Radiation

[JayUtah]

Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.

No.  Secondary radiation from GCR is not the same as GCR.  Secondary radiation necessarily occurs at significantly lower energies where aluminum shielding is somewhat effective.  If you look at a normalized graph of full-spectrum detected radiation behind a shield versus shield thickness, you see a rise in the first few millimeters (due to secondary radiation created in the outer regions of the shield) followed by a sharp, not-quite-linear drop as millimeters increase.  This is because secondary radiation created in the outer portion of the shield is then absorbed by the inner layers.  The more inner layers, the better.

Why would it be the shielding of choice?

It is the shielding of choice.  That's a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  The reason it is so despite your belief is that your belief is wrong.  Specifically, you do not understand the complexity of the different species of radiation as they occur in space.

[JayUtah]

I see no point of conflict with any of my stated positions by the author.

Only because you're now trying to retrospectively reinterpret what you said in order to make it sound congruent.

[MBDK]

So am I to understand you believe the technology exist to predict SPE's to the point to provide a safety margin for lunar missions and that his technology existed during the apollo lunar missions?

Darned good question, as you have yet to show much ability to understand any of the principles involved.  You still haven't answered my question regarding your cherry-picking within your own reference.  How do you explain that?

I see no point of conflict with any of my stated positions by the author.  Hence no need to cherry pick.
[/quote]

Yet you did cherry pick in Reply #347.  Is blind denial your new tactic?

[jfb]

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

More projection than an IMAX there.

Tim, seriously, you're dealing with subject matter experts in a wide range of fields, including orbital mechanics, spacecraft design and manufacture, various types of radiation and its effects, visual effects, radio communications, etc.  Their rebuttals are anything but faith-based .  They're based on experience and deep practical knowledge.  You're also dealing with a number of enthusiastic amateurs who've taken non-trivial amounts of time to do their own research in those same fields¹ (probably enough hours to earn an undergraduate degree or two). 

And then you have people who simply understand logic.  Like LO and others have said, a hoax of this magnitude would inevitably have been exposed long before now.  Literally tens of thousands of people (in different countries, not all of whom are friends with the US, no less!) would have to have been in on it.  Like the old saying goes, three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead. 

I've seen this pattern play out in other fora (particularly talk.origins, with people who don't even have a rudimentary layman's knowledge of biology explaining why evolution is impossible to evolutionary biologists).  To borrow a trite argument from that group, you're not the first person to ask "if humans are descended from apes, why are there still apes?"  You're not the thousandth person to ask that question. 

Your arguments here are neither new nor novel. 

You're basically proving out Tom Nichols' thesis in "The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters".  Anyone can find a link on Google or a paper in an "open" journal that supports their particular viewpoint.  The question is (a) whether that paper is representative of the best research on the subject, and (b) whether that paper actually supports your argument or not. 

The radiation levels reported from Apollo in cis-lunar space may well be below that reported by MSL during its transit.  That could come down to differences in detectors; it could be the Apollo-era detectors were less sensitive than the MSL-era detectors.  It could also be that the radiation environment during the Apollo missions really was lower than during the MSL transit - either the Apollo period was unusually quiescent, or the MSL period was unusually active.  Or they could be within a normal range of variation.  Can you eliminate that as a possibility?

There are plenty of explanations that are far, far more likely than "NASA faked the data to make it look like humans could go to the Moon when they really can't." 

It's like I ask of people who claim the surface footage was shot on a soundstage - find me evidence for that soundstage.  Don't waste time arguing over reflections, backgrounds, or perspective - find me a paper trail.  People had to get paid to build it, to design, build, and light the sets, to operate the cameras, etc.  There will be bank records somewhere.  Find pictures from "backstage".  Show me a picture of a grip smoking a cigarette between takes. 

And I'm not talking about the training mockups, which are quite obviously training mockups.  They're not what was presented as the lunar surface during the actual missions. 

^{1.  I am not one of those people.}

[timfinch]

Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.

No.  Secondary radiation from GCR is not the same as GCR.  Secondary radiation necessarily occurs at significantly lower energies where aluminum shielding is somewhat effective.  If you look at a normalized graph of full-spectrum detected radiation behind a shield versus shield thickness, you see a rise in the first few millimeters (due to secondary radiation created in the outer regions of the shield) followed by a sharp, not-quite-linear drop as millimeters increase.  This is because secondary radiation created in the outer portion of the shield is then absorbed by the inner layers.  The more inner layers, the better.

