Radiation

[timfinch]

Tim, you must have cherry picked CRaTER data, because according to this report from NASA states on page 8.
Hypothetical mission doses for solar min.
Apollo-like
1 week
.007 Sv
Manageable

Does seem that high to me and from the data recorded from the missions your estimate that it is too low seems to be incorrect.


https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/DataUsersWorkshop/CRaTER.pdf

http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&s

This iis a plot of the CraTer Data from it's inception till 2017.  8 years worth.  Look at the curve and tell me I misread it.

[bknight]

Tell me if you opened the pdf?
Is this information incorrect?  Why or why not.

[timfinch]

Tell me if you opened the pdf?
Is this information incorrect?  Why or why not.

I opened it and I find nothing wrong with the data.  Note the units of the plot.

[MBDK]

I will remind everyone that the CraTer data revealed that the orbital lunar radiation was higher than expected because the neutron flux coming from the moon elevated levels above background GCR levels 30 to 40 percent.  The depth of penetration of the incoming flux of GCR is such that that the surface has to be radioactive to generate the neutron flux that raised levels that high.  Explain how you think this flux is possible without the surface being radioactive.

Yet you disregard that very data when it conflicts with your ignorance? 

I have given you the data from your own reference that shows it is in complete harmony with the exposure the Apollo astronauts received.  The neutrons are a secondary radiation event from the GCR strikes.  They ARE radioactive particles, but rarely, if ever become does the collision result in a radioactive element.  So, the surface is radioactive in the sense that there are radioactive particles produced by the GCRs, but it is not radioactive in the sense that it is abundant with radioactive elements (which could be a concern if they had a long half-life).

Again, the CraTer data has given you the dose levels that are under the range of average daily dose rates for the Apollo 11 astronauts.  This was your original objection.  Now you are trying to move the goalposts?  Into territories you have already shown no competence in?  Is that REALLY the kind of argument you want to put forth?  And you STILL haven't addressed the LEO exposure and why you disregard it as it relates to their overall daily dose average.

[MBDK]

There seems to be a concerted effort to distract the conversation away from the pertinent facts.  Data indicates orbit and lunar radiation levels are roughly 35% higher than background GCR levels.  CraTer data taken over the full span of a solar cycle show background radiation levels in excess of .3 mgy/day.  A transit through the VAB on any path is in excess of cislunar GCR levels.  How is it possible that Apollo 11 had a dose rate of .22 mgy/day.  This is complex math requiring and advanced degree in rocket science so I am going to need help on this one.

That is a blatant lie.  I showed you where to look for the data, and you can see for yourself, that it encompasses looooooong swaths of the provided timeline.  Why are you ignoring facts?

[MBDK]

Well,  a new quarter has started and I have a fresh new quota for self-righteous, blow hards.  Let's do this!

I'll lead off with a few facts for your consideration.

The current solar cycle began on January 4, 2008, with minimal activity until early 2010. It is on track to have the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750. The cycle featured a "double-peaked" solar maximum. The first peak reached 99 in 2011 and the second in early 2014 at 101. It appears likely that Cycle 24 will end in mid-2018.
This is the graph of dose rate taken by the CraTer Satellite that has been monitoring lunar radiation since 2009.  It is obvious to the casual observer that the background radiation exposure was fairly flat throughout the solar cycle punctuated by SPE events.  It can be deduced by the by even the dullest of intellects that a lunar mission would have as a minimum this background radiation of approximately .3 mgy/day.  Apollo 11 had a .22 mgy/day dose rate.  This is only possible if it never left ELO.


http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&screenheight=&screenwidth=

Let us look at that data, shall we?  Without the spikes for SPE, the lunar daily average measures less than .05 cGy, which is .5mGy/day.  Fair enough, BUT to be realistic, you can look at the specific data for 2013 which is within the peaks, and thus correlates to the same approximate Sun activity period during which Apollo 11 traveled.  Look at those non-SPR numbers,
(from http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/data/2017085/doserates_standard_2017085_alldays_allevents.txt) and you get data that is consistent from day to day:

