Radiation

[timfinch]

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

Oh, this old chestnut. Tim, the astronauts went up voluntarily. They had been test pilots. They accepted risks all the time in their professional lives.

[timfinch]

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.

I don't assume I am right.  I assume the data is conflicting.  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.  But we digress.  The evidence is before us.  We can analyze it and come up with independently arrived conclusions or we can get the ready made answer add water and microwave it as we settle in to watch Survivor.  I don't believe it because the government is not above lying and I can see and think. 

[Jason Thompson]

Astronauts can die by many much more abrupt and violent ways. Komarov and the Soyuz 11 crew found that out. Radiation was the least of their worries.

[JayUtah]

Jay may correct me, but they took a risk with SPEs.

That's what "probabilistic model" means.  In practice we categorize SPEs into classes corresponding roughly to orders of magnitude.  And those within a category have roughly equivalent effects on organisms and equipment.  It's not unlike earthquake magnitudes.  There's a big difference in effect between a Richter 6.0 earthquake and a Richter 7.0, but little difference (in effect) between a Richter 6.0 and a 6.2.  Then for each category, a fairly complicated random variable is created with parameters drawn from historical observations.  Then a likelihood function is computed that is the convolution of the categorized parametric model and the mission window -- time and orbital path.  It's heavy-duty statistics, but it is suitable for quantifying risk.

During a solar max peak year, you can expect up to about 6 events in all directions within the ecliptic, of the most hazardous magnitude -- the ones that would have a significant biological effect on the astronauts in the Apollo CSM, up to and including ultimately fatal exposures.  If you fly a 12-day Apollo mission four times a year, you have a reasonably good likelihood of success because all your operations take place on one side of the sun.

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

Was involving the men in the test programme low risk, when 3 of them actually died in the development phase? Was placing astronauts on a rocket filled with kerosene fuel without risk? What about flying into space and insertion into lunar orbit? How about landing on the surface, followed by reinsertion into lunar orbit and docking with the CM? Was that risky? What about reentry?

The missions from inception, through to development and execution were risky. Why place SPEs above any other risk?

[Jason Thompson]

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?

[JayUtah]

...realizing a single SPE could have killed the entire crew.

No, that's being dramatic.

It chills my bones to think the government would be so callous with the lives of the men who dedicated their service to them.

You haven't proven anyone was callous.  You certainly don't have a good conceptual understanding of the risk, and you've provided no pertinent data.  I'm not interested in your personal fears or cold feet.  Keep in mind these men -- most of them -- were already military test pilots.  In the 1960s that occupation had a 25% mortality rate.  So your desperate fear-mongering over whether these men would have accepted a space assignment is comical but non-probative.

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.

It's clear you don't believe it happened.  It's also clear you're not a very honest person.  But it's unfair of you to project that onto other people simply to cushion the consequences of your belief.  Ultimately your level of honesty is not of interest, because you go on to make the mistake of believing that your demon-haunted world has objective, empirical verification.  It clearly does not.

[timfinch]

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?

if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.

[timfinch]

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?

[JayUtah]

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?

[timfinch]

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?

It is merely a thing of curiosity.  Is there harm in asking?

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

[JayUtah]

It is merely a thing of curiosity.

Then it won't matter if no one answers you.

Is 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.

[timfinch]

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.

No, I don't see how the divisions between 1 and ten are evenly spaced.  They are spaced as a function of the logarithm.