Radiation

[timfinch]

Apollo 9 had a daily dose of .20 and did not transit the vab or land on the moon.  Am I expected to believe there is no radiation on the moon or in the VAB.  How can the two missions have essentially the same dose rate?  How does that work in your mind?

[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.

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?

When you average out the CraTer detector's readings, there is no point during the entire solar cycle less than the Apollo 11's daily dose.  How can you theorize that it should not be at least as high as cislunar background?

[MBDK]

Apollo 9 had a daily dose of .20 and did not transit the vab or land on the moon.  Am I expected to believe there is no radiation on the moon or in the VAB.  How can the two missions have essentially the same dose rate?  How does that work in your mind?

Again, that depends on their orbit (SAA transits?) and date of launch in regards to solar activity.  Why don't you answer my questions instead of trying to move the goalpost?

[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.

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?

When you average out the CraTer detector's readings, there is no point during the entire solar cycle less than the Apollo 11's daily dose.  How can you theorize that it should not be at least as high as cislunar background?

It is irrelevant as the data does not agree with your ignorant presumtion.  It REFUTES it.

[timfinch]

We are beating a dead horse and making no headway.  Let's try a different tactic.  Is it safe to assume the radiation levels for the majority of the transit through the VAB are at least as high as the SAA?

[MBDK]

Please answer my questions previously posed.

[timfinch]

Ask the question again.  I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.

[Luke Pemberton]

We are beating a dead horse and making no headway.  Let's try a different tactic.  Is it safe to assume the radiation levels for the majority of the transit through the VAB are at least as high as the SAA?

Why did you take an average over an entire solar cycle when there is a clear link between GCR flux and solar cycle? Do you understand the link between the solar cycle and GCR flux and why this question is pertinent to making headway in context of the data that MBDK has presented? This question is central to your claim, so let us not change tactic to suit, then maybe we can make headway.

[timfinch]

I did not take an average over the whole cycle.  I used the average of all the detectors.  The plot shows the average reading of all the detectors over the span of the entire solar cycle and not once did levels ever go below the Apollo's daily dose.

[MBDK]

Ask the question again.  I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.

Alright, I will rephrase the most important one.  I have given you in post #586, a RANDOM sampling of the data taken during the peak solar activities (remember Apollo 11 went to the Moon during the same phase of the Sun's activity) of your referenced graph (albeit in the separate GCR format provided below the graph), which is in the year 2013.  That RANDOM 5 days of data correlates to exposures easily below .22mGy/day.  A look at the dates well before and after the ones I provided are consistent with that data.  This directly contradicts your claim that the radiation levels were higher that .22mGy/day.  Do you now recognize the error in your assumtions?  If not, SPECIFICALLY why not?

[timfinch]

The CraTer data is empirical proof that the Apollo's mission dose rate is to low to have made a lunar transit.

[Luke Pemberton]

I did not take an average over the whole cycle.

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.

But you said it was fairly flat throughout the cycle, that's essentially taking an average by visual inspection of a graph. You made the assumption that you could simply read off a graph rather than interrogate the data in detail. That's the difference between your approach and the approach of MBDK.

[timfinch]

Ask the question again.  I don't think I missed one but let's give it another shot.

Alright, I will rephrase the most important one.  I have given you in post #586, a RANDOM sampling of the data taken during the peak solar activities (remember Apollo 11 went to the Moon during the same phase of the Sun's activity) of your referenced graph (albeit in the separate GCR format provided below the graph), which is in the year 2013.  That RANDOM 5 days of data correlates to exposures easily below .22mGy/day.  A look at the dates well before and after the ones I provided are consistent with that data.  This directly contradicts your claim that the radiation levels were higher that .22mGy/day.  Do you now recognize the error in your assumtions?  If not, SPECIFICALLY why not?

Look at the graph of the averaged detector's readings.  Is there any point on that graph that goes below .22?  If there is, I don't see it.  Now assuming there is such a point is it low enough to compensate for the higher lundar radiation and the transit through the VAB?

[MBDK]

The CraTer data is empirical proof that the Apollo's mission dose rate is to low to have made a lunar transit.

I have pointed out just the opposite.  You are now just trolling.  I will give you one last gasp, though.  What units are the graph in regarding radiation exposure?

[timfinch]

I did not take an average over the whole cycle.

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.

But you said it was fairly flat throughout the cycle, that's essentially taking an average by visual inspection of a graph. You made the assumption that you could simply read off a graph rather than interrogate the data in detail. That's the difference between your approach and the approach of MBDK.

Data from the Apollo era stated the range of GCR fluctuated from a low point at Solar maximum of .2 mgy/day to a maximum of 2.5 times that at solar minimum which is a considerable variation.  Comparatively speaking the CraTer data does show such a deviation and is relatively flat over the entire solar cycle.