellipse with a completely different eccentricity. The path is different through the van Allen belts.
The radiation in the VABs depends on radius, azimuth and polar angle, so does the ellipse on the orbital plane. It follows that the exposure of Apollo and Orion are different.
Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry.
Speed is only important because of the component of time. The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received. The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone.
A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone. Can't you see that?
It matters in that it moves the transit from a straight line to a curved line and thereby increasing the time to transit across a zone. it does not matter in respect to the zone that is encountered as only inclination determines that.Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry. Why is this so difficult to understand? Speed is only important because of the component of time. The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received.The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone. A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone. Can't you see that?It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.
Are you aware that inclination is one orbital parameter that defines the orbital plane. If the spacecraft enters that plane at a higher speed, you map out an ellipse with a completely different eccentricity. The path is different through the van Allen belts.
The radiation in the VABs depends on radius, azimuth and polar angle, so does the ellipse on the orbital plane. It follows that the exposure of Apollo and Orion are different.
No. Eccentricity matters.
And eccentricity is intimately tied to velocity.
Grab a copy of KSP and play around a little. Orbital mechanics are non-intuitive. Heck, I haven't make safe landing on the Mún yet! But getting your feet wet with a simulator helps.
Once again we are confronted with spatial impairment. Think of a side view as a millimeter slice and then add these slices until a full 360 degrees has been completed. You can see then any point on the 2d representation is repeated over and over again. Any point is uniform around the circle. if it is 10 at azimuth of zero it is also 10 at azimuth 180. Work with me. This is basic.Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry.
The distribution of radiation is not uniform. Please define what you mean by uniform with appropriate metrics.QuoteSpeed is only important because of the component of time. The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received. The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone.
No, push a ball with more speed up a hill it goes further up the hill. Apollo had a much greater speed on the orbital plane so went further up the hill on a greater eccentricity. Apollo took a trajoectry into the parts of the belt that are mainly electrons and avoided the high energy proton region.QuoteA straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone. Can't you see that?
... there are no straight lines in elliptical orbits. The craft follows an ellipse on a plane. Look at Jason's model again. Really, do this, it shows you just how wrong you actually are.
Least time in each zone does not mean less dose. It depends on the type of radiation in the zone.
It matters in that it moves the transit from a straight line to a curved line and thereby increasing the time to transit across a zone. it does not matter in respect to the zone that is encountered as only inclination determines that.Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry. Why is this so difficult to understand? Speed is only important because of the component of time. The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received.The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone. A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone. Can't you see that?It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.
Are you aware that inclination is one orbital parameter that defines the orbital plane. If the spacecraft enters that plane at a higher speed, you map out an ellipse with a completely different eccentricity. The path is different through the van Allen belts.
The radiation in the VABs depends on radius, azimuth and polar angle, so does the ellipse on the orbital plane. It follows that the exposure of Apollo and Orion are different.
No. Eccentricity matters.
And eccentricity is intimately tied to velocity.
Grab a copy of KSP and play around a little. Orbital mechanics are non-intuitive. Heck, I haven't make safe landing on the Mún yet! But getting your feet wet with a simulator helps.
At the risk of adding confusion instead of clearing it; Tim's unwillingness to work in 3D deprives him of the language necessary to define whether anyone (himself included) means to imply changes in composition of the VARB at an angle relative to the axis of revolution, or relative to the radius of the major circle.For the same reason architectural drawings are presented in multiple views so is space. It is difficult to grasp conceptually some things in 3d that are obvious in 2d. It requires an innate ability to shift one's perspective that is sorely missing from this group.
I have to use these terms...definitions of parts of a solid torus...because of this lack of any agreed standard between Tim and everyone else on how to describe the geometry of the environment around Earth.
everything is a straight line in 2d. Perspectively challenged? It is not natural to think in anything but 3d and it simply may beyond you pay grade. I'm sorry.It matters in that it moves the transit from a straight line to a curved line and thereby increasing the time to transit across a zone. it does not matter in respect to the zone that is encountered as only inclination determines that.Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry. Why is this so difficult to understand? Speed is only important because of the component of time. The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received.The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone. A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone. Can't you see that?It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.
Are you aware that inclination is one orbital parameter that defines the orbital plane. If the spacecraft enters that plane at a higher speed, you map out an ellipse with a completely different eccentricity. The path is different through the van Allen belts.
The radiation in the VABs depends on radius, azimuth and polar angle, so does the ellipse on the orbital plane. It follows that the exposure of Apollo and Orion are different.
No. Eccentricity matters.
And eccentricity is intimately tied to velocity.
Grab a copy of KSP and play around a little. Orbital mechanics are non-intuitive. Heck, I haven't make safe landing on the Mún yet! But getting your feet wet with a simulator helps.
You don't move from a straight line. There are no straight lines.
Okay, I'm going to join everyone else here in trying out an analogy. Imagine a hula hoop and a basketball. Hold them up some distance from you (so perspective is unimportant) and aligned. If you turn the hula hoop so it is almost edge-on then that section of the ring can be hidden behind the ball. Turn it so the opening faces you and it doesn't visually touch the ball.
So far, we are in agreement. Well, here is where the analogy is tougher. Squish the hula hoop, bringing two sides together. Now it can share the same PLANE it was on, but be hidden behind the ball again. The shape matters, not just the plane.
At the risk of adding confusion instead of clearing it; Tim's unwillingness to work in 3D deprives him of the language necessary to define whether anyone (himself included) means to imply changes in composition of the VARB at an angle relative to the axis of revolution, or relative to the radius of the major circle.For the same reason architectural drawings are presented in multiple views so is space. It is difficult to grasp conceptually some things in 3d that are obvious in 2d. It requires an innate ability to shift one's perspective that is sorely missing from this group.
I have to use these terms...definitions of parts of a solid torus...because of this lack of any agreed standard between Tim and everyone else on how to describe the geometry of the environment around Earth.
Once again we are confronted with spatial impairment. Think of a side view as a millimeter slice and then add these slices until a full 360 degrees has been completed. You can see then any point on the 2d representation is repeated over and over again. Any point is uniform around the circle. if it is 10 at azimuth of zero it is also 10 at azimuth 180. Work with me. This is basic.
3d assembly has nothing to do with 2d visualization. It is all information that if not properly processed is useless.At the risk of adding confusion instead of clearing it; Tim's unwillingness to work in 3D deprives him of the language necessary to define whether anyone (himself included) means to imply changes in composition of the VARB at an angle relative to the axis of revolution, or relative to the radius of the major circle.For the same reason architectural drawings are presented in multiple views so is space. It is difficult to grasp conceptually some things in 3d that are obvious in 2d. It requires an innate ability to shift one's perspective that is sorely missing from this group.
I have to use these terms...definitions of parts of a solid torus...because of this lack of any agreed standard between Tim and everyone else on how to describe the geometry of the environment around Earth.
Tim, I build scenery. Full-stage sets, from plans of various types. I also work in CAD, and have created complex assemblages of moving parts and electronics that had to be visualized in 3d using 2D tools. Shifting between different sets of cartesian coordinates is second nature for me. I can't do the math in my head, but I understand 3D space.
And I am probably the LEAST qualified in this forum of engineers and designers.
It is interesting to note that science cannot prove that our existence is not a 2d existence. It may very well be that 3d is a learned perception and our reality may actually be a 2d reality.
All the information in the universe can be represented in 2d without a loss of accuracy.
I am sure you have heard about the theory that reality is a hologram. What that implies is a 2d existence.
Whatever dude...I am sure you have heard about the theory that reality is a hologram. What that implies is a 2d existence.
I'll add holograms, information theory and quantum loop gravity to the things you don't understand.
I don't know if this helps or not, but I picture the trajectory sort of like tossing a ball over a fence...
When viewed from above the path of the ball appears to be a straight line. How could you throw the ball through the fence?
(http://apollohoax.net/images/timfinch/timfinch-2.png)
But when viewed from the side you see that the path of the ball is not straight at all. It arcs over the wall.
(http://apollohoax.net/images/timfinch/timfinch-1.png)
So much of our existence is learned and not real. The color blue did not exist until about 4 hundred years ago. the sky used to be clear until the color blue was invented and learned.Thank you, sir. I needed a laugh. I do think you're currently trying to get banned now, so you can add another notch to your belt for all your little buddies. "Yep, they banned me from Apollohoax too. Just couldn't take my smarts and all."
I like it!
In truth I do not want to get banned. I await the cream that must rise to the top. My world is lonely and I crave a kindred spirit.So much of our existence is learned and not real. The color blue did not exist until about 4 hundred years ago. the sky used to be clear until the color blue was invented and learned.Thank you, sir. I needed a laugh. I do think you're currently trying to get banned now, so you can add another notch to your belt for all your little buddies. "Yep, they banned me from Apollohoax too. Just couldn't take my smarts and all."
you are propagating a fantasy. it never happened. It doesn't exist. It is a unicorn. That is what I have been preaching all along.I like it!
Ok, so now apply it to the Apollo trajectory and you'll understand how they skirted the edge of the VAB. Not by plowing through the densest portion of it in a straight line, but by travelling around it.
everything is a straight line in 2d.
Perspective is king. Look at it from it's side view.everything is a straight line in 2d.
Even a curve on a log graph? ::)
Back to subject matter at hand. Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?
Do they share inclinations?Back to subject matter at hand. Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?
No they don't mirror one another. That statement is incorrect and will be challenged every time you attempt it.
For all of you that believe the Apollo craft folled some obscure path to avoid the highest radiation area I extend a challenge to you. Show the data. Show the course change and provide the corroborating tracking data. If not the settle in and accept the same path the Orion EFT took for I can provide the data and the corroboration.
I have stated to you that they have similar inclinations in LEO, but at the time of ignition of the SIV-B that similarity ends.Do they share inclinations?Back to subject matter at hand. Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?
No they don't mirror one another. That statement is incorrect and will be challenged every time you attempt it.
Here is my work. What part of it confuses you or provides you with reason to doubt it? It is simple, succinct and irrefutable.For all of you that believe the Apollo craft folled some obscure path to avoid the highest radiation area I extend a challenge to you. Show the data. Show the course change and provide the corroborating tracking data. If not the settle in and accept the same path the Orion EFT took for I can provide the data and the corroboration.
You have repeatedly shown the path that Apollo took and hand waved it away, you were linked both the TLI and radiation work that Bob B did and stated they were wrong and he was a NASA shill. But you carefully avoided showing any other work that refuted Bob's or was in agreement with yours. Why is that? Could it be that you are the one that is incorrect in both your radiation assumption along with your assumption of the trajectory that Apollo generally took through the VARB?
so you contend they changed inclinations when that rocket fired?I have stated to you that they have similar inclinations in LEO, but at the time of ignition of the SIV-B that similarity ends.Do they share inclinations?Back to subject matter at hand. Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?
No they don't mirror one another. That statement is incorrect and will be challenged every time you attempt it.
I would love if anyone of you could explain why NASA's test of the orion was on an identical inclination of the apollo trajectories and why it required greater shielding for future lunar missions if the apollo shielding was so effective in transiting the VAB and lunar operations. Why fix that which is not broken? How does that work in your mind. Apollo ventured out in solar maximum and received a piddling of an exposure. What was not to love about that?
It would seem that Apollo proved the VAB was not even a consideration realizing the transit and lunar mission was conducted at less than .24 mgy/day. The only obstacle to deep space exploration should be long term GCR exposure and SPE's. Both requiring hydrogenous shielding or new age technologies.I would love if anyone of you could explain why NASA's test of the orion was on an identical inclination of the apollo trajectories and why it required greater shielding for future lunar missions if the apollo shielding was so effective in transiting the VAB and lunar operations. Why fix that which is not broken? How does that work in your mind. Apollo ventured out in solar maximum and received a piddling of an exposure. What was not to love about that?
Because Orions mission is NOT a short hop to the moon and back. It is designed to go further and longer than ever before. Therefore it will encounter a greater accumulated dosis of radiation and therefore it needs to be tested in a hostile radiation environment. To ensure the electronics will keep working and not fail.
Aaaaaannnnd we're back to your initial statement - the misread graph.Why do you insist I misread the graph. What did you read that I missed? If you were to check, I actually came up with .24 not from a graph but from a statement in a NASA article. The Crater graph has a median value of .23 mgy/day.
If you were to check, I actually came up with .24 not from a graph but from a statement in a NASA article.
Give me a few minutes to track it down.If you were to check, I actually came up with .24 not from a graph but from a statement in a NASA article.
Apologies but could you give me a link to that reference? The NASA statement, that is.
Thank you!
If you were to check, I actually came up with .24 not from a graph but from a statement in a NASA article.
Apologies but could you give me a link to that reference? The NASA statement, that is.
Thank you!
3d assembly has nothing to do with 2d visualization. It is all information that if not properly processed is useless.
So much of our existence is learned and not real. The color blue did not exist until about 4 hundred years ago. the sky used to be clear until the color blue was invented and learned.
3d assembly has nothing to do with 2d visualization. It is all information that if not properly processed is useless.
What does this even mean. It sounds like you just have to say something to look smart, even if it doesn't make any sense.