Why would it be the shielding of choice?

It is the shielding of choice.  That's a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  The reason it is so despite your belief is that your belief is wrong.  Specifically, you do not understand the complexity of the different species of radiation as they occur in space.

The fact that the apollo missions had no shielding capable of attenuating GCR is the crux of my belief.  It means mission doses must always reflect background GCR levels and they don't, which is undeniable proof that they never left LEO.

[JayUtah]

There is a considerable difference between detecting and predicting.

No, that's just semantics.  We predict terrestrial weather by observing (i.e., detecting) conditions that experience has shown lead to known consequences.  If the barometer drops suddenly and we predict rough weather will follow, that's no different a situation.  Can you give me any example of scientifically defensible prediction that isn't in some way predicated on first detecting impending signs of the phenomena to be predicted?

The author insinuates that if a solar event occurred, the arrival of the particle wave front at the spacecraft would be the first they'd know of it.  This is simply not true, either from a general science standpoint or a mission planning standpoint.  The author's reference list is scant on the available technical information that would have filled in the gaps in his understanding.  He quotes only from the mission report and from the biomedical results paper.  He omits the various technical experience reports and the statistical abstracts.

Is he not correct in saying SPE's cannot be predicted?

He provides no detail about what he means by prediction.

[timfinch]

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

More projection than an IMAX there.

Tim, seriously, you're dealing with subject matter experts in a wide range of fields, including orbital mechanics, spacecraft design and manufacture, various types of radiation and its effects, visual effects, radio communications, etc.  Their rebuttals are anything but faith-based .  They're based on experience and deep practical knowledge.  You're also dealing with a number of enthusiastic amateurs who've taken non-trivial amounts of time to do their own research in those same fields¹ (probably enough hours to earn an undergraduate degree or two). 

And then you have people who simply understand logic.  Like LO and others have said, a hoax of this magnitude would inevitably have been exposed long before now.  Literally tens of thousands of people (in different countries, not all of whom are friends with the US, no less!) would have to have been in on it.  Like the old saying goes, three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead. 

I've seen this pattern play out in other fora (particularly talk.origins, with people who don't even have a rudimentary layman's knowledge of biology explaining why evolution is impossible to evolutionary biologists).  To borrow a trite argument from that group, you're not the first person to ask "if humans are descended from apes, why are there still apes?"  You're not the thousandth person to ask that question. 

Your arguments here are neither new nor novel. 

You're basically proving out Tom Nichols' thesis in "The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters".  Anyone can find a link on Google or a paper in an "open" journal that supports their particular viewpoint.  The question is (a) whether that paper is representative of the best research on the subject, and (b) whether that paper actually supports your argument or not. 

The radiation levels reported from Apollo in cis-lunar space may well be below that reported by MSL during its transit.  That could come down to differences in detectors; it could be the Apollo-era detectors were less sensitive than the MSL-era detectors.  It could also be that the radiation environment during the Apollo missions really was lower than during the MSL transit - either the Apollo period was unusually quiescent, or the MSL period was unusually active.  Or they could be within a normal range of variation.  Can you eliminate that as a possibility?

There are plenty of explanations that are far, far more likely than "NASA faked the data to make it look like humans could go to the Moon when they really can't." 

It's like I ask of people who claim the surface footage was shot on a soundstage - find me evidence for that soundstage.  Don't waste time arguing over reflections, backgrounds, or perspective - find me a paper trail.  People had to get paid to build it, to design, build, and light the sets, to operate the cameras, etc.  There will be bank records somewhere.  Find pictures from "backstage".  Show me a picture of a grip smoking a cigarette between takes. 

And I'm not talking about the training mockups, which are quite obviously training mockups.  They're not what was presented as the lunar surface during the actual missions. 

^{1.  I am not one of those people.}

Follow the radiation or the lack therein.  It leads to the yellow brick road and the man behind the curtain.

[JayUtah]

Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.

