Radiation

[timfinch]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

Looks like I touched a nerve.  I'll let the readers decide for themselves who has brought what to this discussion.  Also, you may want to temper your attempts to control the debate.  LunarOrbit will tolerate a lot of things, but one thing he will not tolerate is ordinary users trying to act like a forum moderator or administrator and dictate who can use his board.

[timfinch]

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 as those would be a whole different issue in and of themselves, the remaining area looks pretty close to about .2 mgy/day wouldn't you say?  Remember my assertion is that the minimum a lunar transit should ever have is defined by GCR.  If we exited at the poles and did not enter into lunar orbit then that would be all we got.

[Jason Thompson]

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...

[timfinch]

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...

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?

[JayUtah]

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[timfinch]

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.

No, but one could use a range with a safety margin to calculate expected exposure.

[Luke Pemberton]

The remaining area looks pretty close to about .2 mgy/day wouldn't you say?

Not according to the data, the band in the middle of solar maximum is closer to 0.1 mGy day^-1. I'm looking at the actual numbers, not just the graph.

Remember me telling you that graphs are for pretty, numbers actually inform the analysis. Sorry, but your initial premise of the CRaTER data not being less than 0.2 mGy day^-1 was incorrect wasn't it? That's the crux of the matter.

[JayUtah]

If you sent a moon mission out during a time in which SPE events were occurring regularly...

They don't.

...do you think your baseline would be set by GCR or SPE's?

It's mostly nonsensical to talk about a "baseline" for SPEs.  They're discrete events.

If you were planning such a trip what would you use for an estimate?

For SPEs I use a probabilistic model parameterized with acceptable values for mission success.  For VAB, the Apollo data -- because that's what the industry actually uses.  For GCR, which is the only "baseline" here, a historical model parameterized by time and mission path.
 

[JayUtah]

No, but one could use a range with a safety margin to calculate expected exposure.

No, that's not how it's done.

[timfinch]

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.

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 from a high solar activity point is two fold.  One , you probably wouldn't have sent men there at that time in the first place.  Two the SPE's will raise your exposure considerably.  It is only reasonable to pick a realistic point and proceed from there.

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

[gillianren]

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.

[Jason Thompson]

I standby my assertion.  I propose nothing radical.  The assumption is 4 hours in the VAB,

Which part of the VAB and what kind of radiaiton and flux density is relevant there?

a few hours on the lunar surface

Apollo 11 was on the surface for a day, later missions for up to three days.

and a couple days in lunar orbit.

How do you account for the division between CSM in orbit and LM on the surface in your model?

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.

Agreed.

The problem with picking a average

Who said an average? You want a baseline. That's not the same thing. SPEs are discrete events that can be discounted in determining a baseline.

One , you probably wouldn't have sent me there at that time in the first place.

Yes I would.

Two the SPE's will raise your exposure considerably.

How many are dangerous?