And why are you trumping 2D visualization? It is a great tool...for making charts. It is a lossy process. Like the elegant art of, say, subway maps, it highlights certain information of interest by removing other data from the presentation.
Building something from a perspective or even orthogonal view is a fool's game. You need ALL the data. You need at least three views. Your Flatland view returns only circles when you should be seeing spheres.
Sorry but I can't find any reference to .24 mgy/day in the text... I must have missed it. Can you tell me which page / para it is on? Thanks!
I commented on that one earlier. If he really believes that. . . wow . . . that's such a brain hurting comment I don't know where to begin. :oSo much of our existence is learned and not real. The color blue did not exist until about 4 hundred years ago. the sky used to be clear until the color blue was invented and learned.
Where did you learn physics. Yowtch!
The article states it is applicable to the apollo missions. It was written in 1973. What else can I tell you.Sorry but I can't find any reference to .24 mgy/day in the text... I must have missed it. Can you tell me which page / para it is on? Thanks!
He's adding up the millirad per hour value into a daily rate and converting to milligrays.
He's pretending that it is specific to the Apollo 11 mission, when it is no such thing, and is not bothering to find out the source of the original value.
I commented on that one earlier. If he really believes that. . . wow . . . that's such a brain hurting comment I don't know where to begin. :oSo much of our existence is learned and not real. The color blue did not exist until about 4 hundred years ago. the sky used to be clear until the color blue was invented and learned.
Where did you learn physics. Yowtch!
If you were to check, I actually came up with .24 not from a graph but from a statement in a NASA article.
Sorry but I can't find any reference to .24 mgy/day in the text... I must have missed it. Can you tell me which page / para it is on? Thanks!
He's adding up the millirad per hour value into a daily rate and converting to milligrays.
He's pretending that it is specific to the Apollo 11 mission, when it is no such thing, and is not bothering to find out the source of the original value.
What now? You don't like this number or is it the source of this number? Why are you unhappy, It is written in black and white?Sorry but I can't find any reference to .24 mgy/day in the text... I must have missed it. Can you tell me which page / para it is on? Thanks!
He's adding up the millirad per hour value into a daily rate and converting to milligrays.
He's pretending that it is specific to the Apollo 11 mission, when it is no such thing, and is not bothering to find out the source of the original value.
Yeah, I see it.
I see we have to add significant figures to the list of things Tim needs to learn about.
Raven, how do you like me now?Showing your ignorance yet again. Nothing there says we saw it as clear or that blue was 'invented'. If the sky had been clear, we'd just see the sky as . . . black, which we'd never have identified with a hypothetical clear glaze that somehow later became called blue. Plus, you said 400 years, and even the article says the first mention of blue in a language was from 4,500 years.
Raven, this Bud is for you: http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/
1 mrem/hr = .24 mgy/day
1 mrem =.01 mgy
Yeah, I see it.
I see we have to add significant figures to the list of things Tim needs to learn about.
What now? You don't like this number or is it the source of this number? Why are you unhappy, It is written in black and white?
So realizing that NASA itself claims a baseline GCR level (.24 mgy/day) greater than the daily mission dose of Apollo 11 (.22 mgy/day) you can see the source of my consternation can't you?
That is just one of many articles on the subject. I slipped a decimal point. It happens.Raven, how do you like me now?Showing your ignorance yet again. Nothing there says we saw it as clear or that blue was 'invented'. If the sky had been clear, we'd just see the sky as . . . black, which we'd never have identified with a hypothetical clear glaze that somehow later became called blue. Plus, you said 400 years, and even the article says the first mention of blue in a language was from 4,500 years.
Now, if you had said "humans didn't perceive it as a specific color" we might have sighed and moved on. Saying it was CLEAR is wrong. The tree is still falling and making a sound, regardless of whether there are ears to record it, much less the word, "Timber!!"The whole point is lost on you isn't it? You are one of those kids that find the box the toy came in more interesting than the toy aren't you?
Tim, last year one of our engineers asked me to lathe a part to 120.00 millimeters. I went back to him to clarify the drawing. Do you understand why that conversation needed to take place?You are a bit dense?
Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.Raven, this Bud is for you: http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/
MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.
Now, if you had said "humans didn't perceive it as a specific color" we might have sighed and moved on. Saying it was CLEAR is wrong. The tree is still falling and making a sound, regardless of whether there are ears to record it, much less the word, "Timber!!"The whole point is lost on you isn't it? You are one of those kids that find the box the toy came in more interesting than the toy aren't you?
NASA does not claim a baseline of 0.24. A NASA report quotes a value from a research paper. There is no indication of how that value is derived and how it relates to dosimeters worn against a constant wear garment under other clothes and inside a vehicle. All values cited are very broad scattergun ones. In order to work out what is actually going in you need to look at the fine detail.Looking under NASA's dress are we? So because NASA did not outline the source of it's research in the article you discount it as fictitious. In the absence of any conflicting data what choice have you but to accept it at its face value?
Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.Raven, this Bud is for you: http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/
MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.
Did you forget what got you to this point? I claimed color is learned, right? Did I not prove that?Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.Raven, this Bud is for you: http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/
MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.
NASA does not claim a baseline of 0.24. A NASA report quotes a value from a research paper. There is no indication of how that value is derived and how it relates to dosimeters worn against a constant wear garment under other clothes and inside a vehicle. All values cited are very broad scattergun ones. In order to work out what is actually going in you need to look at the fine detail.
They also touch on one of my personal sanity checks. Starfish Prime vastly increased the trapped electrons in the VARB. That's one nuke. Spread over a volume that's several times the whole Earth. We've set off, what, some five hundred nukes within the thin envelop of air of one Earth and the effects on the majority of humanity were negligible. That doesn't make the VARB particularly impressive.
(Yeah, I know...electrons, low energy electrons at that...but the idea is there.)
Colour prescription is partly a learned phenomena, for example, cultures that do not have words for certain colours do have a harder time distinguishing them with similar colours they do have words for, but that's a far, far cry from saying we just saw it as 'clear' as you claimed, and your timing was off for what even the article claimed was the first recorded use of a word for blue in a language.Did you forget what got you to this point? I claimed color is learned, right? Did I not prove that?Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.Raven, this Bud is for you: http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/
MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.
I admit it. I am wrong. Can I go now?Colour prescription is partly a learned phenomena, for example, cultures that do not have words for certain colours do have a harder time distinguishing them with similar colours they do have words for, but that's a far, far cry from saying we just saw it as 'clear' as you claimed, and your timing was off for what even the article claimed was the first recorded use of a word for blue in a language.Did you forget what got you to this point? I claimed color is learned, right? Did I not prove that?Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.Raven, this Bud is for you: http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/
MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.
By over a whole flipping order of magnitude!
You might try and back-pedal and move the goalposts, but you're still wrong, dude.
Is everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?
You have my undivided attention. Explain how the numbers are wrongIs everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?
How do you mean?
Just for an argument, allow the two numbers you are playing with now. Still doesn't work. Your math is wrong.
They also touch on one of my personal sanity checks. Starfish Prime vastly increased the trapped electrons in the VARB. That's one nuke. Spread over a volume that's several times the whole Earth. We've set off, what, some five hundred nukes within the thin envelop of air of one Earth and the effects on the majority of humanity were negligible. That doesn't make the VARB particularly impressive.
(Yeah, I know...electrons, low energy electrons at that...but the idea is there.)
GCR?
You have my undivided attention. Explain how the numbers are wrongIs everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?
How do you mean?
Just for an argument, allow the two numbers you are playing with now. Still doesn't work. Your math is wrong.
They also touch on one of my personal sanity checks. Starfish Prime vastly increased the trapped electrons in the VARB. That's one nuke. Spread over a volume that's several times the whole Earth. We've set off, what, some five hundred nukes within the thin envelop of air of one Earth and the effects on the majority of humanity were negligible. That doesn't make the VARB particularly impressive.
(Yeah, I know...electrons, low energy electrons at that...but the idea is there.)
GCR?
Gish gallop. You've been obsessing over VAB for 100+ pages of discussion.
Back to subject matter at hand. Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?No, because it didn't. You return to this repeatedly. It matters not a whit how often you return to this. It remains wrong. Perhaps if I embiggen it.
I admit it. I am wrong. Can I go now?
Intellectual cowardice is such an ugly thing and it is hard to witness. I'm off to bed where I don't have to see the spectacle of it.Sure. Those of us who have been, or currently are, educators hate that. But we do not collectively throw our hands in the air. Well, perhaps in your case. Allow me to show you a photograph of my children in my home.
It matters not at what radial point you enter the VAB. The incident inclination determines the path through the regions. pick any point along the circle and it is the same as any other point as long as the plane of travel through the VAB is the same.You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB. Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension. It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.
Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.
I gave you a view perpendicular to the 30 degree inclination. Your confusion is either you trolling or you are even more ignorant than you appear to be.
(https://i.imgur.com/7aI1S9U.jpg)
The Apollo speed takes it into the VAB at the same elevation but not the same place. It's called 3D ::)
To further add to this nonsense, the Apollo TLI burns specifically fired to accentuate the position of the magnetic pole on the opposite side of the Earth, to achieve even more elevation(relative to the belts). I have no reason to suppose that Orion did that or any reason for doing so.
Read it and respond.
So what, nobody has denied that. You are deliberately avoiding the big elephant sitting on your lap!
See the bit where Orion circles back through the centre of the belts? See the Apollo TLI does not.
You are wrong. You are absolutely hopeless on this subject.
Do they share inclinations?Back to subject matter at hand. Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?
No they don't mirror one another. That statement is incorrect and will be challenged every time you attempt it.
Here is my work. What part of it confuses you or provides you with reason to doubt it? It is simple, succinct and irrefutable.For all of you that believe the Apollo craft folled some obscure path to avoid the highest radiation area I extend a challenge to you. Show the data. Show the course change and provide the corroborating tracking data. If not the settle in and accept the same path the Orion EFT took for I can provide the data and the corroboration.
You have repeatedly shown the path that Apollo took and hand waved it away, you were linked both the TLI and radiation work that Bob B did and stated they were wrong and he was a NASA shill. But you carefully avoided showing any other work that refuted Bob's or was in agreement with yours. Why is that? Could it be that you are the one that is incorrect in both your radiation assumption along with your assumption of the trajectory that Apollo generally took through the VARB?
I would love if anyone of you could explain why NASA's test of the orion was on an identical inclination of the apollo trajectories
and why it required greater shielding for future lunar missions if the apollo shielding was so effective in transiting the VAB and lunar operations. Why fix that which is not broken? How does that work in your mind.
Is everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?Nope, everyone understands that you simply do not grok it and we are unwilling to expend further effort on your intractable ignorance.
The torus you speak of is the VAB and it is centered on the geomagnetic equator which is 11.5 degrees above the equator. Try to remember that. it is useful knowledge.Perhaps here is an indication of one of your misunderstandings Tim - "which is 11.5 degrees above the equator". No, the VAB (and geomagnetic equator) isn't aligned with latitude 11.5 degrees north, it's inclined, i.e. tilted, at an angle of 11.5 degrees relative to the equator. Which means that half of it is south of the equator, so a TLI trajectory which heads north of the equator in that southerly section of the VAB can easily avoid the higher radiation zones.
everything is a straight line in 2d. Perspectively challenged? It is not natural to think in anything but 3d and it simply may beyond you pay grade. I'm sorry."everything is a straight line in 2d"?? :o How can anyone come out with nonsense like this? Even one of your own links (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection) shows the orbits, equator etc. as curves in the helpful diagram at the top right.
The torus you speak of is the VAB and it is centered on the geomagnetic equator which is 11.5 degrees above the equator. Try to remember that. it is useful knowledge.Perhaps here is an indication of one of your misunderstandings Tim - "which is 11.5 degrees above the equator". No, the VAB (and geomagnetic equator) isn't aligned with latitude 11.5 degrees north, it's inclined, i.e. tilted, at an angle of 11.5 degrees relative to the equator. Which means that half of it is south of the equator, so a TLI trajectory which heads north of the equator in that southerly section of the VAB can easily avoid the higher radiation zones.
Indeed, there seems to be a great deal of confusion in his mind about the relationship between these different axes / planes, and trying to explain it is proving difficult.The torus you speak of is the VAB and it is centered on the geomagnetic equator which is 11.5 degrees above the equator. Try to remember that. it is useful knowledge.Perhaps here is an indication of one of your misunderstandings Tim - "which is 11.5 degrees above the equator". No, the VAB (and geomagnetic equator) isn't aligned with latitude 11.5 degrees north, it's inclined, i.e. tilted, at an angle of 11.5 degrees relative to the equator. Which means that half of it is south of the equator, so a TLI trajectory which heads north of the equator in that southerly section of the VAB can easily avoid the higher radiation zones.
Tim's text was in response to me when I tried as others tried, and explained that the geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane and ecliptic plane are at angles to each other. I ignored this knowing that clarifying it would be adding a third component into the problem when we were still dealing with different eccentricities on an single orbital plane.
Is everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?
