Radiation

[MBDK]

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.

Oh no.  Now he has entered the "it just doesn't look right to me" realm, as the graph clearly corresponds with the specific data I retrieved, which just happens to be the very data the graph was drawn from.

[Luke Pemberton]

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?

Further, is it a fair assumption to use a recent cycle and extrapolate that data for a different solar cycle? One solar cycle is different to another solar cycle as there is an underlying periodic fluctuation in the solar cycle activity.

This question is are directed at timfinch, not you MBDK.

[timfinch]

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?

You first.  Answer my question.

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

Comparatively speaking. What does that mean?

[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?

Further, is it a fair assumption to use a recent cycle and extrapolate that data for a different solar cycle? One solar cycle is different to another solar cycle as there is an underlying periodic fluctuation in the solar cycle activity.

This question is are directed at timfinch, not you MBDK.

I agree 100%, but since he provided the data, I just wanted to point out that even his own reference did not support his erroneous conclusion.

[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.

Oh no.  Now he has entered the "it just doesn't look right to me" realm, as the graph clearly corresponds with the specific data I retrieved, which just happens to be the very data the graph was drawn from.

You mean that the data you cited was used to draw the graph, and detailed interrogation of that data shows that we cannot assume that the variation in GCR is flat?

[Luke Pemberton]

I agree 100%, but since he provided the data, I just wanted to point out that even his own reference did not support his erroneous conclusion.

I understand your approach, there's nothing like using a person's own data to refute their own claims 

[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?

You first.  Answer my question.

Not playing games here.  Your own reference unquestionably (to a reasonable person) shows your .22mGy/day claim to be absolutely false.  Are you honorable enough to admit that, or are you just going to troll some more?  My point has been made.  Clearly.  Unless you want to continue in a logical manner, and are willing to confront the facts, I have better things to do.

[MBDK]

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.

Oh no.  Now he has entered the "it just doesn't look right to me" realm, as the graph clearly corresponds with the specific data I retrieved, which just happens to be the very data the graph was drawn from.

You mean that the data you cited was used to draw the graph, and detailed interrogation of that data shows that we cannot assume that the variation in GCR is flat?

That sums it up quite well.

[timfinch]

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?

You first.  Answer my question.

Not playing games here.  Your own reference unquestionably (to a reasonable person) shows your .22mGy/day claim to be absolutely false.  Are you honorable enough to admit that, or are you just going to troll some more?  My point has been made.  Clearly.  Unless you want to continue in a logical manner, and are willing to confront the facts, I have better things to do.

.22 mgy/day is false?  What are you talking about.  That is the stated mission dose rate of Apollo 11.  How can you say that is false?

[MBDK]

More juvenile games.  Time to go.  I may check back in later.  Cheers!

[timfinch]

I will concede this silly discussion if anyone can show me a reputable site that states a Cislunar GCR rating of less than .2 mgy/day at anytime in history.  If it has ever been lower than .2 then my argument falls as false.

[timfinch]

More juvenile games.  Time to go.  I may check back in later.  Cheers!

You shouldn't have gone into the deep end of the pool.  There is danger in deep water.

[timfinch]

No takers?  House of cards built on blind faith and nothing more.  When the truth finally comes out, and it will.  You guys are going to fell as gullible as I already think you are.  The energy you use to defend those that deceive you is admirable.  Remember what old Tim always says.  You cannot learn if you already know.  The only way you grasp something new is to let go of something old.

[Luke Pemberton]

I will concede this silly discussion if anyone can show me a reputable site that states a Cislunar GCR rating of less than .2 mgy/day at anytime in history.  If it has ever been lower than .2 then my argument falls as false.

You've been shown from your own data that levels can fall below 0.2 mGy/day.

Further, if you look at the veracity of your own claims, Apollo 14 dose rates were 1.27 mGy/day. What does this tell you about the variation of radiation levels in cislunar space within a solar cycle?

Finally, surely you need data from solar cycle 20 and not solar cycle 24 if you want to test your 'anytime in history claim.' Your argument of extrapolation falls flat given the variations that exist in the background GCR.