Radiation

[JayUtah]

So you don't think they could have relayed transmission through the unmanned craft.  They were not that smart?

No, they can't transmit faster than the speed of light.  In order for NET-1 technicians to have an interactive conversation with a crew on the ground, but make it sound like it comes from the spacecraft, the technician's outbound transmission would have to be relayed back down to Earth, and the astronaut's response would have to be transmitted back up to the spacecraft to be relayed back down to Earth.  That's two round-trips instead of one.  Each round trip is over 3 seconds in the worst case.

[timfinch]

If you say so....

[timfinch]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

But you keep talking about the other stuff anyway.  And you can't get around the fact that the other stuff still has to have an answer in order for your LEO hypothesis to be true.  Your inability to think of those answers isn't a neutral factor in your argument.  If the totality of evidence is best answered by the authenticity of the mission, then that makes it more likely that your interpretation of the radiation information is wrong.  Since there many other factors pointing to the likelihood of error on your part in that respect, you start to see where parsimony leads us.

I am 100% certain of this.

But why are you 100% certain of it?  You haven't convinced anyone that you've given the problem sufficient informed thought to be that sure on the merits.  Instead you tend to devolve into blustery ideology-based arguments -- everyone else is faith-hobbled sheeple, etc.

[JayUtah]

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.

Yes, but not at all in the same way.  GCR, while it ebbs and flows, is a constant, ubiquitous phenomenon.  Solar particle events are events.  Those that would be a danger to manned spaceflight occur only about six times a year during the peak of solar max (2-4 times a year otherwise), while the other aspects of the solar maximum phenomenon keep GCR at bay.  And SPEs are directional.  They go out in shotgun blasts in specific directions that may or may not include the Earth-Moon system.  Trying to compare SPEs and GCR on the same footing is just nonsensical.

Remember about how you disclaimed any expertise in astrophysics?  Given that admission, why do you think you're the one to "burst" anyone's bubble on the relevant subjects?  Does it even occur to you to consider that your hastily Googled tidbits might not be good knowledge?

[timfinch]

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.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322643901_Radiation_Analysis_for_Moon_and_Mars_Missions

[JayUtah]

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.

[timfinch]

According to the author, it was sheer luck that the astronauts didn't die in the trip.  Now if you consider there were nine manned missions to the moon then the odds are astronomical. 

VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The radiation level  on a  flight to  the  Moon or  Mars can vary from moderate over significant to deadly. Moderate radiation levels can be expected when the Sun is almost calm. Then one may overcome a flight to the Moon and back with a moderate shielding without radiation damage. The shielding is only compulsory in the Van Allen radiation belt. The flight path of Apollo 11 avoids the centre of the Van Allen  radiation  belt in  an  elegant  way.  It’s  a  pity  that  this skilful trajectory has  not been  highlighted  by NASA. For  an even  better  avoidance  one  would  have  to  fly  first  a  polar parking orbit and then to turn off in direction Moon – or Mars. But this would cost much more energy.  If the Sun suddenly got  active, what cannot be  predicted, also not for a short time span [lectures of solar researchers] & [14],  one  would  rapidly  be  covered  with  a  health  affecting dose. This  substantial  risk  is  confirmed  by  the  following  two statements of ESA [7] „In the near-term, manned activities are limited to low altitude, and mainly low-inclination missions.“ and  [8]  “During  the Apollo  missions  of  the  1960s–70s,  the astronauts were simply lucky not to have been in space during a  major  solar  eruption  that  would  have  flooded  their spacecraft with  deadly radiation”. With  other words  a lunar mission or beyond is regarded as not controllable. The  radiation,  specifically  the  massive  rise  from  500  to 1000  km  altitude  [Fig.  3],  is  also  a  main  reason  why  the International  Space  Station  ISS  remains  between  300  and 400 km altitude.

Radiation Analysis for Moon and Mars Missions (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322643901_Radiation_Analysis_for_Moon_and_Mars_Missions [accessed Mar 26 2018].

[JayUtah]

According to the author, it was sheer luck that the astronauts didn't die in the trip.

Same question:  what steps did you take to ensure your author was a suitable authority on the subject, such that his opinions would have evidentiary value?  If you're going to rely on his authority and expertise, you have to first lay a foundation for it.

[timfinch]

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.

[JayUtah]

Additionally, if you're going to cite this author as an authority, are you able to reconcile your claims in this forum with assertions he's made in the paper, such as that aluminum is commonly used as a radiation shielding material, and that translunar and interplanetary trajectories are possible that don't involve flying through the Van Allen belts?

[timfinch]

Feel free to disregard any information that doesn't support your hypothesis.  It is the way of religious fanatics isn't it?

[JayUtah]

I am not sure I am qualified to ascertain his qualifications as I am a lowly Industrial Maintenance Electrician with not astrophysical training whatsoever.

I am sure you are not qualified to assess his qualifications, therefore to pose him as an authority is hopeful at best.  I am also sure you are not qualified to assess the paper on its merits, to determine whether a defensible methodology was pursued, or to determine whether his conclusions would be indicative of the prevailing knowledge in the field.  Would it be accurate to say that you're simply grasping for any and all material you think supports your case, regardless of its objective merit, instead of seeking to understand the subjects that pertain to your theory irrespective of whether the theory is true?

[timfinch]

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?  Even scientist rely upon the research of others.  It is our collective knowledge that empowers us and not the sole efforts of any single person.  Consider the article and take from it what you may.

[JayUtah]

Feel free to disregard any information that doesn't support your hypothesis.  It is the way of religious fanatics isn't it?

Name-calling is childish and disrespectful.

I'm not questioning the information because it seems to contradict a hypothesis.  I'm questioning the information because there are factors immediately present that indicate the information may not be reliable.  First, the author does not state any qualification except his place of employment and a vague claim to have worked in the aerospace field.  From his online profile I am able to glean the kind of work he does there, and there is nothing that requires expertise in cislunar or interplanetary radiation.  Second, he has self-published his findings.  Third, he lists no reviewers for his publication.  Those factors would normally accompany research that is intended to achieve scientific rigor.

Those factors notwithstanding, I am proceeding to evaluate the paper on its merits.  You urged us to take our time in digesting it, so you'll please have patience while that occurs.  I'm in the second column of page 1 and I've already run into a methodology snag.  The author attempts to use an online space radiation modeling tool to estimate the dose rates for orbits in the Van Allen belts, but he does not manipulate the model according to geomagnetic parameters nor orbital elements.  This indicates a simplistic approach to his survey.