You would be wasting you time. Tim has flat out stated that 3D is a scam and must be rejected. Scroll back up a few pages. He actually made that claim.Indeed, there seems to be a great deal of confusion in his mind about the relationship between these different axes / planes, and trying to explain it is proving difficult.The torus you speak of is the VAB and it is centered on the geomagnetic equator which is 11.5 degrees above the equator. Try to remember that. it is useful knowledge.Perhaps here is an indication of one of your misunderstandings Tim - "which is 11.5 degrees above the equator". No, the VAB (and geomagnetic equator) isn't aligned with latitude 11.5 degrees north, it's inclined, i.e. tilted, at an angle of 11.5 degrees relative to the equator. Which means that half of it is south of the equator, so a TLI trajectory which heads north of the equator in that southerly section of the VAB can easily avoid the higher radiation zones.
Tim's text was in response to me when I tried as others tried, and explained that the geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane and ecliptic plane are at angles to each other. I ignored this knowing that clarifying it would be adding a third component into the problem when we were still dealing with different eccentricities on an single orbital plane.
If I had the time (unfortunately I don't at the mo') I dare say I could produce an interactive 3D model of the Earth, VAB, orbits etc. I expect the discussion will have galloped on to pastures new by the time I'd get it done.
If I had the time (unfortunately I don't at the mo') I dare say I could produce an interactive 3D model of the Earth, VAB, orbits etc. I expect the discussion will have galloped on to pastures new by the time I'd get it done.
Once again we are confronted with spatial impairment. Think of a side view as a millimeter slice and then add these slices until a full 360 degrees has been completed. You can see then any point on the 2d representation is repeated over and over again. Any point is uniform around the circle. if it is 10 at azimuth of zero it is also 10 at azimuth 180. Work with me. This is basic.
But the radiation does not vary with azimuth alone. It's defined by a space mapped out by a toroid, and that can be described in spherical coordinates according to a radial component, azimuthal component and polar component. Consider any small volume element in that toroid. Explain why the radiation is uniform?
2. What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?
3. Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.
4. How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.
5. Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.
6. How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?
Looking under NASA's dress are we? So because NASA did not outline the source of it's research in the article you discount it as fictitious. In the absence of any conflicting data what choice have you but to accept it at its face value?
Here is my work. What part of it confuses you or provides you with reason to doubt it? It is simple, succinct andFor all of you that believe the Apollo craft folled some obscure path to avoid the highest radiation area I extend a challenge to you. Show the data. Show the course change and provide the corroborating tracking data. If not the settle in and accept the same path the Orion EFT took for I can provide the data and the corroboration.
You have repeatedly shown the path that Apollo took and hand waved it away, you were linked both the TLI and radiation work that Bob B did and stated they were wrong and he was a NASA shill. But you carefully avoided showing any other work that refuted Bob's or was in agreement with yours. Why is that? Could it be that you are the one that is incorrect in both your radiation assumption along with your assumption of the trajectory that Apollo generally took through the VARB?irrefutableand wrong.
so you contend they changed inclinations when that rocket fired?I have stated to you that they have similar inclinations in LEO, but at the time of ignition of the SIV-B that similarity ends.Do they share inclinations?Back to subject matter at hand. Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?
No they don't mirror one another. That statement is incorrect and will be challenged every time you attempt it.
I would love if anyone of you could explain why NASA's test of the orion was on an identical inclination of the apollo trajectories and why it required greater shielding for future lunar missions if the apollo shielding was so effective in transiting the VAB and lunar operations. Why fix that which is not broken? How does that work in your mind. Apollo ventured out in solar maximum and received a piddling of an exposure. What was not to love about that?
Looking under NASA's dress are we? So because NASA did not outline the source of it's research in the article you discount it as fictitious. In the absence of any conflicting data what choice have you but to accept it at its face value?
Tim, no-one is discounting it as fictitious. The point you are (I assume at this stage deliberately) refusing to grasp is that the 0.24mGy/day is stated to be an average, and without any information regarding what it is an average of, you cannot simply call it a minimum, a rate for the year, or whatever you want it to be. It is an average taken over the period of Apollo, with no accompanying data as to the range recorded to derive that average from. It is not a minimum. You are the only one calling it that. Ever.
I am on facebook. If any of you would like a one on one without the incessant and annoying chatter of Abaddon then send me a friend request and we can explore the depths of this subject sans the peanut gallery.No. You want to adjourn to a venue where YOU can control any discussion. This is a transparent tactic to try to dodge the hard questions you are unable to handle RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.
I am on facebook. If any of you would like a one on one without the incessant and annoying chatter of Abaddon then send me a friend request and we can explore the depths of this subject sans the peanut gallery.No. You want to adjourn to a venue where YOU can control any discussion. This is a transparent tactic to try to dodge the hard questions you are unable to handle RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.
If, as has been demonstrated, you cannot handle those questions right here, what are the chances that you will fare better in a venue where you have editorial control? None.
My bold represents another question that has not been answered which links to my previous questions, which have still not been answered.2. What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?
3. Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.
4. How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.
5. Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.
6. How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?
Further, the geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane at TLI are inclined to each other.
How does this effect the distribution of radiation relative to the orbital plane?
Tim: Please answer all my questions.
Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?
So realizing that NASA itself claims a baseline GCR level (.24 mgy/day)
On the surface it would seem if the environment the equipment was in was safe for people then the equipment itself would be safe from radiation. I can't imagine radiation that could harm equipment is safe for people.
The Crater graph has a median value of .23 mgy/day.
For all of you that believe the Apollo craft followed some obscure path to avoid the highest radiation area I extend a challenge to you. Show the data.
Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?
Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?
Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?
I've been discussing this with another forum member in private, just to clarify my thinking. Since Tim is moderated, can you explain where you are going with the line of question. I think it marries with mine. It would be appreciated for the sake of doing some actual learning.
I really did like the cardboard model.
Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?
I've been discussing this with another forum member in private, just to clarify my thinking. Since Tim is moderated, can you explain where you are going with the line of question. I think it marries with mine. It would be appreciated for the sake of doing some actual learning.
I really did like the cardboard model.
I'm glad you liked the model. The reason for my question is that, since the belts and the orbits are inclined with respect to each other, it is quite possible from the same orbit to either fire yourself into an 'up and over' path or a 'diving straight into it' path, depending on where you start.
Of course, the model I made showed you can do either of those even if you do happen to fire your engines at the same point. All depends on the relative positions of everything.
I'm glad you liked the model. The reason for my question is that, since the belts and the orbits are inclined with respect to each other, it is quite possible from the same orbit to either fire yourself into an 'up and over' path or a 'diving straight into it' path, depending on where you start.
Further, the geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane at TLI are inclined to each other.
How does this effect the distribution of radiation relative to the orbital plane?
And which way the engine is pointing with reference to the current trajectory of the engine.
Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?
I've been discussing this with another forum member in private, just to clarify my thinking. Since Tim is moderated, can you explain where you are going with the line of question. I think it marries with mine. It would be appreciated for the sake of doing some actual learning.
I really did like the cardboard model.
I'm glad you liked the model. The reason for my question is that, since the belts and the orbits are inclined with respect to each other, it is quite possible from the same orbit to either fire yourself into an 'up and over' path or a 'diving straight into it' path, depending on where you start.
Of course, the model I made showed you can do either of those even if you do happen to fire your engines at the same point. All depends on the relative positions of everything.
And which way the engine is pointing with reference to the current trajectory of the engine.
I love KSP. On the surface it looks like a silly game but I've learned a lot from it. It really helps me visualize orbits etc.And which way the engine is pointing with reference to the current trajectory of the engine.
... and thanks for all your fine links you sent me. I really need to buy KSP after this.
I'd love to see Timfinch trying get his head around the lunar resonant orbit that the recently launched TESS planet hunter will employ. I predict that his noodle would be baked in about 10 seconds flat!
I love KSP. On the surface it looks like a silly game but I've learned a lot from it. It really helps me visualize orbits etc.
Yes the 7 degree starts immediately and the distances are significant after the 347 sec burn! Of course that distance continues to get larger as time increases.Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?
I've been discussing this with another forum member in private, just to clarify my thinking. Since Tim is moderated, can you explain where you are going with the line of question. I think it marries with mine. It would be appreciated for the sake of doing some actual learning.
I really did like the cardboard model.
I'm glad you liked the model. The reason for my question is that, since the belts and the orbits are inclined with respect to each other, it is quite possible from the same orbit to either fire yourself into an 'up and over' path or a 'diving straight into it' path, depending on where you start.
Of course, the model I made showed you can do either of those even if you do happen to fire your engines at the same point. All depends on the relative positions of everything.
And which way the engine is pointing with reference to the current trajectory of the engine.
This document should help:
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm
Most of the inclinations are different to Orion, however the flight path angle is what makes the big difference.
I'd love to see Timfinch trying get his head around the lunar resonant orbit that the recently launched TESS planet hunter will employ. I predict that his noodle would be baked in about 10 seconds flat!
Let's try to be technically correct in our illustrations. remember that It is not the ellipses that are identical rather it it the plane of the ellipses that are identical. You struggle with the spatial awareness to properly evaluate the data before. I wish I could help.It matters not at what radial point you enter the VAB. The incident inclination determines the path through the regions. pick any point along the circle and it is the same as any other point as long as the plane of travel through the VAB is the same.You gave some weird hybrid containing an ellipse from a top view and a side view of the VAB. Give me a top view of both to put them in the proper perspective.There is a distinct inability in this group to shift their perspectives from a 3 dimensional point of view and I think it is the basis of the lack of comprehension. It is frustrating to deal with the spatially challenged.
Whoever you are and whatever your motive, your responses are often both childish and very ignorant. I gave you a 2D drawing showing quite clearly how your claim the two routes the same is hopeless. You are afraid to admit your painful blunders and are just obfuscating to cover the public humiliation inflicted on you.
I gave you a view perpendicular to the 30 degree inclination. Your confusion is either you trolling or you are even more ignorant than you appear to be.
(https://i.imgur.com/7aI1S9U.jpg)
The Apollo speed takes it into the VAB at the same elevation but not the same place. It's called 3D ::)
To further add to this nonsense, the Apollo TLI burns specifically fired to accentuate the position of the magnetic pole on the opposite side of the Earth, to achieve even more elevation(relative to the belts). I have no reason to suppose that Orion did that or any reason for doing so.
Read it and respond.
So what, nobody has denied that. You are deliberately avoiding the big elephant sitting on your lap!
See the bit where Orion circles back through the centre of the belts? See the Apollo TLI does not.
You are wrong. You are absolutely hopeless on this subject.
I have bolded the point that you keep bringing up, but avoided this concerning it.
Are the two trajectories the same, yes or no?
Does Orion go through the dense region of the stronger belt, yes or no?
I commented on that one earlier. If he really believes that. . . wow . . . that's such a brain hurting comment I don't know where to begin. :oSo much of our existence is learned and not real. The color blue did not exist until about 4 hundred years ago. the sky used to be clear until the color blue was invented and learned.
Where did you learn physics. Yowtch!
I'll give him benefit of doubt and assume this is a riff off one of those pop psychology memes, made confusing by poor word choice.
...
I'll give him benefit of doubt and assume this is a riff off one of those pop psychology memes, made confusing by poor word choice.
Worse. Ramtha. This is one of the points raised in What the Bleep Do We Know? by local (to me) charlatan J. Z. Knight, whose understanding of quantum physics is what you'd expect of someone claiming to channel a 35,000-year-old Lemurian warrior.
Worse. Ramtha. This is one of the points raised in What the Bleep Do We Know? by local (to me) charlatan J. Z. Knight, whose understanding of quantum physics is what you'd expect of someone claiming to channel a 35,000-year-old Lemurian warrior.Conan the Barbarian?? ;D
Past that, though, don't get me started. It goes far too quickly into some very ugly corners.
And while I'm at it, I'm going to own up that the .22/.24 isn't quite the slam dunk I made it out to be. The original figure Tim was cribbing was "1.0 or 0.6" (one in flight, one lunar surface). Tim multiplied the former to get his fabulous ".24 mgy/day." It LOOKS like a spurious assumption of more accuracy than the source allows, but it is still within the same number of digits as the source.It matters not. Choose the low end or the high end. Either is definitive proof of a hoax. There is no room to add the exposure from the VAB transit or for the time spent in lunar orbit and on the lunar surface. Unless you contend the apollo received no radiation from either then you have no basis for believing the mission dose is indicative of anything but a LEO mission. Show some intellectual integrity and own up to the deceit.
Thing is, that "1.0" could have been rounded from "0.95" or "1.04" -- after multiplying he would get a range from .228 to .250 . I feel safe in assuming the significant digits of his source for the total A11 reading is similar.
The number of digits in his source are insufficient to support his assumption that the ".02 mgy/day" difference between the numbers he arrived at has any significance.
And that's before you bring in such little quibbling bits as the problem doing a straight-line conversion from REM to Gray, which makes the error bars even larger.
I am not your research boy or your pupil. I have no obligation to demonstrate anything to you. I have presented evidence of my position and all you can do is question my understanding of said evidence. You refuse to accept the evidence or provide contradictory evidence to invalidate it. All your time is spent in futile attempts to deflect or in obsequios displays to your fellow sycophants. There is not a single one of you deserving of my time. Think of me when your falsehoods can no longer be sustained by your diversion and your deceit. You know I will be smiling. Tim out! Losers....
