Radiation

[JayUtah]

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.

[timfinch]

We all know that 9/11 was an inside job but does anyone really want to prove it?

[timfinch]

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.

I'm sorry.  Did the Apollo have any shielding capable of attenuating the high energy protons of GCR?

[JayUtah]

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.

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.

Oh really?  What you've claimed to discover is really that important?  The end of life as we know it?

[JayUtah]

We all know that 9/11 was an inside job but does anyone really want to prove it?

There's a separate place on the forum to discuss other conspiracy theories.

[JayUtah]

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.

[timfinch]

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.

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.

Oh really?  What you've claimed to discover is really that important?  The end of life as we know 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.

[timfinch]

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.

What entrapment.  It is a simple question deserving only a simple answer.  If you like I could probaly locate a NASA document that admits as much.

[JayUtah]

I never said end of life, I said the end of our way of life.

Fair enough.

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.

Then if you could go either way on it, I consider it irrelevant to the discussion.

[timfinch]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

If 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.

[timfinch]

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.

If 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.

 Shielding of
SPEs is well understood scientifically, which has led to readily available technology solutions,
with optimization of specific designs to minimize launch mass—an important goal for risk
assessment. However, the high-energies and secondary radiation of the GCR limit most
shielding approaches to small reductions from a baseline shielding configuration.

[timfinch]

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.

[LunarOrbit]

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.

[JayUtah]

The intellectual inertia is great within this group.

Funny how people who have decades of pertinent experience aren't convinced by a bunch of handwaving.  At every step your critics have told you why your argument is unconvincing, and by and large you don't seem very interested.

I will have rethink my strategy for breaching the entrenched defenses of the combined resistance.

Yes, I would urge you to reconsider your approach.  It should be obvious by now that simply insisting the data mean a certain thing won't convince people who work in this field.  It has nothing to do with "entrenched defenses."  No one is convinced by question-begging and bare assertion.

I bid you kind gentlemen goodnight and I hope I didn't ruffle any feathers.  Till the next time.

If this ruffled my feathers I wouldn't do it.