No.  Secondary radiation from GCR is not the same as GCR.  Secondary radiation necessarily occurs at significantly lower energies where aluminum shielding is somewhat effective.  If you look at a normalized graph of full-spectrum detected radiation behind a shield versus shield thickness, you see a rise in the first few millimeters (due to secondary radiation created in the outer regions of the shield) followed by a sharp, not-quite-linear drop as millimeters increase.  This is because secondary radiation created in the outer portion of the shield is then absorbed by the inner layers.  The more inner layers, the better.

Why would it be the shielding of choice?

It is the shielding of choice.  That's a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  The reason it is so despite your belief is that your belief is wrong.  Specifically, you do not understand the complexity of the different species of radiation as they occur in space.

The fact that the apollo missions had no shielding capable of attenuating GCR is the crux of my belief.  It means mission doses must always reflect background GCR levels and they don't, which is undeniable proof that they never left LEO.

And you're just repeating your original claim along with its misconceptions and oversimplifications.

[timfinch]

There is a considerable difference between detecting and predicting.

No, that's just semantics.  We predict terrestrial weather by observing (i.e., detecting) conditions that experience has shown lead to known consequences.  If the barometer drops suddenly and we predict rough weather will follow, that's no different a situation.  Can you give me any example of scientifically defensible prediction that isn't in some way predicated on first detecting impending signs of the phenomena to be predicted?

The author insinuates that if a solar event occurred, the arrival of the particle wave front at the spacecraft would be the first they'd know of it.  This is simply not true, either from a general science standpoint or a mission planning standpoint.  The author's reference list is scant on the available technical information that would have filled in the gaps in his understanding.  He quotes only from the mission report and from the biomedical results paper.  He omits the various technical experience reports and the statistical abstracts.

Is he not correct in saying SPE's cannot be predicted?

He provides no detail about what he means by prediction.

Might I suggest the dictionary?

[timfinch]

Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.

No.  Secondary radiation from GCR is not the same as GCR.  Secondary radiation necessarily occurs at significantly lower energies where aluminum shielding is somewhat effective.  If you look at a normalized graph of full-spectrum detected radiation behind a shield versus shield thickness, you see a rise in the first few millimeters (due to secondary radiation created in the outer regions of the shield) followed by a sharp, not-quite-linear drop as millimeters increase.  This is because secondary radiation created in the outer portion of the shield is then absorbed by the inner layers.  The more inner layers, the better.

Why would it be the shielding of choice?

It is the shielding of choice.  That's a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  The reason it is so despite your belief is that your belief is wrong.  Specifically, you do not understand the complexity of the different species of radiation as they occur in space.

The fact that the apollo missions had no shielding capable of attenuating GCR is the crux of my belief.  It means mission doses must always reflect background GCR levels and they don't, which is undeniable proof that they never left LEO.

And you're just repeating your original claim along with its misconceptions and oversimplifications.

Consistency is a virtue.

[jfb]

Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.

No.  Secondary radiation from GCR is not the same as GCR.  Secondary radiation necessarily occurs at significantly lower energies where aluminum shielding is somewhat effective.  If you look at a normalized graph of full-spectrum detected radiation behind a shield versus shield thickness, you see a rise in the first few millimeters (due to secondary radiation created in the outer regions of the shield) followed by a sharp, not-quite-linear drop as millimeters increase.  This is because secondary radiation created in the outer portion of the shield is then absorbed by the inner layers.  The more inner layers, the better.

Why would it be the shielding of choice?

It is the shielding of choice.  That's a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  The reason it is so despite your belief is that your belief is wrong.  Specifically, you do not understand the complexity of the different species of radiation as they occur in space.

The fact that the apollo missions had no shielding capable of attenuating GCR is the crux of my belief.  It means mission doses must always reflect background GCR levels and they don't, which is undeniable proof that they never left LEO.

And you're just repeating your original claim along with its misconceptions and oversimplifications.

Consistency is a virtue.

Not when you are consistently wrong.

[MBDK]

Aluminum results in a net increase in GCR radiation.

No.  Secondary radiation from GCR is not the same as GCR.  Secondary radiation necessarily occurs at significantly lower energies where aluminum shielding is somewhat effective.  If you look at a normalized graph of full-spectrum detected radiation behind a shield versus shield thickness, you see a rise in the first few millimeters (due to secondary radiation created in the outer regions of the shield) followed by a sharp, not-quite-linear drop as millimeters increase.  This is because secondary radiation created in the outer portion of the shield is then absorbed by the inner layers.  The more inner layers, the better.