I am not your research boy or your pupil. I have no obligation to demonstrate anything to you.
I have presented evidence of my position and all you can do is question my understanding of said evidence.
You refuse to accept the evidence or provide contradictory evidence to invalidate it.
All your time is spent in futile attempts to deflect or in obsequios displays to your fellow sycophants.
There is not a single one of you deserving of my time.
Think of me when your falsehoods can no longer be sustained by your diversion and your deceit. You know I will be smiling. Tim out! Losers....
I am not your research boy or your pupil. I have no obligation to demonstrate anything to you. I have presented evidence of my position and all you can do is question my understanding of said evidence. You refuse to accept the evidence or provide contradictory evidence to invalidate it. All your time is spent in futile attempts to deflect or in obsequios displays to your fellow sycophants. There is not a single one of you deserving of my time. Think of me when your falsehoods can no longer be sustained by your diversion and your deceit. You know I will be smiling. Tim out! Losers....
I am not your research boy or your pupil.
I have no obligation to demonstrate anything to you.
I have presented evidence of my position and all you can do is question my understanding of said evidence.
You refuse to accept the evidence
or provide contradictory evidence to invalidate it.
All your time is spent in futile attempts to deflect or in obsequios displays to your fellow sycophants.
There is not a single one of you deserving of my time.
Think of me when your falsehoods can no longer be sustained by your diversion and your deceit. You know I will be smiling.
Does tim hold the record for most flounces in a single thread?
Does tim hold the record for most flounces in a single thread?
(Actually, though, if you wanted to be accurate, the VARB is deformed by the solar wind. But we haven't been discussing that.)
(Actually, though, if you wanted to be accurate, the VARB is deformed by the solar wind. But we haven't been discussing that.)
Thanks for saying that. I have been absent for a few days, and am trying to catch up. When I read timfinch's question, I was shouting at my screen, and finally came upon your reply. (sarcasm mode on) Obviously someone who knows so much more than all the accredited experts in the world should have already known that. (mode off)
The Earth's magnetosphere has influence on the radiation environment on the far side of the Moon and beyond.
I just read that scientist originally thought the tail of earth's magnetosphere should partially shield the moon from GCR flux but it turns out it provides no shielding to the high energy flux of GCR whatsoever and this is born out by the CraTer data. Cislunar space is deep space.
Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.Raven, this Bud is for you: http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/
MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.
I'll be honest, I bluffed my way through parts of that discussion on orbital mechanics. You can ask molesworth and bknight. I had to send a few PMs out to clarify a few issues. Thanks again for the model Jason, that was most intuitive.
Mag40's link: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm
This has kept me busy today reading through the medical kits, the mass of the astronauts before and after, the illnesses and ailments they suffered (7 blocked Eustachian tubes and some rhinitis). I was most intrigued that the bio med report suggests that the temperature on Apollo 13 was lower than that recorded by sensors.
Just so much to be gotten again.
Did anyone notice that Jay flounced too? My reckoning is that he got lost on log graphs and gave in. ;D
I believe that Jay observed him being a troll and discontinued the madness long before any of us.
NOMUSE, do you accept that GCR for apollo 11 was .24 mgy/day or do you have a different number that you think is more appropriate?
Let's try to be technically correct in our illustrations. remember that It is not the ellipses that are identical rather it it the plane of the ellipses that are identical. You struggle with the spatial awareness to properly evaluate the data before. I wish I could help.
I want to summarise a few replies I have made, that clearly Tim has no intention of acknowledging properly:IMHO, c and d = game, set and match.
a) You assessed the GCR levels in cis-lunar space by multiplying the quoted NASA hourly figure by 24. With you so far.
b) You then converted this to Greys. The conversion is not as accurate as it appears, but whatever.
c) What you fail to realise is that the figure quoted in the Radiation Report from NASA is extrapolated from the accumulation of the missions from Apollo 8/10/11/12/13/14/15 total hours in cis-lunar space and in and around the Moon. This figure is then applied to the total doses of the astronauts.
d) The actual figure of 1 mr/h that you use as your yardstick is taken from the very doses that you claim as faked.
If you cannot see the inherent problem here, then nothing can possibly get through to you.
I believe that Jay observed him being a troll and discontinued the madness long before any of us.
Hence my ;D face. Jay did indeed make that sentiment known.
(Actually, though, if you wanted to be accurate, the VARB is deformed by the solar wind. But we haven't been discussing that.)
Thanks for saying that. I have been absent for a few days, and am trying to catch up. When I read timfinch's question, I was shouting at my screen, and finally came upon your reply. (sarcasm mode on) Obviously someone who knows so much more than all the accredited experts in the world should have already known that. (mode off)
And while I'm at it, I'm going to own up that the .22/.24 isn't quite the slam dunk I made it out to be. The original figure Tim was cribbing was "1.0 or 0.6" (one in flight, one lunar surface). Tim multiplied the former to get his fabulous ".24 mgy/day." It LOOKS like a spurious assumption of more accuracy than the source allows, but it is still within the same number of digits as the source.It matters not. Choose the low end or the high end. Either is definitive proof of a hoax. There is no room to add the exposure from the VAB transit or for the time spent in lunar orbit and on the lunar surface. Unless you contend the apollo received no radiation from either then you have no basis for believing the mission dose is indicative of anything but a LEO mission. Show some intellectual integrity and own up to the deceit.
Thing is, that "1.0" could have been rounded from "0.95" or "1.04" -- after multiplying he would get a range from .228 to .250 . I feel safe in assuming the significant digits of his source for the total A11 reading is similar.
The number of digits in his source are insufficient to support his assumption that the ".02 mgy/day" difference between the numbers he arrived at has any significance.
And that's before you bring in such little quibbling bits as the problem doing a straight-line conversion from REM to Gray, which makes the error bars even larger.
I wonder whether the solar wind shrinks the "height" of the VARB, looking at a side view. I had never seen anything on this, and until this thread I hadn't considered this possibility. If that were the case and I'm speculating here, then the trajectory of Apollo would have left the VARB earlier than Bob B's calculation.
Tim has a very simplistic view of the VABs.
I am not your research boy or your pupil. I have no obligation to demonstrate anything to you. I have presented evidence of my position and all you can do is question my understanding of said evidence. You refuse to accept the evidence or provide contradictory evidence to invalidate it. All your time is spent in futile attempts to deflect or in obsequios displays to your fellow sycophants. There is not a single one of you deserving of my time. Think of me when your falsehoods can no longer be sustained by your diversion and your deceit. You know I will be smiling. Tim out! Losers....
Wahey. Things move fast. AIUI tim has already attempted a sock. I hope that LO does not ban tim, because it is a service to humanity to illustrate how utterly bovine these claims really are. Tim is likely not so dim as his claims or internet persona claims to be. It is, to some extent, a responsibility on everyone here to make plain to casual readers exactly how wrong the nonsense claims are. I want to live in a world where truth has more value than lies, where science has more value than superstition, where facts carry more weight than baloney.
That world will never exist unless honest people step up and fight for it. So I do.
Oh, hi, ben, any opinion? No?
benparry, Hi. I just wanted to say that from my limited involvement, it appears that any assumption directed at you and your relationship (or ex-relationship, as it seems to now stand) with timfinch are circumstantial, at best. I like to see fairly solid evidence, before I claim a conclusion. There is allowance for conjecture prior to that, but it must be emphasized that conjecture is purely brainstorming until evidence provides direction. However, as a friendly nudge, I would also like to point out that the purposeful misspelling of someone's name (as in abiddon, rather than Abbadon) can be considered rude and derogatory. I believe this was unintentional on your part, as I am notoriously bad at spelling myself (thank goodness for spellcheck).
Regardless, I hope you continue to try to learn and do the right thing(s). That's MY own plan, anyway. Cheers!
He will no doubt go back into his FB or YT claiming his voice of reason was shuttered and his beliefs were not disproved. Therefore Apollo astronauts never left LEO and the moon landings were faked.
ETA of course I have seen this with our friend Baker and the rest of you guys have probably seen more than that.
And as for being Facebook friends with him, that implies having the slightest interest in interacting with him in day-to-day life. I'd just end up blocking him on Facebook for being rude and tiresome.
And as for being Facebook friends with him, that implies having the slightest interest in interacting with him in day-to-day life. I'd just end up blocking him on Facebook for being rude and tiresome.Indeed! I have a very eclectic collection of friends on Facebook, from my various hobbies and interests, but I doubt I would have anything in common with Tim. He doesn't seem amenable to discussion and debate, let alone light-hearted chit-chat :)
Indeed! I have a very eclectic collection of friends on Facebook, from my various hobbies and interests, but I doubt I would have anything in common with Tim. He doesn't seem amenable to discussion and debate, let alone light-hearted chit-chat :)
Sorry for joining late into discussion. Keeping up with this thread is a chore.My curiosity is peaked. PM the answer, please.
I have one question for Tim*: as a former nuc, can you tell me where the diesel fuel tank is in a nuclear sub and why it is in that exact place?
Lurky
*if he chooses to answer and LO allows that post.
Sorry for joining late into discussion. Keeping up with this thread is a chore.
I have one question for Tim*: as a former nuc, can you tell me where the diesel fuel tank is in a nuclear sub and why it is in that exact place?
Lurky
*if he chooses to answer and LO allows that post.
In all honesty, I hope this is the end of the episode. His claims around our 3D-2D spatial reasoning needed to be closed down, they were insulting and showed complete disregard for genuine efforts to educate him on the matter.
I actually don't believe he's that stupid. I believe he thought he had the smoking gun with the graph, got caught out when it dawned on him he had read the graph incorrectly, and was using data from a different cycle. He then entered full troll mode with the Orion and Apollo trajectories as he could not back down at that point.
I have had a change of heart and I am ready to to make amends on one condition.
2. What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?
3. Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.
4. How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.
5. Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.
6. How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?
7. The geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane at TLI are inclined to each other. How does this effect the distribution of radiation relative to the orbital plane?
Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?
Then I will apologize and in turn answer any and all questions asked of me.
That is not a nuke question. A nuke question would be something like what chemical was stored onboard the submarine for an emergency means of shutting the reactor down and where was it stored? Now that is a nuke question. Write out the six factor formula and show how it varied with T-ave. I have a thousand nuke questions would you like a few more?
That being the case, what was the chemical and where was it stored?That is not a nuke question. A nuke question would be something like what chemical was stored onboard the submarine for an emergency means of shutting the reactor down and where was it stored? Now that is a nuke question. Write out the six factor formula and show how it varied with T-ave. I have a thousand nuke questions would you like a few more?
If that is in reply to Northern Lurker then I would have to disagree.
You may operate a kettle but you are a submariner, first & foremost. You have to know every inch of the boat and have a good understanding of everyone else's job.
"That's not my part of ship" is not something a submariner says.
Look at this guy. He actually thinks he's in a position to set conditions. ;D
I am not your research boy or your pupil.
I would not mind seeing an apology to forum members general and specific for the multiple, direct, abrasive accusations of being mathematically illiterate and lacking in any degree of spacial reasoning. As well as both implied and implicit accusations of being unable to read and comprehend written material. (And a strong implication that no-one here could, say, find a pdf at NASA.gov on our own.)
That is not a nuke question. A nuke question would be something like what chemical was stored onboard the submarine for an emergency means of shutting the reactor down and where was it stored? Now that is a nuke question. Write out the six factor formula and show how it varied with T-ave. I have a thousand nuke questions would you like a few more?
If that is in reply to Northern Lurker then I would have to disagree.
You may operate a kettle but you are a submariner, first & foremost. You have to know every inch of the boat and have a good understanding of everyone else's job.
"That's not my part of ship" is not something a submariner says.
I have had a change of heart and I am ready to to make amends on one condition. The condition is the group answer one single question. If you were planning a lunar mission what value would you assign to GCR background radiation, what would you derive this value from and would it be an daily average? If the group should answer this question truthfully. Then I will apologize and in turn answer any and all questions asked of me.
That is not a nuke question. A nuke question would be something like what chemical was stored onboard the submarine for an emergency means of shutting the reactor down and where was it stored? Now that is a nuke question. Write out the six factor formula and show how it varied with T-ave. I have a thousand nuke questions would you like a few more?
If that is in reply to Northern Lurker then I would have to disagree.
You may operate a kettle but you are a submariner, first & foremost. You have to know every inch of the boat and have a good understanding of everyone else's job.
"That's not my part of ship" is not something a submariner says.
Tim the exnucsubmariner, I want your answer to my question. Do you know the location of diesel fuel tank or not? Do you know why it is in that exact location or not?
Lurky
I submit you have to have some level of expectation or you could not have any estimation of your ability to protect the safety of your men. Having some Idea then you could establish a safety margin but to do so without any idea of what to expect is ludicrous. It was a valiant attempt but comes across as disingenuous. I respect you more for the attempt than I do the response and as such I will in turn honor it.I have had a change of heart and I am ready to to make amends on one condition. The condition is the group answer one single question. If you were planning a lunar mission what value would you assign to GCR background radiation, what would you derive this value from and would it be an daily average? If the group should answer this question truthfully. Then I will apologize and in turn answer any and all questions asked of me.
