Ah, I wasn't expecting a return to the debate!!
I do have a question for Mr Finch, as regards the measured, or generally accepted figures for radiation levels in space beyond the VAB. (I originally brought it up in post #550, but I'll summarise here as well.)
I work for a company which develops data handling technologies* for spacecraft. I'm on the software side of things, but I know our chip design folks have to consider a lot of factors about the environment their designs will be used in. Since the data they're using is based on the generally accepted measurements and models, why aren't there a lot more failures of missions operating in these regions?
As I also noted in my previous post, it's not just NASA that's involved in determining radiation risks, but private companies and other organisations in the US, and around the world, and even small independent groups like the Lunar X-Prize teams.
Either :
a) the failure rates are being covered up, or
b) all the engineers, all over the world, are in some great conspiracy to lie about the figures, or
c) all missions outside of LEO are fakes, or
d) the space radiation environment has been correctly measured and modelled, and allows for safe design of both manned and unmanned missions
Which, in your opinion, is the explanation?
[ * The same technology has been used on well over 100 missions, including LRO, MRO and Mars Express, and will launch on BepiColombo, JWST and several other upcoming spacecraft.]
The technology obviously exist to operate electronic equipment in the SAA and passing through the VAB. Missions in this high radiation background have shorter life expectancies than missions that remain in LEO. I can't begin to answer your question without comparative data. I am sure redundancy and hardened equipment was used in designing electronic equipment for the hazards of space. What has any of this to do with my claim that Apollo 11's mission dose is unrealistic in light of recent empirical data?
Ah, the joys of being in a different time zone... 
The relevance to the Apollo missions is that the data used for shielding, design of rad-hard electronics etc. is based on the measurements over many years, starting pre-Apollo. The published, currently available data, which has been used for many, many missions, shows that the environment outside LEO and the VAB is not as hostile as you claim, and certainly not enough to prevent manned lunar missions.
You're claiming that this data, used by engineers in many countries, is incorrect, and misrepresents the actual environment, but the success and reliability of missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond, to Lagrange points etc. says otherwise.
Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with spacecraft reliability and failure data, because radiation damage is not the primary cause of missions failures (even ignoring launch failure and human errors).
Why would I. I have made no claims about mission survivability. I don't even claim that the radiation hazards are insurmountable. The only claim I make and am willing to defend is the mission doses of Apollo 11 do not represent realistic values in light of current data. Anything else is yours.
Speaking from a non-expert in this field, no, no you are not willing to defend. Hand-waving, deflection, insults, those are your 'debate' method of choice. You have not made any argument that I find remotely convincing. On the other hand, I have read about all of the missions around: Apollo, Gemini, Mercury, Space-X, the Space Shuttle, and even what I can about various Russian (pre- and post- Cold War), and Chinese space missions. What I can say is this (obviously from a very layman's' perspective):
All these missions all occurred as recorded and the data around them is irrefutable. The experts on this forum have bent over backwards to steer you in the direction of a correct diagnosis of the data.
Instead you choose to ignore the information presented, instead you repeat your incorrect assumptions, demand they offer something (I am not sure what) to refute you (which they have
repeatedly done. You then, when you don't get the answer you demand, begin insulting them. You have proven post after post that you do not understand what you are reading, bluster about your military experience (which sounds to me like a standard certificate course the military provides - I have one for my Security Police training, that doesn't make me a lawyer), and
refusal to admit that your initial diagnoses and determinations were simply wrong.
Please stop being obtuse and either admit your are wrong or just go back to your sycophantic forums.
