Radiation

[gillianren]

Gillanren,  let me say it again.  I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished.  knowing that there is no magic is sufficient.  The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies.  if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze.  After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...

The hard part is the budget.

It would be except for the fact that every major industrial nation desires to go the moon.  The Japanese, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, The French,Germans, Italians, and a host of others.  Private ventures are in place to send tourist to the moon.  Money is not the issue.

Add "governmental financing" to things you don't understand.  Also, "how much it costs to send people to the Moon."

[timfinch]

Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

I asked if you wanted to use CraTer Data to prove or disprove the point many times and I get a resounding "No" it is not applicable.  Why do you keep bringing it up?

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."

I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.

Show me the data and I will be silenced.

But you yourself posted the data that proves you wrong. If you are unable to read your own data nobody here can help you. Seek a remedial course at your nearest school.

[timfinch]

Gillanren,  let me say it again.  I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished.  knowing that there is no magic is sufficient.  The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies.  if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze.  After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...

The hard part is the budget.

It would be except for the fact that every major industrial nation desires to go the moon.  The Japanese, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, The French,Germans, Italians, and a host of others.  Private ventures are in place to send tourist to the moon.  Money is not the issue.

Add "governmental financing" to things you don't understand.  Also, "how much it costs to send people to the Moon."

Please explain the government financing part of this article:  https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html

[bknight]

Gillanren,  let me say it again.  I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished.  knowing that there is no magic is sufficient.  The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies.  if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze.  After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...

The hard part is the budget.

No money no Saturn V's or support for the missions.  Trivial fact indeed.

[gillianren]

Please explain the government financing part of this article:  https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html

So if this succeeds, you'll admit that Apollo was real?  That you've been mistaken about the radiation issues?  That it's hardly a "magic trick" to produce all the other stuff, and that you are incredibly ignorant of the relevant issues to claim it is?  That no government in the world has budgeted for a manned lunar mission since Apollo, and that it's the only reason there have been no manned lunar missions?

[Abaddon]

Gillanren,  let me say it again.  I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished.  knowing that there is no magic is sufficient.

Duh.

The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies.

Can you take a supersonic transatlantic flight today? You could in the sixties and seventies, why can you not do it today?

if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze.

Ooo, now you have stepped into my area of expertise. You will crash and burn. The AGC did exactly what it was supposed to do, no more, no less. To this day, people build working replicas for a hobby. Guess what? They all work as advertised.

Likely, you have no clue what an AGC is, nor the ability to parse it's source code, but hey, ignorance of the facts hasn't held you back before 

After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...

Hahaha. You seem to think that Apollo happened in isolation. That's hilarious.

[gillianren]

No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?

[timfinch]

Please explain the government financing part of this article:  https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html

So if this succeeds, you'll admit that Apollo was real?  That you've been mistaken about the radiation issues?  That it's hardly a "magic trick" to produce all the other stuff, and that you are incredibly ignorant of the relevant issues to claim it is?  That no government in the world has budgeted for a manned lunar mission since Apollo, and that it's the only reason there have been no manned lunar missions?

It can't be that expensive if a private enterprise can make an adequate profit by charging two passengers a million each.  I told you what it would take to convince me.  Are you suffering from a short term memory disorder?

[Luke Pemberton]

Ooo, now you have stepped into my area of expertise. You will crash and burn. The AGC did exactly what it was supposed to do, no more, no less. To this day, people build working replicas for a hobby. Guess what? They all work as advertised.

I bet Tim hasn't got the foggiest about the AGC. What's the money on this one. I can hear his keyboard frantically being bashed into oblivion as he Goolges AGC.

Have we got computer with the power of a calculator on the Bingo Card?

Tim: Explain your statement about Apollo and the computer with the power of a calculator a little more please.

[gillianren]

It can't be that expensive if a private enterprise can make an adequate profit by charging two passengers a million each.  I told you what it would take to convince me.  Are you suffering from a short term memory disorder?

How much infrastructure has been put in place prior to this that will be relied on for this mission?  How much did that infrastructure cost?

Do you understand why I asked you the other questions about what you'd be admitting if this succeeds?

[Abaddon]

No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?

While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.

[gillianren]

No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?

While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.

I freely admit to being ignorant of most of the radiation discussion.  I'm slightly tempted to try explaining averages to Simon, though, to see if he can understand why "this is the average" necessarily proves that some data will fall below, possibly even significantly below, the stated figure.

[bknight]

Ooo, now you have stepped into my area of expertise. You will crash and burn. The AGC did exactly what it was supposed to do, no more, no less. To this day, people build working replicas for a hobby. Guess what? They all work as advertised.

I bet Tim hasn't got the foggiest about the AGC. What's the money on this one. I can hear his keyboard frantically being bashed into oblivion as he Goolges AGC.

Have we got computer with the power of a calculator on the Bingo Card?

Tim: Explain your statement about Apollo and the computer with the power of a calculator a little more please.

It should be unless there aren't enough squares with all the other willfully ignorant claims.

[gillianren]

No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?

While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.

I freely admit to being ignorant of most of the radiation discussion.  I'm slightly tempted to try explaining averages to Simon, though, to see if he can understand why "this is the average" necessarily proves that some data will fall below, possibly even significantly below, the stated figure.

Okay, I started, and I got as far as "and then you divide it by the number of numbers," and his response was, "That's crazy!"  I guess four is too young to get averages.

[timfinch]

No, see, the only person whose expertise in any field that matters is Tim, unless it can be proven that he doesn't have that expertise, in which case how dare we suggest that expertise is relevant?

While his insults hurled at me are water off a duck's back (graduate engineer and know it) I regard his insults to you as particularly egregious. I would ask him to apologise, but we all know he wouldn't.

I freely admit to being ignorant of most of the radiation discussion.  I'm slightly tempted to try explaining averages to Simon, though, to see if he can understand why "this is the average" necessarily proves that some data will fall below, possibly even significantly below, the stated figure.

The problem is a bit more complex than demonstrating that values fluctuate around an average.  That goes without saying.  The problem is find a window to encompass the duration of a mission that is significantly below average and then repeating such a feat 7 more times.  Remember GCR background radiation is only a portion of the overall radiation.