"2456335.104166   2013   42   2013.1139840   1.333   0.734   1.000   1.8702e-02   1.7726e-02   1.8333e-02   1.0221e-02   1.5785e-02   9.0085e-03   1.5598e-02   9.2391e-03   1.6074e-02
2456335.145833   2013   42   2013.1140982   1.333   0.761   1.000   1.8404e-02   1.9054e-02   1.8450e-02   9.7684e-03   1.6187e-02   1.0216e-02   1.5965e-02   9.4166e-03   1.6368e-02
2456335.187500   2013   42   2013.1142123   1.333   0.738   1.000   1.7298e-02   1.7642e-02   1.9122e-02   8.9207e-03   1.5822e-02   8.9500e-03   1.5526e-02   1.0296e-02   1.6089e-02
2456335.229166   2013   42   2013.1143265   1.333   0.756   1.000   1.8975e-02   1.8092e-02   1.9896e-02   1.0249e-02   1.6089e-02   9.1526e-03   1.6310e-02   1.0720e-02   1.6458e-02
2456335.270833   2013   42   2013.1144406   1.333   0.742   1.000   1.8276e-02   1.7111e-02   1.8640e-02   9.6895e-03   1.5953e-02   8.3184e-03   1.5481e-02   9.7308e-03   1.6527e-02"

Now, that is a RANDOMLY picked 5 day window from 2013.  The HIGHEST dose rate recorded is .019896cGy/day, or .19896mGy/day, and the LOWEST is .0083184cGy/day, or .083184mGy/day.

Those numbers fit very neatly UNDER the Apollo 11 daily dose for their whole trip.  And just to put the slam dunk on your confusion, you STILL have failed to account for their time in LEO, which is part  of their mission exposure, and which also resulted in MUCH lower dose rates for the duration of that potion of the mission.

I am not sure you are looking at the units for the CraTer data correctly or maybe I am not.  I thought it was in cgy/day.

YOU are not.  Look at the units to the left of the graph.

[timfinch]

Well,  a new quarter has started and I have a fresh new quota for self-righteous, blow hards.  Let's do this!

I'll lead off with a few facts for your consideration.

The current solar cycle began on January 4, 2008, with minimal activity until early 2010. It is on track to have the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750. The cycle featured a "double-peaked" solar maximum. The first peak reached 99 in 2011 and the second in early 2014 at 101. It appears likely that Cycle 24 will end in mid-2018.
This is the graph of dose rate taken by the CraTer Satellite that has been monitoring lunar radiation since 2009.  It is obvious to the casual observer that the background radiation exposure was fairly flat throughout the solar cycle punctuated by SPE events.  It can be deduced by the by even the dullest of intellects that a lunar mission would have as a minimum this background radiation of approximately .3 mgy/day.  Apollo 11 had a .22 mgy/day dose rate.  This is only possible if it never left ELO.


http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&screenheight=&screenwidth=

Let us look at that data, shall we?  Without the spikes for SPE, the lunar daily average measures less than .05 cGy, which is .5mGy/day.  Fair enough, BUT to be realistic, you can look at the specific data for 2013 which is within the peaks, and thus correlates to the same approximate Sun activity period during which Apollo 11 traveled.  Look at those non-SPR numbers,
(from http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/data/2017085/doserates_standard_2017085_alldays_allevents.txt) and you get data that is consistent from day to day:

"2456335.104166   2013   42   2013.1139840   1.333   0.734   1.000   1.8702e-02   1.7726e-02   1.8333e-02   1.0221e-02   1.5785e-02   9.0085e-03   1.5598e-02   9.2391e-03   1.6074e-02
2456335.145833   2013   42   2013.1140982   1.333   0.761   1.000   1.8404e-02   1.9054e-02   1.8450e-02   9.7684e-03   1.6187e-02   1.0216e-02   1.5965e-02   9.4166e-03   1.6368e-02
2456335.187500   2013   42   2013.1142123   1.333   0.738   1.000   1.7298e-02   1.7642e-02   1.9122e-02   8.9207e-03   1.5822e-02   8.9500e-03   1.5526e-02   1.0296e-02   1.6089e-02
2456335.229166   2013   42   2013.1143265   1.333   0.756   1.000   1.8975e-02   1.8092e-02   1.9896e-02   1.0249e-02   1.6089e-02   9.1526e-03   1.6310e-02   1.0720e-02   1.6458e-02
2456335.270833   2013   42   2013.1144406   1.333   0.742   1.000   1.8276e-02   1.7111e-02   1.8640e-02   9.6895e-03   1.5953e-02   8.3184e-03   1.5481e-02   9.7308e-03   1.6527e-02"

Now, that is a RANDOMLY picked 5 day window from 2013.  The HIGHEST dose rate recorded is .019896cGy/day, or .19896mGy/day, and the LOWEST is .0083184cGy/day, or .083184mGy/day.