I wouldn't. I would assess the risk and balance those risks against crew safety. I'd test my vessel to make sure it could do what I asked it to do. There is no point assigning an average value: an average of 5 can be derived by values of 4, 5 and 6, or 1, 5 and 9. What you need is an assessment of the probability that your safety values will be exceeded and what you do about it if they are.
I have had a change of heart and I am ready to to make amends on one condition. The condition is the group answer one single question. If you were planning a lunar mission what value would you assign to GCR background radiation, what would you derive this value from and would it be an daily average? If the group should answer this question truthfully. Then I will apologize and in turn answer any and all questions asked of me.
I wouldn't. I would assess the risk and balance those risks against crew safety. I'd test my vessel to make sure it could do what I asked it to do. There is no point assigning an average value: an average of 5 can be derived by values of 4, 5 and 6, or 1, 5 and 9. What you need is an assessment of the probability that your safety values will be exceeded and what you do about it if they are.
I agree that ANY person versed in the operation of a nuclear submarine would know that answer. Off the top of their head, too.
I agree that ANY person versed in the operation of a nuclear submarine would know that answer. Off the top of their head, too.
Well I'm not at all versed in the operations of nuclear submarines, but I can hazard a guess as to where it would be placed and why.
I'm still going to point a finger at the NASA report Tim himself linked to, where GCR was one of four potential radiological hazards to be quantified...with another of the four being the glow in the dark switches in the cockpit.Don't be quick to dismiss the radiation from old syle glow in the night devices. They would set off alarms on the submarine the radiation was so high.
Yeah, this is the sixties. Even the Army started shying from those comparable tritium night sights. But still...!
Correct, and a little more explicitly, the mission would be designed with expected doses deigned by the general radiological conditions of the belts (as we know, they can be influenced by a LOT of factors), but more importantly, there would be action level limits if their doses reached certain values (normally still WELL below standard legal limits for radiation workers). If such an event occurred, there would already be plans to mitigate the astronaut's risk as derived by Health Physicists. This could range anywhere from keeping a closer watch on current exposures to aborting the mission altogether. It just depends on so many variables, including mission length, spacecraft designs, space environment (seems like an oxymoron, but it isn't), mission status, etc. There is also the possibility that the astronauts' yearly limit could be allowed to be exceeded due to special circumstances. The legal yearly limit is there to minimize the risk associated with exposure. It is not a line in the sand where people start dropping like flies.Very well put, and I'm sure the people designing flight profiles for the eventual manned Orion missions are taking just such an approach. The broader scope of use for Orion means there will be a lot more complexity in mission planning, but the dose calculations will use the virtually the same data we've been going over here ad nauseam - probably just more up to date and accurate. (It would be interesting to know if any of those thoughts or calculations are available yet.)
That is not a nuke question. A nuke question would be...
I have had a change of heart and I am ready to to make amends on one condition.
If you were planning a lunar mission what value would you assign to GCR background radiation,
If the group should answer this question truthfully.
Then I will apologize and in turn answer any and all questions asked of me.
I agree that ANY person versed in the operation of a nuclear submarine would know that answer. Off the top of their head, too.
For one thing I'm pretty damn sure that emergency shutdown mechanisms are not 'chemical' and are integrated into the reactors, given that all the actual reacting takes place in a sealed and shielded compartment.
For one thing I'm pretty damn sure that emergency shutdown mechanisms are not 'chemical' and are integrated into the reactors, given that all the actual reacting takes place in a sealed and shielded compartment. In an emergency shutdown scenario I wouldn't want to be going to a store somewhere else to get something, then opening the reactor up to use it.
I agree that ANY person versed in the operation of a nuclear submarine would know that answer. Off the top of their head, too.
Hell, I've never even set foot on a submarine, nuclear or otherwise, but even I know where they put the tanks and why on a nuclear one. Tim's evasion of a simpler question and the suggestion he can do the more complex ones is not only not helping his credibility, it's not even written in a credible manner. Looks more like someone using word salad to sound clever than actually a genuine question. For one thing I'm pretty damn sure that emergency shutdown mechanisms are not 'chemical' and are integrated into the reactors, given that all the actual reacting takes place in a sealed and shielded compartment. In an emergency shutdown scenario I wouldn't want to be going to a store somewhere else to get something, then opening the reactor up to use it. This isn't like Spock restarting the Enterprise engines in Star trek II, after all....
Ah, well I stand corrected, thank you, Lurker. I also withdraw my criticism of Tim's question about chemicals for shutdown purposes.
See how easy that was, tim?
Don't you know? The bag of SCRAM powder is stored in the Beano locker, right next to the Relative Bearing Grease.
... and fetch a bucket of sparks and some skyhooks while you're in the stores.
... and fetch a bucket of sparks and some skyhooks while you're in the stores.
Reminds me of when I joined air cadets and sent off to find some prop wash when we went on our first airplane ride in a DC-3.
So much for this guy having a change of heart. He's basically started off again at Cosmoquest with identical and unaltered arguments without at any point acknowledging his stunning mistakes. It's fairly obvious that he is incapable of seeing anything beyond his narrow and very inaccurate viewpoint.
Why would I deign answer such a silly question?
Who do you think I am that I should answer to your whims?
I submit you have to have some level of expectation or you could not have any estimation of your ability to protect the safety of your men.
So much for this guy having a change of heart. He's basically started off again at Cosmoquest with identical and unaltered arguments without at any point acknowledging his stunning mistakes. It's fairly obvious that he is incapable of seeing anything beyond his narrow and very inaccurate viewpoint.
Along with the glass hammer and left handed screwdriver. Was bearing grease invented by Ralph Rene?
Reading the CosmoWhatever thread. Looks like he got tired of wearing dolphins -- now he's Army, possibly even a 12B. I look forward to seeing what total hash he makes of my old MOS.I am sure my distinguished military career is somehow related to the moon hoax topic but how it is related is beyond my comprehension. It is true that during my 16 years of exemplary service the Viet Nam war was ended Noriega was captured, the Berlin wall was destroyed and the Soviet Union was shattered into pieces. I am not claiming that I was responsible for these things but they did happen during my watch. To satisfy the undying curiosity, I served 4 years in the Army as a 12B Combat Engineer. I was Discharged as a E-5 (Sargent) and served 2 years as Squad leader in Co. C17th Engineering Battalion, Ft. Hood, Tx. After leaving the Army I attended the University of Texas in San Antonio but dropped out after one year to join the Navy. I served aboard the USS Sam Houston (SSN 609) and the USS Tunny (SSN 682) I achieved the rank of E-7 and was honorably discharge for medical reasons in 1991. I worked as an Industrial Maintenance Electrician until disability forced an early retirement in 2012. I was widowed this past October and I have a Son and 3 grandchildren. There is nothing beyond this of my story. Now can we get on with proving the Moon Hoax.
All he needs now is the guitar and the bicycle.
I believe that Jay observed him being a troll
It is a source of never ending surprise that these characters will join a forum to ask people they won't believe for answers they don't want.
It is a source of never ending surprise that these characters will join a forum to ask people they won't believe for answers they don't want.
Don't be quick to dismiss the radiation from old syle glow in the night devices. They would set off alarms on the submarine the radiation was so high.If you're thinking of the alarm on the frisker, then yes it would provided you put the probe next to the source. I was always more concerned with the naturally occurring activity in the tiles used to protect the floor of the head/shower.
It is a source of never ending surprise that these characters will join a forum to ask people they won't believe for answers they don't want.
Since Tim has changed his story, I can tell about submarine's diesel tank. It is located between forward crew compartment and reactor compartment because there it acts as an additional radiation shield. I was wondering how Tim, as a nuclear submariner, can reconcile that in submarine structural elements can shield from radiation but on Apollo not. Or maybe he wasn't a real submariner. Apparently, per Cosmoquest, he wasn't.
Lurky
I know not a single one of you knew this or you would have recognized that Braeuning was attempting to deceive you. Show me your respect for pulling the wool off your eyes by creating a Go Fund me account to continue my research.
Since Tim has changed his story, I can tell about submarine's diesel tank. It is located between forward crew compartment and reactor compartment because there it acts as an additional radiation shield. I was wondering how Tim, as a nuclear submariner, can reconcile that in submarine structural elements can shield from radiation but on Apollo not. Or maybe he wasn't a real submariner. Apparently, per Cosmoquest, he wasn't.Aha, I was right then.
Lurky
Really big surprise, he hasn't changed his style or numbers. I expect he won't last more than a couple of days and then be suspended or banned.
LO, this is your decision, but I would take a long hard look at his new thread
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?168399-I-m-back-with-a-vengeance-and-undeniable-proof-of-the-Moon-Hoax&p=2446967#post2446967
Before determining whether to allow him to post again.
His latest on the 7 degree inclination at TLI burn.I am wondering what Tim will make of the graph on page 2 of this...
CQ User Clanger: The flight path angle contributed to a small change in inclination.
Tim Finch: A rocket is not a plane and there is no air to act upon wings even if it had them. so what difference does a flight path angle matter?
I'm no longer sure what to think.
Obliviously low. ;)His latest on the 7 degree inclination at TLI burn.I am wondering what Tim will make of the graph on page 2 of this...
CQ User Clanger: The flight path angle contributed to a small change in inclination.
Tim Finch: A rocket is not a plane and there is no air to act upon wings even if it had them. so what difference does a flight path angle matter?
I'm no longer sure what to think.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf
His latest on the 7 degree inclination at TLI burn.
CQ User Clanger: The flight path angle contributed to a small change in inclination.
Tim Finch: A rocket is not a plane and there is no air to act upon wings even if it had them. so what difference does a flight path angle matter?
I'm no longer sure what to think.
His latest on the 7 degree inclination at TLI burn.
CQ User Clanger: The flight path angle contributed to a small change in inclination.
Tim Finch: A rocket is not a plane and there is no air to act upon wings even if it had them. so what difference does a flight path angle matter?
I'm no longer sure what to think.
The group of people who misuse terminology map very well to the group of people who don't understand the underlying concepts.
You could not have been a Nuke or even a well trained submariner.I was. Nuke school class 8401, served on Tautog, Jacksonville, Bates and Cavalla. Had NEC's of 3355/3365 and eventually 3366.
If you had been then you would know the diesel tanks were in the ballast tanks and as such would not act as shielding to the the living spaces.Actually what you describe is the arrangement of a diesel powered submarine. They were equipped with diesel/ballast tanks
You would know that primary shielding was provided by polyethylene, lead, steel and water tanks used in the operation of the reactor.You may want to be careful what details you reveal about submarines. Surely you were debriefed on the nature of certain classified information you were exposed to in the USN prior to leaving the service. I've been looking for an unclassified description of a typical USN nuclear powered submarine tank and compartment layout, but the best I can find is one of the Ohio class on Wikipedia. It shows a tank or void near the RC, but it's not labeled.
You would know that the diesel tanks are placed in the ballast tanks to minimize the impact on trim. Diesel is replaced by seatwater as it is consumed thereby negating a change in trim. You embarrass all submarine sailors with this lack of institutional knowledge.The NFO tank on a nuke boat contains seawater and diesel fuel; it is not used as a trim tank although use of the fuel can affect trim since diesel is lighter than seawater. This is normally not a problem as use of the DG is minimized.
It is located between forward crew compartment and reactor compartment because there it acts as an additional radiation shield. I was wondering how Tim, as a nuclear submariner, can reconcile that in submarine structural elements can shield from radiation but on Apollo not. Or maybe he wasn't a real submariner. Apparently, per Cosmoquest, he wasn't.
Lurky
You could not have been a Nuke or even a well trained submariner. If you had been then you would know the diesel tanks were in the ballast tanks and as such would not act as shielding to the the living spaces. You would know that primary shielding was provided by polyethylene, lead, steel and water tanks used in the operation of the reactor. You would know that the diesel tanks are placed in the ballast tanks to minimize the impact on trim. Diesel is replaced by seatwater as it is consumed thereby negating a change in trim. You embarrass all submarine sailors with this lack of institutional knowledge.
6. How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?
The integral flux decreases as energy increases.
The geomagnetic equator is 11.5 degrees above the geographical equator. This results in a lunar plane of roughly 29 degrees to the equator being 17.5 degrees above the geomagnetic equator.
Rockets do not steer with the main engine, they steer with thrusters and unless they did then they would remain on identical orbital planes.
Rockets do not steer with the main engine, they steer with thrusters and unless they did then they would remain on identical orbital planes.You've been watching too much (bad) science fiction I think :D
Please stop using glow. It makes your posts harder to read, and you need all the help you can get.It is a common CT tactic to use unconventional formatting. For reasons unexplained, they think it somehow adds weight to their claims. One need only visit timecube to see such in action.
Rockets do not steer with the main engine, they steer with thrusters and unless they did then they would remain on identical orbital planes.So much wrong. You likely believe that the pointy end always points in the direction of travel (snigger).