Why would it be the shielding of choice?

It is the shielding of choice.  That's a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  The reason it is so despite your belief is that your belief is wrong.  Specifically, you do not understand the complexity of the different species of radiation as they occur in space.

The fact that the apollo missions had no shielding capable of attenuating GCR is the crux of my belief.  It means mission doses must always reflect background GCR levels and they don't, which is undeniable proof that they never left LEO.

You have in no manner shown that the Apollo missions do not reflect background GCRs.  You have not accounted for ANY of the multiple significant differences between the missions, equipment and timing of Apollo vs MSL/RAD.  Also, because the Sun's magnetic field is responsible for diminishing the flux of GCR's the inverse square law comes into play.  This means the farther from the Sun (and its magnetic field) the higher the GCR flux.  How did you take this into account for your "conclusion"?

EDIT:  I retract my portion regarding the inverse square law as the magnetic fields most responsible for the diminished GCR flux are from the SPE's, not the Sun directly. 

[timfinch]

There is a considerable difference between detecting and predicting.

No, that's just semantics.  We predict terrestrial weather by observing (i.e., detecting) conditions that experience has shown lead to known consequences.  If the barometer drops suddenly and we predict rough weather will follow, that's no different a situation.  Can you give me any example of scientifically defensible prediction that isn't in some way predicated on first detecting impending signs of the phenomena to be predicted?

The author insinuates that if a solar event occurred, the arrival of the particle wave front at the spacecraft would be the first they'd know of it.  This is simply not true, either from a general science standpoint or a mission planning standpoint.  The author's reference list is scant on the available technical information that would have filled in the gaps in his understanding.  He quotes only from the mission report and from the biomedical results paper.  He omits the various technical experience reports and the statistical abstracts.

Is he not correct in saying SPE's cannot be predicted?

He provides no detail about what he means by prediction.

I am curious.  Do you believe the apollo astronauts could have survived a major SPE event beyond the VAB if they were given a couple hours advance notice?

[Jason Thompson]

I don't want to be the one to burst your bubble but as GCR is inversely proportion to solar activity

Interesting that you should mention this little nugget of information. The sata you are using to assume your baseline GCR was taken in 2012, during solar cycle 24. As it happens, this cycle was quite a subdued one as they go. If you look it up you can see that the sunspot number peaked around 2012 at about 75. The Apollo missions happened in solar cycle 20, and if you look at the sunspot number for that maximum you can see it was significantly higher than that for the entire duration of the lunar flight phase of the Apollo program (between 100 and 150). Have you factored this into your baseline? No, you just took the MSL data and presented it as a constant GCR background level that should be present in all missions beyond LEO.

SPE's are directly proportional and the threat to personnel increases.

Yes, but they are discrete events and are detectable in the EM spectrum before the spacecraft gets hit by the particle flare. They are also directional. A massive flare from a sunspot on the limb of the sun as viewed from Earth won't send the most intense particle radiation anywhere near the spacecraft. So, the ground control team had time to detect a flare, decide if it was going to impact the spacecraft, and arrange some degree of protective action (which basically meant turning the spacecraft so the bulk of it was between the astronauts and the sun to provide maximum shielding).

[mako88sb]

mako88sb, it never fails to entertain me when hoax/conspiracy proponents argue that the risk was unacceptable, as this speaks volumes regarding their own fortitude.  Men of honor, courage and dedication will do extraordinary things, notably under extraordinary circumstances.  Because of my unique qualifications and knowledge as a Physical Science Technician, when the Fukishima accident occurred, radiological control personnel were needed to assist in the relief and recovery efforts being made.  Prior to knowing how bad things were going to progress (I am happy to say that things had already reached their apex, but no one knew that at the time), I volunteered to go, while others admittedly were afraid to.  I did what I felt needed to be done, and I am still not worthy to carry the jock strap of the Apollo (and many other) astronauts.

Yes, much like they go on about how 60's technology was inadequate for landing men on the moon. Somehow the USA managed to go from small rockets that were unreliable to the Saturn family of rockets that were some of the most complicated machines ever built and had a 100% successful launch rate. Those guys sitting at the tops of each manned mission didn't know that at the time. There could have easily been some malfunction that would have destroyed the launch vehicle. Sure, they had an LES but still pretty gutsy to be an astronaut, that's for sure.