Those numbers fit very neatly UNDER the Apollo 11 daily dose for their whole trip.  And just to put the slam dunk on your confusion, you STILL have failed to account for their time in LEO, which is part  of their mission exposure, and which also resulted in MUCH lower dose rates for the duration of that potion of the mission.

Was it lost on you the fact that the graph I provide was an average of all the CraTer detectors?

[MBDK]

Tim, you must have cherry picked CRaTER data, because according to this report from NASA states on page 8.
Hypothetical mission doses for solar min.
Apollo-like
1 week
.007 Sv
Manageable

Does seem that high to me and from the data recorded from the missions your estimate that it is too low seems to be incorrect.


https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/DataUsersWorkshop/CRaTER.pdf

http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&s

This iis a plot of the CraTer Data from it's inception till 2017.  8 years worth.  Look at the curve and tell me I misread it.

You misread it where it counts the most.  Please re-read post #586, as it tells you exactly how far off you are in relation to Apollo 11.

[Luke Pemberton]

There seems to be a concerted effort to distract the conversation away from the pertinent facts.  Data indicates orbit and lunar radiation levels are roughly 35% higher than background GCR levels.  CraTer data taken over the full span of a solar cycle show background radiation levels in excess of .3 mgy/day.  A transit through the VAB on any path is in excess of cislunar GCR levels.  How is it possible that Apollo 11 had a dose rate of .22 mgy/day.  This is complex math requiring and advanced degree in rocket science so I am going to need help on this one.

No, there is no distraction. Your cherry picking and analysis of numbers have been answered in reply #586 and #598.

You have taken the full span of the solar cycle which is approximately 11 years long? Why would you do this when Apollo missions occurred during the peak of the solar cycle with a duration of a few days. If you take a window in the CRaTER data that is representative of the Apollo missions, the daily dose is representative of that recorded in the literature (reply #586).

By taking a complete solar cycle you are including GCR fluxes that are not representative of Apollo. You need to use data that is representative of a mission that lasts a few day at a point that is representative of the solar cycle for the Apollo missions. You do now the link between GCR flux and solar cycle I take it?

I've also answered this by explaining to you that CRaTER scientists have explained the radiation dose of the moon is not of concern to astronauts during an Apollo like mission, and have done so using scientific articles intended for the lay person; which make direct comparison to those that work in roles with increased levels of radiation.

As for the distraction, no I do not accept this. The answers given to you so far are also pertinent to your claim that the moon is made radioactive by irradiation from GCR. You have revealed that know little of the nuclear physics involved. You have to provide evidence for your claim that GCR exposure leads to 'dangerous radioactive' materials, which is also central to your claim. You made that argument, not us, so be ready to answer questions pertinent to that claim. Your tactic of claiming distraction is used frequently by conspiracy theorists when they cannot answer questions that relate to wider expertise that surrounds their claims.

[timfinch]

Let us do a quick recap.  A lunar transit consist of a trip Trough the VAB plus a trip through cislunar space plus an orbit around the moon and finally a moon landing.  Then the return trip.  Cislunar space is the lowest radiation area in this trip.  It is unreasonable to think that Apollo 11 mission dose is above cislunar space levels let alone representative of a transit through the VAB and a lunar landing. It wouldn't work even if you took the VAB transit out of the picture.

[MBDK]

Well,  a new quarter has started and I have a fresh new quota for self-righteous, blow hards.  Let's do this!

I'll lead off with a few facts for your consideration.

The current solar cycle began on January 4, 2008, with minimal activity until early 2010. It is on track to have the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750. The cycle featured a "double-peaked" solar maximum. The first peak reached 99 in 2011 and the second in early 2014 at 101. It appears likely that Cycle 24 will end in mid-2018.
This is the graph of dose rate taken by the CraTer Satellite that has been monitoring lunar radiation since 2009.  It is obvious to the casual observer that the background radiation exposure was fairly flat throughout the solar cycle punctuated by SPE events.  It can be deduced by the by even the dullest of intellects that a lunar mission would have as a minimum this background radiation of approximately .3 mgy/day.  Apollo 11 had a .22 mgy/day dose rate.  This is only possible if it never left ELO.