Rockets do not steer with the main engine, they steer with thrusters and unless they did then they would remain on identical orbital planes.So much wrong. You likely believe that the pointy end always points in the direction of travel (snigger).
Please stop using glow. It makes your posts harder to read, and you need all the help you can get.It is a common CT tactic to use unconventional formatting. For reasons unexplained, they think it somehow adds weight to their claims. One need only visit timecube to see such in action.
Then you should know what the primary and secondary shields consisted of and should know the diesel tanks were in the ballast tanks.The NFO tank is not a ballast tank even if its condition affects trim. While a ballast tank can be emptied at sea with the reactor critical as part of standard ship's operation, the NFO tank is never allowed to be anything but full while the reactor is critical. All nukes know this with the possible exception of yourself.
I can forgive you confusing a fuel oil tank for the diesel tank because as a nuke machinist mate you probably didn't spend a lot of time replacing tank sensors and working on the diesel generator as I did and you probably didn't spend half as much time at sea as I did. No harm, no foul.You act as though anyone here has said anything to forgive about SSN/SSBN design other than you. The contempt in your posts for your fellow submariners and others who are interested in learning more about technological accomplishments is insulting.
Not that I am aware, but he is likely aware of the stricter regime there. I was referring to the general proclivity of fringe claimants to go font-crazy such as timecube. http://timecube.2enp.com/Please stop using glow. It makes your posts harder to read, and you need all the help you can get.It is a common CT tactic to use unconventional formatting. For reasons unexplained, they think it somehow adds weight to their claims. One need only visit timecube to see such in action.
He did this on CQ also? I must be going blind as I didn't recognize it.
I was referring to the general proclivity of fringe claimants to go font-crazy such as timecube. http://timecube.2enp.com/
Have fun trying to make head nor tale of it.
Please stop using glow. It makes your posts harder to read, and you need all the help you can get.
You could not have been a Nuke or even a well trained submariner. If you had been then you would know the diesel tanks were in the ballast tanks and as such would not act as shielding to the the living spaces. You would know that primary shielding was provided by polyethylene, lead, steel and water tanks used in the operation of the reactor. You would know that the diesel tanks are placed in the ballast tanks to minimize the impact on trim. Diesel is replaced by seatwater as it is consumed thereby negating a change in trim. You embarrass all submarine sailors with this lack of institutional knowledge.
You could not have been a Nuke or even a well trained submariner.I was. Nuke school class 8401, served on Tautog, Jacksonville, Bates and Cavalla. Had NEC's of 3355/3365 and eventually 3366.If you had been then you would know the diesel tanks were in the ballast tanks and as such would not act as shielding to the the living spaces.Actually what you describe is the arrangement of a diesel powered submarine. They were equipped with diesel/ballast tanksYou would know that primary shielding was provided by polyethylene, lead, steel and water tanks used in the operation of the reactor.You may want to be careful what details you reveal about submarines. Surely you were debriefed on the nature of certain classified information you were exposed to in the USN prior to leaving the service. I've been looking for an unclassified description of a typical USN nuclear powered submarine tank and compartment layout, but the best I can find is one of the Ohio class on Wikipedia. It shows a tank or void near the RC, but it's not labeled.You would know that the diesel tanks are placed in the ballast tanks to minimize the impact on trim. Diesel is replaced by seatwater as it is consumed thereby negating a change in trim. You embarrass all submarine sailors with this lack of institutional knowledge.The NFO tank on a nuke boat contains seawater and diesel fuel; it is not used as a trim tank although use of the fuel can affect trim since diesel is lighter than seawater. This is normally not a problem as use of the DG is minimized.
As I've said before, the information we were exposed to in nuclear power school and prototype has little to do with the environment in space. It would be better if you told us more about how well you understand the relevant source material related to space travel instead of trying to impress us with your naval nuclear power background.
ETA: Here is a link you can search for that shows the layout of the reactor, primary shield and secondary shield of a UK nuclear submarine. NTEC Radiation Shielding Module : A Shielding Application Note the location of the forward shield tank, they call it the DOF tank.
I would not be concerned about that. I have harboured some reservations about Tim's claims for some time. Although I have, personally, set foot on submarines, we are fortunate enough to have people aboard (pun intended) who have done that for a living.
Ahhhh. I did not read this prior to my last post. But obviously the classified information portion is one I also have to tread lightly around. That is why you see few details in my comments regarding the submarines, other than pointing out how unknowledgeable timfinch is.
The CQ thread is going in circles just like log scale discussion. I'm sure he thinks the VABs are fixed in space as the Earth rotates underneath them.
The CQ thread is going in circles just like log scale discussion. I'm sure he thinks the VABs are fixed in space as the Earth rotates underneath them.Yup.
Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
Yep, same old trolling. He won't last long. Still, it gave me an excuse to dust off my old VAB pencil diagram and create some new examples. The more he claims to not understand the stuff he is spoonfed the more he will edge himself closer to a ban. I came close to reporting him already after he insisted (and even appealed to a mod) that we give him what he asked for three times after I posted exactly wat he had requested.There is a problem in there. It is the objective of the crank to burn your time, my time and everyone's time. Apollo hoaxers are a dying breed. Let the medieval breed simply die out.
I'm actually quite enjoying the mental exercise involved in coming up with illustrations. I might be able to eductae some children with them, even if they are beyond Tim's comprehension....
Nobody bit on that. Not even gillian. (No offence, gillian).
The thing about all this radiation talk that gets me is that it will probably all be revised in the future. If you read a lot of the Nasa publications and articles they always put a disclaimer? Usually they say something like "Though accurate at the time of publication........ You have to take it as faith that the information is correct and peer reviewed. Might as well just believe in Sasquatch.
Rockets do not steer with the main engine, they steer with thrusters and unless they did then they would remain on identical orbital planes.So much wrong. You likely believe that the pointy end always points in the direction of travel (snigger).
It actually shows a complete lack of understanding of orbital mechanics, no wonder he had a problem with a 3D rendering of the path taken by Apollo.
The thing about all this radiation talk that getsme is that it will probably all be revised in the future. If you read a lot of the Nasa publications and articles they always put a disclaimer? Usually they say something like "Though accurate at the time of publication........ You have to take it as faith that the information is correct and peer reviewed. Might as well just believe in Sasquatch.That's how science works. It's not some set dogma etched stone tablets from on high; it's observations, analysis and experiments. As all three of those improve, say, because we get better instruments for more complete observation, or someone comes up with an analysis that fits the facts better, or preforms a more illuminating experiments, the findings may change.
...It's reached the point where I don't think they are beyond his comprehension. He understands exactly what they show.
I'm actually quite enjoying the mental exercise involved in coming up with illustrations. I might be able to eductae some children with them, even if they are beyond Tim's comprehension....
The thing about all this radiation talk that gets me
is that it will probably all be revised in the future.
You have to take it as faith that the information is correct and peer reviewed.
Might as well just believe in Sasquatch.
The thing about all this radiation talk that gets me is that it will probably all be revised in the future. If you read a lot of the Nasa publications and articles they always put a disclaimer? Usually they say something like "Though accurate at the time of publication........ You have to take it as faith that the information is correct and peer reviewed. Might as well just believe in Sasquatch.
It may be REFINED in future papers, but the fundamentals won't change.
For ranb: in your professional opinion, did TimFinch meet your standards as a professional submariner?
For ranb: in your professional opinion, did TimFinch meet your standards as a professional submariner?Not at all. I thought it was very strange that he would not understand the relationship of the fuel tanks and reactor shielding.
He started a new thread which was closed swiftly. I haven't formed an opinion of his motives or his understanding as I simply do not understand whether he:
a) Stubbornly refuses to accept any correction to his assumptions as a consequence of inflated ego.
b) Believes he is more clever than the rest of the world.
c) Is deliberately trolling.
d) Is role playing the character.
He is wasting people's time. I cannot believe that he does not comprehend some simple concepts, given that he is relatively erudite. He's not your frothing at the mouth in the YouTube badlands type. Maybe it is best to ignore him now?
He started a new thread which was swiftly closed. I haven't formed an opinion of his motives or his understanding as I simply do not understand whether he:Well, well. I suppose he could be seeking the badge of honour of a banning.
a) Stubbornly refuses to accept any correction to his assumptions as a consequence of inflated ego.
b) Believes he is cleverer than the rest of the world.
c) Is deliberately trolling.
d) Is role playing the character.
He is wasting people's time. I cannot believe that he does not comprehend some simple concepts, given that he is relatively erudite. He's not your frothing at the mouth in the YouTube badlands type. Maybe it is best to ignore him now?
Did you read what he said?
He started a new thread which was swiftly closed. I haven't formed an opinion of his motives or his understanding as I simply do not understand whether he:
a) Stubbornly refuses to accept any correction to his assumptions as a consequence of inflated ego.
b) Believes he is cleverer than the rest of the world.
c) Is deliberately trolling.
d) Is role playing the character.
He is wasting people's time. I cannot believe that he does not comprehend some simple concepts, given that he is relatively erudite. He's not your frothing at the mouth in the YouTube badlands type. Maybe it is best to ignore him now?
He is wasting people's time.
Yes, and that is the entire point. He is trolling, nerd-sniping, what have you, because that's how he has fun.
I actually reported one of my own posts last night to ask that the mods hold his feet to the fire about why they didn't just fake the data.
I actually reported one of my own posts last night to ask that the mods hold his feet to the fire about why they didn't just fake the data.
I noticed that you asked that question several time, and it was ignored several times.
Sure, but it is much easier to nail him here than on CQ because...
A) we have much more lattitude here
And
B) On CQ if one doesn't follow the rules, the mods respond quickly and emphatically. The culture there is far more strict.
just a quick comment here for my friend Abbadon.I am not your friend and you have yet to spell my name correctly.
I actually went on CQ a few days ago to see Tim's thread there but didn't stay long.Nope. Your last visit to CQ was November 2017.
secondly and I really mean this. I have all throughout my membership here followed the rules. I have never insulted anybody or tried to run any threads. I have asked a question and received many answers.Which is exactly what tandem socks do.
Tim on several occasions broke the rules here and was reminded by a very many people that rules existed and that he should both follow them and follow the word of Lunar Orbit which is something I am very prepared to do.Sure. But surely you can acknowledge that it looks pretty bleak right now. Yes/No?
may I cast your mind back Abbadon to a post by Lunar Orbit themselves In which he quite clearly instructed the participants to 'KNOCK OFF THE WITCH HUNT'.Sure. How many times is it now that you have intentionally spelt my handle wrong? Two more times in this post. It cannot be anything other than intentional at this stage. The name is in the bible.
are you refusing to comply with that direct order or do you think you are above every one here who has literally not carried on the ridiculous notion you are doing.You really do not want to know what I really think. Just look at your own post. You conceded the incorrect spelling on one hand and then did it again in a single post. Twice. Do you not think that raises some honking red flags? And you still have not returned to CQ, I took a screen shot of it and Waybacked it, so you cannot wriggle out.
just a quick comment here for my friend Abbadon.I am not your friend and you have yet to spell my name correctly.I actually went on CQ a few days ago to see Tim's thread there but didn't stay long.Nope. Your last visit to CQ was November 2017.secondly and I really mean this. I have all throughout my membership here followed the rules. I have never insulted anybody or tried to run any threads. I have asked a question and received many answers.Which is exactly what tandem socks do.Tim on several occasions broke the rules here and was reminded by a very many people that rules existed and that he should both follow them and follow the word of Lunar Orbit which is something I am very prepared to do.Sure. But surely you can acknowledge that it looks pretty bleak right now. Yes/No?may I cast your mind back Abbadon to a post by Lunar Orbit themselves In which he quite clearly instructed the participants to 'KNOCK OFF THE WITCH HUNT'.Sure. How many times is it now that you have intentionally spelt my handle wrong? Two more times in this post. It cannot be anything other than intentional at this stage. The name is in the bible.are you refusing to comply with that direct order or do you think you are above every one here who has literally not carried on the ridiculous notion you are doing.You really do not want to know what I really think. Just look at your own post. You conceded the incorrect spelling on one hand and then did it again in a single post. Twice. Do you not think that raises some honking red flags? And you still have not returned to CQ, I took a screen shot of it and Waybacked it, so you cannot wriggle out.
You are simply going to have to realise that respect is not a right, it is earned.
So far, you have failed to do so.
Sure, you don't like that much. But that is the reality of the internet. As I am at pains to tell my kids, anyone on the internet can represent themselves to be anything. The null is to assume they are not what they purport to be. Now, as it happens, a member may be heading my direction in the not too distant. If I can swing it, we will meet up in the flesh, as it were. It won't be my first time and certainly won't be my last. He/she may even meet my kids, or I his/hers depending upon logistics.
Despite that it has not yet happened, I would entrust my kids to the care of said member.
Want to know why?
The thread is re-opened for the time being.It is? Oh goody.
