Radiation

[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.

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.

Luke, you are sadly mistaken.  There is not a single point in the CraTer data less than .20.  You only have to look at the LEO missions to see that all the apollo lunar missions are well within the range of LEO missions.  That single fact should raise the curiosity in a reasonable intelligent person.  NASA itself quotes the lowest GCR ever recorded is .2 mgy/day.  Search all you want but you will not find it.  But if you should then I will acknowledge defeat and leave this subject to you who are obviously more intelligent than myself.

[Luke Pemberton]

Luke, you are sadly mistaken.  There is not a single point in the CraTer data less than .20.

• How many detectors are aboard CRaTER?
• I've calculated the percentage of times that all n-detectors on CRaTER, on a given day, recorded a dose of less than 0.2 mGy/day (54.5%). Please calculate and publish your own figures to check my results.
• Where, in relation to the solar cycle, is the frequency of all n-detectors recording less than 0.2 mGy/day greatest?
• How does the variation in dose relate to the solar cycle and GCR influx to the inner solar system?
• How can we use the information from the last question to make assumptions about Apollo data?
• What can we say about doses in solar cycle 20 compared to solar cycle 24 and is it possible to extrapolate CRaTER data to make informed quantitative conclusions about doses in solar cycle 20?

[Luke Pemberton]

.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?

He's not saying the stated dose of 0.22 mGy/day for Apollo 11 is false, he's saying that your claim of radiation in cislunar space never being less that 0.22 mG/day is false.

[nomuse]

Any high energy particle with the energy to split an atom can cause the creation of a radioactive isotope that in turn
gives off a neuton that can cause an additional isotope formation.

Now for that gotcha moment. So any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom undergoes this mechanism, every single one? You're telling me that every single GCR with the energy to split a nucleus, will induce fission and produce secondary neutrons and produce radioactive isotopes, or are you saying that any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom has the potential to undergo this mechanism. Be clear what I am asking you here, as I am looking for a clear distinction.

In any case, the primary point is that the secondary radiation created by GCR is no more than that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technician in a year. Your notion that the moon's surface is a barren radioactive wasteland that is not survivable is wrong. A point you seemed to wash over.

I am not telling you every interaction produces the fission of an atom, What I am telling you is the possibility exist at the energy levels of protons of GCR to cause fission.  It does not matter if the resultant radiation is lethal to people in the short term or even the long term.  What is important is the fact that it is radioactive.  The implications are far reaching.  If moon dust is radioactive then the samples are forgeries.  If the samples are forgeries then the landing was faked.  Do I need to continue?

What makes you think no radioactive material was recorded in Apollo samples?

The Space Suit Neil Armstrong was on display in museums and schools for years.  It was heavily coated with dust which should have been radioactive.  If it had been then it would not have been on public display.  I have researched for months looking for any indication that lunar regolith is radioactive and have found nothing.  There is indications of low levels of radiation in moon rocks but nothing on lunar dust.

Oh, come now. As was pointed out upthread, bananas are technically radioactive; they have measurable activity of about 1 microsievert, mostly beta decay of k40. So is a granite countertop. Neither are labeled or controlled or considered hazardous. There is nothing that prevents an Apollo sample from both having activity and being on display in a museum.

Nor is radioactivity a singular measure for any sample. Half-life, you know. The significance of the level of activated lunar soil is that most of the isotopes are short-lived. There's some nice prompt neutron emission but that doesn't mean the stuff continues at that level for the next thousand years.

[Jason Thompson]

Luke, you are sadly mistaken.  There is not a single point in the CraTer data less than .20. 

Yes there is. You've been given it, and you can see it in the actual data. Your inability to read a graph with a logarithmic axis, and refusal to look at the actual numbers the grapha is based on, is the problem here.

NASA itself quotes the lowest GCR ever recorded is .2 mgy/day.

No it doesn't. Your own data that you used to try and support your argument diagrees with this. Look at the actual numbers. Why are you so insistent in your refusal to do it?

Furthermore, as has been pointed out already multiple times, solar cycle 24 was noted as being unusually low in terms of activity even in solar maximum. Solar cycle 20, the one that actualy is relevant to Apollo, was a more active cycle, which would push the GRC level down still lower than the data you present for cycle 24.

[Zakalwe]

Why are you so insistent in your refusal to do it?

Because he'd have to admit that he's not the holder of some special arcane knowledge that lifts the curtain on the wizard, and would have to acknowledge that he's just a (retired) ordinary Joe with an ordinary life like the rest of us schmucks. No, it's far better to maintain a delusion that you are somehow cleverer than all those smart people that worked out how to actually put people on the Moon.

Conspiracism is the ultimate intellectual fallacy.

[timfinch]

What do you guys make of the NASA radiation model compared to empirical data from the MSL/Rad mission?  Now remember this is the model NASA uses to plan space missions.



https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/5_Slaba_NAC_042015_v6_TAGGED.pdf

[Luke Pemberton]

Now remember this is the model NASA uses to plan space missions.

Very interesting, as it clearly shows cycle 20 was clearly a more active time for the sun, which would have reduced the dose values described in the CRaTER data further.

[Luke Pemberton]

What do you guys make of the NASA radiation model compared to empirical data from the MSL/Rad mission?  Now remember this is the model NASA uses to plan space missions.

It's a model used in risk assessment of ISS missions and the design of space vehicles that enter deep space.

How does it apply to a short duration manned mission, such as Apollo?

[gillianren]

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

You've missed the most important question of all.

Why do you assume you're right?  Why don't you think that you might possibly be misunderstanding something, since you're talking about something that you admit isn't your field?  Surely people working in the field might know things that you don't, right?

And as to why no one is leaping to respond to you, did you not consider that maybe people have something to do on Easter?  Easter isn't even a holiday in my religion, and I had plans yesterday.

[Luke Pemberton]

Easter isn't even a holiday in my religion, and I had plans yesterday.

.... with men and other women 

[timfinch]

What do you guys make of the NASA radiation model compared to empirical data from the MSL/Rad mission?  Now remember this is the model NASA uses to plan space missions.

It's a model used in risk assessment of ISS missions and the design of space vehicles that enter deep space.

How does it apply to a short duration manned mission, such as Apollo?

The path to the moon is through deep space?

[Luke Pemberton]

The path to the moon is through deep space?

No it's not. It's through cislunar space. The Earth's magnetosphere has influence on the radiation environment on the far side of the Moon and beyond.

[timfinch]

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

You've missed the most important question of all.

Why do you assume you're right?  Why don't you think that you might possibly be misunderstanding something, since you're talking about something that you admit isn't your field?  Surely people working in the field might know things that you don't, right?

And as to why no one is leaping to respond to you, did you not consider that maybe people have something to do on Easter?  Easter isn't even a holiday in my religion, and I had plans yesterday.

I don't assume I am right.  I am not a Conspiracy Theorist.  I have worked for the government most of my life and I think it is to inept to conduct a conspiracy.  I simply can't make the numbers work and I was hoping you guys might provide some insight.  Rather than consider the data on its merit, you guys raise shields and establish a defensive posture.  I will follow the truth wherever it leads and if it leads to a conspiracy then so be it.  I am interested in protecting nothing but the truth.

[timfinch]

The path to the moon is through deep space?

No it's not. It's through cislunar space. The Earth's magnetosphere has influence on the radiation environment on the far side of the Moon and beyond.

I just read that scientist originally thought the tail of earth's magnetosphere should partially shield the moon from GCR flux but it turns out it provides no shielding to the high energy flux of GCR whatsoever and this is born out by the CraTer data.  Cislunar space is deep space.