http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&screenheight=&screenwidth=

Let us look at that data, shall we?  Without the spikes for SPE, the lunar daily average measures less than .05 cGy, which is .5mGy/day.  Fair enough, BUT to be realistic, you can look at the specific data for 2013 which is within the peaks, and thus correlates to the same approximate Sun activity period during which Apollo 11 traveled.  Look at those non-SPR numbers,
(from http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/data/2017085/doserates_standard_2017085_alldays_allevents.txt) and you get data that is consistent from day to day:

"2456335.104166   2013   42   2013.1139840   1.333   0.734   1.000   1.8702e-02   1.7726e-02   1.8333e-02   1.0221e-02   1.5785e-02   9.0085e-03   1.5598e-02   9.2391e-03   1.6074e-02
2456335.145833   2013   42   2013.1140982   1.333   0.761   1.000   1.8404e-02   1.9054e-02   1.8450e-02   9.7684e-03   1.6187e-02   1.0216e-02   1.5965e-02   9.4166e-03   1.6368e-02
2456335.187500   2013   42   2013.1142123   1.333   0.738   1.000   1.7298e-02   1.7642e-02   1.9122e-02   8.9207e-03   1.5822e-02   8.9500e-03   1.5526e-02   1.0296e-02   1.6089e-02
2456335.229166   2013   42   2013.1143265   1.333   0.756   1.000   1.8975e-02   1.8092e-02   1.9896e-02   1.0249e-02   1.6089e-02   9.1526e-03   1.6310e-02   1.0720e-02   1.6458e-02
2456335.270833   2013   42   2013.1144406   1.333   0.742   1.000   1.8276e-02   1.7111e-02   1.8640e-02   9.6895e-03   1.5953e-02   8.3184e-03   1.5481e-02   9.7308e-03   1.6527e-02"

Now, that is a RANDOMLY picked 5 day window from 2013.  The HIGHEST dose rate recorded is .019896cGy/day, or .19896mGy/day, and the LOWEST is .0083184cGy/day, or .083184mGy/day.

Those numbers fit very neatly UNDER the Apollo 11 daily dose for their whole trip.  And just to put the slam dunk on your confusion, you STILL have failed to account for their time in LEO, which is part  of their mission exposure, and which also resulted in MUCH lower dose rates for the duration of that potion of the mission.

Was it lost on you the fact that the graph I provide was an average of all the CraTer detectors?

No.  But you got lost in the fact that the data I retrieved is from the GCR portion of "For rates split by Solar Energetic Particle Events (SPE) and Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR):"  which is included in your reference just below the graph.  It is divided up into what each of the six detectors registered each day.  Why are you arguing when you cannot fathom the data within your own references?  And how about that LEO exposure?

And, since you can't seem to figure this out by yourself, I must repeat - the HIGHEST levels recorded during those time spans were below the Apollo 11 averages, so the averages of ALL the detectors would be even lower.

[MBDK]

Let us do a quick recap.  A lunar transit consist of a trip Trough the VAB plus a trip through cislunar space plus an orbit around the moon and finally a moon landing.  Then the return trip.  Cislunar space is the lowest radiation area in this trip.  It is unreasonable to think that Apollo 11 mission dose is above cislunar space levels let alone representative of a transit through the VAB and a lunar landing. It wouldn't work even if you took the VAB transit out of the picture.

And some time in LEO, which you conveniently omit.  And I have shown your own data refutes the levels in cislunar space as being higher than they were.  The only thing unreasonable is your obtuse logic.

[timfinch]

The question that looms on the horizon is a simple one.  Is Apollo 11's mission dose commensurate with an 8 day LEO mission or is it way too high fto support that assertion.

[MBDK]

The question that looms on the horizon is a simple one.  Is Apollo 11's mission dose commensurate with an 8 day LEO mission or is it way too high fto support that assertion.

And I have answered it.  There is no problem whatsoever.  What specifically (beyond your own hubris) causes you to ignore that?

[Luke Pemberton]

The question that looms on the horizon is a simple one.  Is Apollo 11's mission dose commensurate with an 8 day LEO mission or is it way too high fto support that assertion.

Let's deal with the other questions first. Do you now understand the data that you cited, which MBDK has kindly helped with, and do you know why you need to use GCR fluxes that are pertinent to a peak in the solar cycle, rather than over a complete cycle?