Yes, I know.just a quick comment here for my friend Abbadon.I am not your friend and you have yet to spell my name correctly.I actually went on CQ a few days ago to see Tim's thread there but didn't stay long.Nope. Your last visit to CQ was November 2017.secondly and I really mean this. I have all throughout my membership here followed the rules. I have never insulted anybody or tried to run any threads. I have asked a question and received many answers.Which is exactly what tandem socks do.Tim on several occasions broke the rules here and was reminded by a very many people that rules existed and that he should both follow them and follow the word of Lunar Orbit which is something I am very prepared to do.Sure. But surely you can acknowledge that it looks pretty bleak right now. Yes/No?may I cast your mind back Abbadon to a post by Lunar Orbit themselves In which he quite clearly instructed the participants to 'KNOCK OFF THE WITCH HUNT'.Sure. How many times is it now that you have intentionally spelt my handle wrong? Two more times in this post. It cannot be anything other than intentional at this stage. The name is in the bible.are you refusing to comply with that direct order or do you think you are above every one here who has literally not carried on the ridiculous notion you are doing.You really do not want to know what I really think. Just look at your own post. You conceded the incorrect spelling on one hand and then did it again in a single post. Twice. Do you not think that raises some honking red flags? And you still have not returned to CQ, I took a screen shot of it and Waybacked it, so you cannot wriggle out.
You are simply going to have to realise that respect is not a right, it is earned.
So far, you have failed to do so.
Sure, you don't like that much. But that is the reality of the internet. As I am at pains to tell my kids, anyone on the internet can represent themselves to be anything. The null is to assume they are not what they purport to be. Now, as it happens, a member may be heading my direction in the not too distant. If I can swing it, we will meet up in the flesh, as it were. It won't be my first time and certainly won't be my last. He/she may even meet my kids, or I his/hers depending upon logistics.
Despite that it has not yet happened, I would entrust my kids to the care of said member.
Want to know why?
first of all the name spelling was intentional as I am getting sick and tired of you.
second I did indeed go to CQ just didn't log in. don't jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts.And had no comment to make since November 2017. Well that is credible. Not.
third we are not tandem socks.The evidence available suggests you are. I have posted my credentials as an engineer. I have met with various in real life. And you have what exactly? Surely you can see how this has all the hallmarks of a game?
I have done what is asked.I don't believe you.
I have no control over what over people who live on the other side of the world do.Correct. The other 96% of humanity watches the US sink into oblivion of ignorance with despair.
fourth it only looks bleak to you because it is only you who insists on following this idea.A rather odd claim given that you slavishly follow tim.
fifth the name spelling is nothing to do with a direct instruction from the sole manager of this site. do what he says.You have already claimed that you spell it wrong purposefully.
finally it isn't my intention to gain anything from anybody other than answers to my questions which I am very grateful for.Except you have had answers to all of your questions with not so much as any response at all.
i'm sure I will ask more in the future.Feel free. I very much doubt you will respond.
it doesn't bother me if I don't gain any trust. as I have said it is only you who is following this line of thought.And you would be wrong in that supposition. Trust is a critical component. As matters stand, you have none.
Yes, I know.just a quick comment here for my friend Abbadon.I am not your friend and you have yet to spell my name correctly.I actually went on CQ a few days ago to see Tim's thread there but didn't stay long.Nope. Your last visit to CQ was November 2017.secondly and I really mean this. I have all throughout my membership here followed the rules. I have never insulted anybody or tried to run any threads. I have asked a question and received many answers.Which is exactly what tandem socks do.Tim on several occasions broke the rules here and was reminded by a very many people that rules existed and that he should both follow them and follow the word of Lunar Orbit which is something I am very prepared to do.Sure. But surely you can acknowledge that it looks pretty bleak right now. Yes/No?may I cast your mind back Abbadon to a post by Lunar Orbit themselves In which he quite clearly instructed the participants to 'KNOCK OFF THE WITCH HUNT'.Sure. How many times is it now that you have intentionally spelt my handle wrong? Two more times in this post. It cannot be anything other than intentional at this stage. The name is in the bible.are you refusing to comply with that direct order or do you think you are above every one here who has literally not carried on the ridiculous notion you are doing.You really do not want to know what I really think. Just look at your own post. You conceded the incorrect spelling on one hand and then did it again in a single post. Twice. Do you not think that raises some honking red flags? And you still have not returned to CQ, I took a screen shot of it and Waybacked it, so you cannot wriggle out.
You are simply going to have to realise that respect is not a right, it is earned.
So far, you have failed to do so.
Sure, you don't like that much. But that is the reality of the internet. As I am at pains to tell my kids, anyone on the internet can represent themselves to be anything. The null is to assume they are not what they purport to be. Now, as it happens, a member may be heading my direction in the not too distant. If I can swing it, we will meet up in the flesh, as it were. It won't be my first time and certainly won't be my last. He/she may even meet my kids, or I his/hers depending upon logistics.
Despite that it has not yet happened, I would entrust my kids to the care of said member.
Want to know why?
first of all the name spelling was intentional as I am getting sick and tired of you.second I did indeed go to CQ just didn't log in. don't jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts.And had no comment to make since November 2017. Well that is credible. Not.third we are not tandem socks.The evidence available suggests you are. I have posted my credentials as an engineer. I have met with various in real life. And you have what exactly? Surely you can see how this has all the hallmarks of a game?I have done what is asked.I don't believe you.I have no control over what over people who live on the other side of the world do.Correct. The other 96% of humanity watches the US sink into oblivion of ignorance with despair.fourth it only looks bleak to you because it is only you who insists on following this idea.A rather odd claim given that you slavishly follow tim.fifth the name spelling is nothing to do with a direct instruction from the sole manager of this site. do what he says.You have already claimed that you spell it wrong purposefully.finally it isn't my intention to gain anything from anybody other than answers to my questions which I am very grateful for.Except you have had answers to all of your questions with not so much as any response at all.i'm sure I will ask more in the future.Feel free. I very much doubt you will respond.it doesn't bother me if I don't gain any trust. as I have said it is only you who is following this line of thought.And you would be wrong in that supposition. Trust is a critical component. As matters stand, you have none.
Sure, I get that as an upstanding, moral citizen you might take offence at the notion that you not. But how the hell could anyone on the intertubes know that? Should we consider anything posted by anyone as true? Simply by dint of being on the webernets?
Sigh. Do you not realise that buckets of people represent themselves in weird terms? That's how internet stalking works. You are impossibly naive.Yes, I know.just a quick comment here for my friend Abbadon.I am not your friend and you have yet to spell my name correctly.I actually went on CQ a few days ago to see Tim's thread there but didn't stay long.Nope. Your last visit to CQ was November 2017.secondly and I really mean this. I have all throughout my membership here followed the rules. I have never insulted anybody or tried to run any threads. I have asked a question and received many answers.Which is exactly what tandem socks do.Tim on several occasions broke the rules here and was reminded by a very many people that rules existed and that he should both follow them and follow the word of Lunar Orbit which is something I am very prepared to do.Sure. But surely you can acknowledge that it looks pretty bleak right now. Yes/No?may I cast your mind back Abbadon to a post by Lunar Orbit themselves In which he quite clearly instructed the participants to 'KNOCK OFF THE WITCH HUNT'.Sure. How many times is it now that you have intentionally spelt my handle wrong? Two more times in this post. It cannot be anything other than intentional at this stage. The name is in the bible.are you refusing to comply with that direct order or do you think you are above every one here who has literally not carried on the ridiculous notion you are doing.You really do not want to know what I really think. Just look at your own post. You conceded the incorrect spelling on one hand and then did it again in a single post. Twice. Do you not think that raises some honking red flags? And you still have not returned to CQ, I took a screen shot of it and Waybacked it, so you cannot wriggle out.
You are simply going to have to realise that respect is not a right, it is earned.
So far, you have failed to do so.
Sure, you don't like that much. But that is the reality of the internet. As I am at pains to tell my kids, anyone on the internet can represent themselves to be anything. The null is to assume they are not what they purport to be. Now, as it happens, a member may be heading my direction in the not too distant. If I can swing it, we will meet up in the flesh, as it were. It won't be my first time and certainly won't be my last. He/she may even meet my kids, or I his/hers depending upon logistics.
Despite that it has not yet happened, I would entrust my kids to the care of said member.
Want to know why?
first of all the name spelling was intentional as I am getting sick and tired of you.second I did indeed go to CQ just didn't log in. don't jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts.And had no comment to make since November 2017. Well that is credible. Not.third we are not tandem socks.The evidence available suggests you are. I have posted my credentials as an engineer. I have met with various in real life. And you have what exactly? Surely you can see how this has all the hallmarks of a game?I have done what is asked.I don't believe you.I have no control over what over people who live on the other side of the world do.Correct. The other 96% of humanity watches the US sink into oblivion of ignorance with despair.fourth it only looks bleak to you because it is only you who insists on following this idea.A rather odd claim given that you slavishly follow tim.fifth the name spelling is nothing to do with a direct instruction from the sole manager of this site. do what he says.You have already claimed that you spell it wrong purposefully.finally it isn't my intention to gain anything from anybody other than answers to my questions which I am very grateful for.Except you have had answers to all of your questions with not so much as any response at all.i'm sure I will ask more in the future.Feel free. I very much doubt you will respond.it doesn't bother me if I don't gain any trust. as I have said it is only you who is following this line of thought.And you would be wrong in that supposition. Trust is a critical component. As matters stand, you have none.
Sure, I get that as an upstanding, moral citizen you might take offence at the notion that you not. But how the hell could anyone on the intertubes know that? Should we consider anything posted by anyone as true? Simply by dint of being on the webernets?
let me just say this again but this will be my very last post to you abaddon as now you are talking nonsense.
I have explained why I haven't been online at CQ. I don't need to say it again.
the evidence doesn't say we are. only in your mind. as evidence I ask you read some of the comments about this by other members who have refused to follow your line of thinking.
when I say I have done what is asked I mean I have followed all rules and provided what has been asked. your 'I don't believe you comment is nonsense.
I have never followed Tim. I asked a question here posed by tim, introduced him as a member and followed the thread with great interest.
I think you will find I have posted quite a few times in this thread. I have had no reason to post more as the people who have answered Tim have far more knowledge than me.
when I say it doesn't bother me I mean its only you doing this. if people here don't show me respect i'm not perturbed. my scientific knowledge pales in comparison so I deserve no respect for that. I haven't asked for any either. I have simply asked a question.
this is the last time I will respond to you Abaddon as in my opinion you have insulted me. whatever you post now or in the future, on this thread or any other (including any other questions I may or not ask) I wont respond to you.
Lunar Orbit I believe I have followed the rules here, in my opinion Abaddon hasn't. I wont respond to any more posts of his while he insults me like this.
He started a new thread which was swiftly closed.
He started a new thread which was swiftly closed.
And so it was.
I was joking with my Wallace and Gromit reference, but I'm beginning to wonder if Tim actually thinks orbital mechanics actually do work that way... :-)
It can be quite difficult to tell the difference between a fool and someone assuming such a role. :o The two are not mutually exclusive, surprisingly enough.
Ben's last visit to CQ? 2017-Nov-21 01:08
Odd that.
I snickered when he said that "if it isn't written it wasn't done" or words to that effect. If he would go back to a 3-D model and then hold up a plane that intersects the Moon in ~3 days he should be able to visualize that orbit ellipse. He says he is done, but we've heard that before, I suspect he will be back.I was joking with my Wallace and Gromit reference, but I'm beginning to wonder if Tim actually thinks orbital mechanics actually do work that way... :-)
Yes, I picked up on your joke. I asked him earlier in the CQ thread if he believed the rocket travelled in a straight line and he ignored me. It dawned on me following his Orion and Apollo equivalence and his insistence of using 2D to represent the problem. He is obsessed by the latter.
He then kept referring to the rocket slowing down due to gravity. This made me realise that he actually thinks it followed a straight line, along with the Orion diagram he presented here. When he then spoke of Bob representing the orbit as a curve, it then became a little more obvious.
I do believe he's taking trolling to a new level though, and it's all a sham on his part to play dumb to keep the debate open for his jollies. So where I say 'he thinks', I mean he's pretending to think. That's my speculation of course.
The thing about all this radiation talk that gets me is that it will probably all be revised in the future. If you read a lot of the Nasa publications and articles they always put a disclaimer? Usually they say something like "Though accurate at the time of publication........ You have to take it as faith that the information is correct and peer reviewed. Might as well just believe in Sasquatch.
Yeah, I asked him why they didn't just fake it to something believable. The answer was something something magic trick, something something Guantanamo.Yeah, I was wondering what direction he was going there. Definitely moving from smartcooky's Dunning-Kruger, through cognitive dissonance and into tinfoil hat territory ::)
Yeah, I asked him why they didn't just fake it to something believable. The answer was something something magic trick, something something Guantanamo.I am sure it made sense somewhere in his head. Besides, apparently you are just a woman and ergo don't count in the timverseTM
They learn some of the obvious mistakes and they learn a few more buzzwords and just enough about concepts entirely above their heads to successfully fake it for an opening post.
What a colossal farting waste of time.
One question that came up last night at CQ was the 7 degree increase in inclination at TLI. A poster argued that we really needed an expert in orbital mechanics as the increase in speed was only 50%, so it would not give a 7 deg increase in the TLI orbital plane. The poster suggested closer to 3.5 deg.
