Radiation

[onebigmonkey]

A little tidbit of information for you to totally disregard.   https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.2014.pdf

Did you disregard the fact that Chandrayaan has photographed human activity on the lunar surface?

[BertieSlack]

Did you disregard the fact that Chandrayaan has photographed human activity on the lunar surface?

I asked Tim that question (twice) on about Page 5 of this thread, along with similar questions about lunar orbit photography from the Soviet Zond program. I haven't looked through all the 50 subsequent pages of comments, but I don't think he ever gave an answer.

[timfinch]

And the Chandrayan data was not disregarded. It relates to 2008. Solar max was 2012-2013, where the GCR rate was correspondingly lower, as has been pointed out numerous times. Along with the fact that solar cycle 20 was more active than solar cycle 24, therefore the GCR flux would be even lower during the Apollo missions than was recorded during solar cycle 24.

Do you even understand that this GRC flux is not constant, and that averages mean by definition that some short time periods will have lower flux and some higher than average?

You people are confusing me.  You rejected the CraTer data because it represents a whole different solar cycle and is not applicable to the conditions that existed during the Apollo missions.  I concurred.  I provide data from solar cycle 20 and now you won't shut up about the CraTer data.  If I submitted and played along, in the end you would reject it because it is not applicable.  Why should I waste valuable time that could be used solving other deceptions the misinformed are to disinterested to look at?  I did the hard part now you do the easy part and open your eyes and your mind.

[timfinch]

Did you disregard the fact that Chandrayaan has photographed human activity on the lunar surface?

I asked Tim that question (twice) on about Page 5 of this thread, along with similar questions about lunar orbit photography from the Soviet Zond program. I haven't looked through all the 50 subsequent pages of comments, but I don't think he ever gave an answer.

What human activity remains exist that a machine could not have been the source of?

[jfb]

I don't know how to respond to you guys.  You have little understanding of the basic math to process this information.  That logarithmic thing was just embarrassing.  In your desperation you grasp any straw that can to save you.  It does not matter what point or if you average all of the points of the CraTer Data the numbers are too high to make the math work.  The transit through the VAB and the lunar orbit and landing by themselves will give you a value greater than the .22 mgy/day.  The fact of the matter is you cannot make a lunar transit under any conditions and not exceed .22 mgy/day.  You couldn't do it if the VAB disappeared and there was nothing but cislunar space.  Wake up and smell the disappointment.  You have been duped and that sucks.  I feel for you'  Rub some dirt on your ego and let's move on.  The truth needs it's warriors.  Regulators, mount up!

Again, I have to ask - why do you think the CRaTER data from solar cycle 24 can be applied meaningfully to solar cycle 20 without adjustment? 

[timfinch]

I don't know how to respond to you guys.  You have little understanding of the basic math to process this information.  That logarithmic thing was just embarrassing.  In your desperation you grasp any straw that can to save you.  It does not matter what point or if you average all of the points of the CraTer Data the numbers are too high to make the math work.  The transit through the VAB and the lunar orbit and landing by themselves will give you a value greater than the .22 mgy/day.  The fact of the matter is you cannot make a lunar transit under any conditions and not exceed .22 mgy/day.  You couldn't do it if the VAB disappeared and there was nothing but cislunar space.  Wake up and smell the disappointment.  You have been duped and that sucks.  I feel for you'  Rub some dirt on your ego and let's move on.  The truth needs it's warriors.  Regulators, mount up!

Again, I have to ask - why do you think the CRaTER data from solar cycle 24 can be applied meaningfully to solar cycle 20 without adjustment?

I don't it is simply a data point to reference.

[benparry]

Tim after starting this thread I have been quietly monitoring it. why are you continuing. surely you must do what Jason has asked quite a few times now or not. if not why not.

[timfinch]

Chandrayaan-1 was in 200 km lunar orbit, where the flux and dose rate measured ~2.8 particles cm-2 s-1 and ~11 µGy h-1 (2.645 mgy/day).   I am not a rocket scientist but I am not an idiot either.  The math does not work for me.

It certainly doesn't. But just think of all the science Chandrayaan-1 would have been able to get done during those 240-hour days. 

My bad.  In my unschooled approach I was under the impression the units were in tenths of an hour.  that negative one exponent through me off.  What is your take on the negative one exponent?

[timfinch]

Tim after starting this thread I have been quietly monitoring it. why are you continuing. surely you must do what Jason has asked quite a few times now or not. if not why not.

Did you not read my response as to why not?  It would be disregarded because it represents a different solar cycle.  They would simply claim that it has no bearing on 1969.

[benparry]

so why don't you just do it. it took Jason 5 minutes. it will take you just as long. just do it.

[timfinch]

so why don't you just do it. it took Jason 5 minutes. it will take you just as long. just do it.

probably for the same reason I don't pick my nose and eat the buggers....

[benparry]

yes but the problem is your refusal to do it makes me think you have something to hide. even if you are right (and I don't think that you are) if you just did it (5 minutes) that would put that to rest.

[Jason Thompson]

What is your take on the negative one exponent?

Our take is that it is the standard mathematical alternative way of writing 'per hour' SImple maths, Tim. 1uGyhr^-1 = 1uGy/hr.

[timfinch]

Ben, the website graphs the data for you.  You select the parameters and it produces the graph.  Why is it necessary in your mind to re-invent the wheel when the shelves are stocked with wheels?  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

[onebigmonkey]

And the Chandrayan data was not disregarded. It relates to 2008. Solar max was 2012-2013, where the GCR rate was correspondingly lower, as has been pointed out numerous times. Along with the fact that solar cycle 20 was more active than solar cycle 24, therefore the GCR flux would be even lower during the Apollo missions than was recorded during solar cycle 24.

Do you even understand that this GRC flux is not constant, and that averages mean by definition that some short time periods will have lower flux and some higher than average?

You people are confusing me.  You rejected the CraTer data because it represents a whole different solar cycle and is not applicable to the conditions that existed during the Apollo missions.  I concurred.  I provide data from solar cycle 20 and now you won't shut up about the CraTer data.  If I submitted and played along, in the end you would reject it because it is not applicable.  Why should I waste valuable time that could be used solving other deceptions the misinformed are to disinterested to look at?  I did the hard part now you do the easy part and open your eyes and your mind.

It isn't the CraTer data that are being rejected, it is your interpretation of them.