Radiation

[timfinch]

So you believe the structure of the space craft is adequate shielding for the high energy proton flux of a large SPE?

It isn't a matter of what I believe, it is a matter of what I know the contingency plans were, and that in any event putting the entire bulk of the spacecraft between the crew and the Sun offers the best option for shielding against a highly directional proton flux. Several layers of metals, plastics, fuel, oxygen and hydrogen tanks and their contents, the phenolic resin of the heat shield, all the equipment and stowage containers on the interior, and so on.

Can you corroborate that with something other than your opinion?

Not my burden of proof. I am telling you what is known about SPEs, the spacecraft and the plans for mitigating the effects of any SPE that happened to fall in the two-week flight window of any given Apollo lunar mission. This is documented, and I'd provide a link except I read it in a book or two, not by trawling online sources. You want to argue it was inadequate, it is your burden of proof to show this is the case.

So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?  You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

[timfinch]

The only explanation that I can deduce for such a low mission dosage is either it was faked or the equipment was archaic and incapable of measuring accurately exposure in the VAB and cislunar space.

Now explain why 'or I am wrong' is not one of your possible explanations that deserves examination.

I am not the collector of data or the tester of parameters.  I cannot be wrong because I didn't do any of it.  I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported.  Blame NASA, not me.

[JayUtah]

So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

[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"?

The minimum GCR background levels occurred at solar peak and were recorded at .2 mgy/hr.  now if you add the fact that the moon has a higher background radiation than cislunar space as does the trip through the VAB then it is unreasonable to believe that apollo 11's daily dose rate of .22 mgy/day reflects anything but an ELO transit.

Once again, you ignore the difference factors I mentioned.  Why?  Also, since some of their trip was in LEO, those days would naturally be lower for their daily dose rate, thereby lowering the overall average for the entire mission.  You have failed to account for that.  Just another empty car in your logic train.

*Ahem*  That graph is a MISSION dose graph, NOT a daily dose graph.  You also continue to ignore the difference factors.

[Jason Thompson]

So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

Once again, I am not offering an opinion, nor a conclusion. I am telling you what the plans were. You are offering a conclusion, and furthermore one that disgrees with literally the entire professional field in which you are dabbling here. Like it or not, you bear far more burden of proof than I do in this discussion.

You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

Again, I am not offering an opinion. What you think of my opinion is of very little interest. All I actually want from you is to address the facts that are being put to you and do it with some degree of understanding of what scientific rigor actually is.

[JayUtah]

I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported.  Blame NASA, not me.

No, we went through this already.  What's at stake is not the incongruity in the data, but your claim of why the data appear incongruous.  You have put forward a hypothesis you think best explains it.  You're being shown the errors, assumptions, and simplifications in that hypothesis.  Do not mistake an interpretation of the meaning of data for the data themselves.

[timfinch]

So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

[Jason Thompson]

I am not the collector of data or the tester of parameters.  I cannot be wrong because I didn't do any of it.  I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported.  Blame NASA, not me.

Really? You honestly can't see that it is valid to question your conclusion? That you might just not be fully grasping the facts of space flight? That the fact people on this forum here have spent literally decades actually doing this stuff for a living and reach different conclusions to you doesn't in any way suggest that the error might be yours?

[Jason Thompson]

So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demosntrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.

[timfinch]

I am not the collector of data or the tester of parameters.  I cannot be wrong because I didn't do any of it.  I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported.  Blame NASA, not me.

Really? You honestly can't see that it is valid to question your conclusion? That you might just not be fully grasping the facts of space flight? That the fact people on this forum here have spent literally decades actually doing this stuff for a living and reach different conclusions to you doesn't in any way suggest that the error might be yours?

Argumentum ad populum?

[timfinch]

So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demosntrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.

Pardon my insolence and arrogance but I don't know him and my telepathic receptors have a distance limitation.

[timfinch]

I am not the collector of data or the tester of parameters.  I cannot be wrong because I didn't do any of it.  I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported.  Blame NASA, not me.

Really? You honestly can't see that it is valid to question your conclusion? That you might just not be fully grasping the facts of space flight? That the fact people on this forum here have spent literally decades actually doing this stuff for a living and reach different conclusions to you doesn't in any way suggest that the error might be yours?

Personally, I am embarrassed for the lot of you...

[Jason Thompson]

Argumentum ad populum?

No, that is the fallacy of assuming majority consensus makes something right with no foundation in fact. Nowhere, anywhere, has anyone made such a claim. The argument is not the numbers, it is the demonstrated knowledge and epxertise on either side of the discussion. Numbers aside, you come up way short. You're arguing against professionals and qualified individuals. Some people on this forum have actually designed, built and operated space hardware. Some people have been researching this subject, and related ones, for literally decades for a variety of reasons.

[MBDK]

So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demosntrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.

Pardon my insolence and arrogance but I don't know him and my telepathic receptors have a distance limitation.

They have apparently also short-circuited your logic center.  You have yet to adequately reply to my post asking how you figured the LEO portions of the Apollo missions into their daily dose average, or why you continue to ignore the difference factors mentioned.

[timfinch]

Argumentum ad populum?

No, that is the fallacy of assuming majority consensus makes something right with no foundation in fact. Nowhere, anywhere, has anyone made such a claim. The argument is not the numbers, it is the demonstrated knowledge and epxertise on either side of the discussion. Numbers aside, you come up way short. You're arguing against professionals and qualified individuals. Some people on this forum have actually designed, built and operated space hardware. Some people have been researching this subject, and related ones, for literally decades for a variety of reasons.

Unless some people concocted and enacted a global hoaxes then they are not experts on global hoaxes.