Radiation

[Zakalwe]

I am not a Conspiracy Theorist.

erm...... Yes you are.
You are suggesting that the Apollo missions did not happen as described in the historical canon. Your "evidence" for that claim is a single thread. You have been shown where your errors lie in your analysis, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. You engage in childish name-calling. You flounced when the debate became a little too much. You are trying to base ideas in an area where you have admitted no professional capacity in and refuse to accept the view of those that have operated in that area. All these are par for the course for conspiracy theorist.
You might not consider yourself to be a believer in conspiracism, but you are only kidding yourself. You are passing the Duck Test with flying colours...you might think that you are making sense, but where most people are standing all they are hearing is a lot of quacking.

[Luke Pemberton]

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?

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

So it partially shields the moon from low energy GCR then? 

... and this is born out by the CraTer data.

Argument by fallacy of strawman. No one has said that there is no GCR on lunar transit, and I did no imply this with my cislunar versus deep space point. I accept that there is a GCR flux on a trans lunar mission. I do not accept your interpretation of the CRaTER data, nor your crude extrapolation to cycle 20.

Cislunar space is deep space.

I beg to differ.

[MBDK]

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.

No, you are trolling.  The data YOU provided has been shown to directly contradict your position.  The numbers are still there to be seen, and the graph MATCHES that data.  And despite repeated requests for SPECIFIC explanations as to why you would disregard them, you claim, with nothing but a hand wave, that the facts I just mentioned do not exist.  It has also been explained why your data can be considered abnormally high, when compared to solar cycle 20, and again, you ignore that.  Earlier you tried to move the goal posts.  NOW you are trying to change the subject.  These are well-known all troll tactics.  Please just return to your bridge.

[JayUtah]

I simply can't make the numbers work and I was hoping you guys might provide some insight.

The insight you were given was that your interpretation of the numbers was based on a flawed and incomplete understanding of how radiation works, how it's measured, how spacecraft work, and how radiation hazards are managed by those who do it for a living.  You chose to disregard that insight because it wasn't what you wanted to hear.  You wanted to hear that you were onto something big.  You wanted to hear only the rebuttals you insisted your critics provide.

Rather than consider the data on its merit, you guys raise shields and establish a defensive posture.

The data are being considered on their merits.  You are being shown how the data do not fit your simplistic model.  Your model has been also considered on its merits and you have been shown where it fails on the merits.  You are being asked to revise your model to account for the data, but you won't because you can't accept the premise that your model can be wrong, and this is where you find yourself.  As for defensiveness, given the number of times you've had to apologize for being too rancorous or for making personal attacks, I think you're being treated appropriately.  Whether you embrace the label, you are a conspiracy theorist in that you are proposing that there is a conspiracy to keep secret the "truth" of where Apollo spacecraft really were.  You've gone so far as to claim my whole profession is part of that conspiracy.  When you can start being honest with yourself, then you can expect to be treated more graciously.

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.

Nonsense.  You show an utter disregard for truth and the means by which it is sought.  Instead you're shopping your crackpot idea -- and the barely-concealed notion that you personally are so much better at "discernment" than the sheeple -- all over the internet to whomever will listen, groveling for the attention that you soon lose when people see that you are consummately arrogant and unteachable.  Until you show that you are no better than the common troll, I will pay you no further attention.  That will require you to admit that you do not understand how to interpret radiation data properly.  Then you can ask for, and receive, the insight that will help you most.

[timfinch]

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.

[Luke Pemberton]

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).

[timfinch]

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).

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.

[Luke Pemberton]

... 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'm sure that I wouldn't, but then I understand the difference between using a graph to determine trend and interrogating data to perform analysis.

[onebigmonkey]

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.

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.

[timfinch]

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.

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.

If I insulted you are anyone else then I apologize.  It is a product of frustration and an eternal struggle I am committed to.

[timfinch]

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf

[timfinch]

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.

[Luke Pemberton]

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?

[timfinch]

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?

YES

• How can you extrapolate between cycle 24 and 20?

The post clearly states solar cycle 20 was not as active as later cycles.

• How does GCR flux vary with solar activity?

GCR flux varies inversely with solar activity.
[/list]