I would be inclined (pun intended) to agree with this estimate. Any thoughts?
I am sure it made sense somewhere in his head. Besides, apparently you are just a woman and ergo don't count in the timverseTM
Yes they are, but tim still doesn't get it nor the 3-D view insisting the trajectory is over the north pole!, Bah look at the first image.
And he's still trying to moderate his own thread. We'll see how long that lasts.
Weird new gambit he's got going on now.well it might be related to Tim's desire that everyone follow him to Facebook where he could control the conversation. He got no takers for that,so he is trying to control the conversation on CQ. That is just a guess. In any event, Tim got dinged for multiple reasons, all of which he knew were not allowed since he had previous warnings for and 1 suspension . I don't recall off the top of my head the steps in the suspension scale on CQ. Nevertheless the mods flat out stated that upon returning any further infractions would result in a ban. Seems a bit severe to me, but I am just a member and not party to mod decision processes.
Wonder where Ben is? He might be able to help with this.
It just reminded me of this
especially the closing line...
That is bloody hilarious!
Weird new gambit he's got going on now.
Wonder where Ben is? He might be able to help with this.
Or he will start commenting, again in the new thread that he doesn't understand the 3-D representations that clearly support Apollo skimming near the upper boundary of the VARB, missing most of the radiation, therein.
Or he will start commenting, again in the new thread that he doesn't understand the 3-D representations that clearly support Apollo skimming near the upper boundary of the VARB, missing most of the radiation, therein.
that's why I was getting annoyed. he was clearly wrong just wouldn't admit it
I don't believe he will last lnof when the suspension is over, but that is just me.
well that's 2 weeks for him to google something else to throw at the wall lol
My money is on a short return punctuated with a final flame-out.
My money is on a short return punctuated with a final flame-out.
That's par for the course in these circumstances.
that's why I was getting annoyed. he was clearly wrong just wouldn't admit it
that's why I was getting annoyed. he was clearly wrong just wouldn't admit it
I am pretty convinced now that he is just a troll on the windup for whatever reason. His complete inability to grasp log graphs, the difference between an average and a minimum, the correct way to compare two data sets to get sound conclusions, geometry and perspective is entirely at odds with his claims on this thread that he is a person who made the 'cream of the crop' to be allowed to serve on a nuclear sub. His actions and his claims lead to four possible conclusions:
1: He is indeed what he says he is and is just a bored troll feigning ignorance looking to get a reaction from people for reasons of his own.
2: He is indeed as inept as he appears to be and was never in fact a serviceman, or at least not one who had to pass a rigorous selection process to obtain one of his postings.
3: He was indeed a serviceman who did come out in the top few percent of his class to get one of his postings, and the entire selection process for US nuclear subs is actually massively deficient.
4: He is just a troll who makes up anything and everything he can just to get a reaction from people.
Given that his 'I'm just asking questions to clarify my understanding' position as an attempted defence of asking questions that have in fact already been answered explicitly is painfully transparent, I'm leaning heavily towards option 4 at this point.
I'll take it, if I can get it. I haven't been able to get within 20 strikes, yet. :'(
Given that his 'I'm just asking questions to clarify my understanding' position as an attempted defence of asking questions that have in fact already been answered explicitly is painfully transparent, I'm leaning heavily towards option 4 at this point.
I'll take it, if I can get it. I haven't been able to get within 20 strikes, yet. :'(
1 round at 89 and that's the only time I broke 90. :'(
I'll take it, if I can get it. I haven't been able to get within 20 strikes, yet. :'(
1 round at 89 and that's the only time I broke 90. :'(
Truth is, my best ever was a 104, but I count all penalties and take no mulligans. Still I love to play when I can. I just am really bad at it. ;D
Poor Tim. I guess he really misses us because he has attempted to register three new accounts since I banned him.:o
TimFinch banned along with the sock puppet (Researcher) he created to circumvent his suspension.
Meanwhile at CosmoQuest:QuoteTimFinch banned along with the sock puppet (Researcher) he created to circumvent his suspension.
Meanwhile at CosmoQuest:QuoteTimFinch banned along with the sock puppet (Researcher) he created to circumvent his suspension.
Meanwhile at CosmoQuest:QuoteTimFinch banned along with the sock puppet (Researcher) he created to circumvent his suspension.
Hmm. I wonder who alerted them to the fact that "Researcher" was Tim's sock puppet? ;)
Grant Hutchinson, I am asking for a friend. After plotting the transit of Apollo 11 on Celestial can you definitively say that the TLI inclination changed during the VAB transit? If so by how much and at what point?
Oh, yeah, my fifteen-month-old lies pretty well, and she's preverbal.Same with this kid at the time. Children, innocent? Ha! ;D
Same with this kid at the time. Children, innocent? Ha! ;D
can i just ask. i read that there were plans to return to the moon in the next 3 years. is this correct.
also do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.
just so everybody knows that wasnt me lolMaybe some of the fencesitters, but those have mostly vanished by now anyway. The hardcore crowd will just say these are fake too. You could boot them out the hatch sans suit, and their last words would be . . . (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qKcJF4fOPs).
can i just ask. i read that there were plans to return to the moon in the next 3 years. is this correct.
also do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.
can i just ask. i read that there were plans to return to the moon in the next 3 years. is this correct.
There are always plans to return to the Moon, they just never reach fruition because administrations change and NASA's budget and priorities get shifted. Apollo was an anomaly in that it had a huge political motivation (beating those evil commies to the Moon), began near the start of a new administration, progressed through a second term for the democrats, and by the time the republicans got into power they were able to ride the coat-tails of a more or less complete project where all the groundwork had been done and only the business of actually scoring the final touchdown remained. Once that was done the project was dismantled. There has never been such a concerted effort with such massive national support in any space project since.
Now, my own view on the return to the Moon subject is that Trump wants to do it because the Chinese said they were going to and he wants to be the next 'winner' of a space race (which also puts a 3 year deadline into the context of getting it done before his first term is over or, if he doesn't get a second, so close to his departure he can claim the credit anyway).Quotealso do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.
Not a chance in hell. HBs are still vocal in the face of every other bit of evidence. You could land the next mission right next to the Apollo 11 descent stage and broadcast live HD TV from the surface and someone would still call it fake.
just so everybody knows that wasnt me lolIf you mean a manned landing, then that would be 2023 at the earliest on Orion EM2 and that depends on:
can i just ask. i read that there were plans to return to the moon in the next 3 years. is this correct.
also do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.
just so everybody knows that wasnt me lolIf you mean a manned landing, then that would be 2023 at the earliest on Orion EM2 and that depends on:
can i just ask. i read that there were plans to return to the moon in the next 3 years. is this correct.
also do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.
A: All goes to plan
and
B: The funding does not get cut.
A: requires a successful Orion AA2 and EM2 launch and B: US gov commitment to keep spending, neither of which are certainties.
Outside of that, you have the Chinese (2036), Japan (2030) Russia (2028) and a few private ventures. It is uncertain how solid those dates are. Or if they are even funded yet.
If you mean unmanned missions, there are several every year anyway. This year, for example, we have Chang'e-4 and Chandrayaan-2, both of which are due to land robotic rovers. Chang'e-5 is due for next year and is a sample return mission.
just so everybody knows that wasnt me lol
can i just ask. i read that there were plans to return to the moon in the next 3 years. is this correct.
also do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.
also do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.A small segment of the Apollo program deniers believe rockets don't work in a vacuum. Therefore any future landings will also be faked in their minds.
Don't thank me. It is in the nature of such missions that delays may occur. Chang'e-4 is due to launch in June. Will it? I have no idea. The Chinese program is a bit opaque.just so everybody knows that wasnt me lolIf you mean a manned landing, then that would be 2023 at the earliest on Orion EM2 and that depends on:
can i just ask. i read that there were plans to return to the moon in the next 3 years. is this correct.
also do you think if we did return the HB would disappear completely.
A: All goes to plan
and
B: The funding does not get cut.
A: requires a successful Orion AA2 and EM2 launch and B: US gov commitment to keep spending, neither of which are certainties.
Outside of that, you have the Chinese (2036), Japan (2030) Russia (2028) and a few private ventures. It is uncertain how solid those dates are. Or if they are even funded yet.
If you mean unmanned missions, there are several every year anyway. This year, for example, we have Chang'e-4 and Chandrayaan-2, both of which are due to land robotic rovers. Chang'e-5 is due for next year and is a sample return mission.
ah ok thanks Abaddon
I took my kids to see Isle of Dogs this evening, and the 3D-rendered-in-2D thing was a joke and a plot device! As an airplane shown in full 2D profile approaches a cablecar tower, also in full profile, one of the dogs says "He'll lose a wing for sure!" and yup, when tower and airplane coincide, off comes the wing and down goes the plane. This in a movie aimed at kids and the general public.Yes they are, but tim still doesn't get it nor the 3-D view insisting the trajectory is over the north pole!, Bah look at the first image.
He cannot compile the three images and work out the trajectory. The 3rd image does indeed look as though it does go over the north pole, but it's just the perspective of the 2D rendering. The perspective from the first two images tells you that Apollo did not go over the north pole.
Guess who has shown up at the Straight Dope Message Board?
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854290 (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854290)
No. Once upon a long ago, I used to chase those morons down. I only do that these days if they invent something grossly egregious.Guess who has shown up at the Straight Dope Message Board?
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854290 (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854290)
Any port in a storm for this lonely "radiation expert".
He didn't last long there, did he?
i'm guessing he meant to be 'Heisenberg'.
Heisenberg is the name he used for one of the sock puppet accounts he created here.
Looks like he's already reduced to complaining that no-one understands him and everyone is wrong.
So, does Tim have any other outlets for his argument?
So, does Tim have any other outlets for his argument?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Toilet_370x580.jpg)
I was reading the thread RanB posted on as a guest and then all of a sudden I couldn't access the thread at all. Found that a bit weird
Peter
I was reading the thread RanB posted on as a guest and then all of a sudden I couldn't access the thread at all. Found that a bit weird
Peter
I bookmarked page 3 to be sure to be able to find it again, and now I have the same problem. So I have registered and have had my account activated - same result. The title was "Apollo 11's mission radiation dose is to low to have made a lunar transit." - Page 3 - Straight Dope Message Board. What comes after the quotemark is part of the link. I have also tried to search for "hesenberg" but in vain. Could the whole thread have been deleted or something?
They tossed the thread and Tim, apparently because it was simply so utterly stupid. Can't really say I blame them. I have some fragments in my cache. It seems to me that Tim simply doubled down on the dumb. Here and CQ, if it is deleted and that is the end of it. On ISF if it is deleted, it appears in a member only spot for the simple reason that nobody will learn from it if nobody can see it. There might be such a location on TSD, I don't know, not being a member.I was reading the thread RanB posted on as a guest and then all of a sudden I couldn't access the thread at all. Found that a bit weird
Peter
I bookmarked page 3 to be sure to be able to find it again, and now I have the same problem. So I have registered and have had my account activated - same result. The title was "Apollo 11's mission radiation dose is to low to have made a lunar transit." - Page 3 - Straight Dope Message Board. What comes after the quotemark is part of the link. I have also tried to search for "hesenberg" but in vain. Could the whole thread have been deleted or something?
It seems the mod thought I was a sock of Hesenberg. I'm not sure how socks are expected to act, but I opposed nearly everything Hesenberg said on the Straight Dope Forum.
It seems the mod thought I was a sock of Hesenberg. I'm not sure how socks are expected to act, but I opposed nearly everything Hesenberg said on the Straight Dope Forum.
You expect me to believe that two people brought their argument to a new forum and were mistaken for sock puppets even though they were on opposing sides? That can't possibly happen. Obviously the only explanation is that you really are Tim Finch, right Abaddon?
I'm kidding, of course. I just wanted to point out that this is exactly what Abaddon would have had me do to Ben Parry. It's why we should not make any assumptions about the motives of people who are new to the forum.
It seems the mod thought I was a sock of Hesenberg. I'm not sure how socks are expected to act, but I opposed nearly everything Hesenberg said on the Straight Dope Forum.
I wasn't sure if you had seen parts 4 and 5. The whole thing was split into chunks originally because of youtube size rules at the time. I have no clue if there was something which provoked svector to reassemble it and publish it again.It seems the mod thought I was a sock of Hesenberg. I'm not sure how socks are expected to act, but I opposed nearly everything Hesenberg said on the Straight Dope Forum.
You expect me to believe that two people brought their argument to a new forum and were mistaken for sock puppets even though they were on opposing sides? That can't possibly happen. Obviously the only explanation is that you really are Tim Finch, right Abaddon?
I'm kidding, of course. I just wanted to point out that this is exactly what Abaddon would have had me do to Ben Parry. It's why we should not make any assumptions about the motives of people who are new to the forum.
all water under the bridge. Abaddon very kindly posted a video of lunar legacy which i'm going to watch in full this weekend. I've blocked Tim on messenger so i havent heard from him since.
I was reading the thread RanB posted on as a guest and then all of a sudden I couldn't access the thread at all. Found that a bit weirdDid you notice any black helicopters while this was happening?
Peter