Radiation

[Abaddon]

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?

So now your claim is that some private enterprise is offering moon trips for  2 million.

OK. Maybe that happens on Planet Sausage, but here on Earth not so much. There have been a few "Space Tourists", a very few. They hitched rides on rockets that were going anyway with or without them. On top of that the cost was 20-40 million just to rent a chair.

Once again, your head has married your butt.

[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.

Though now that I think about it, the average age in our household is 20.75!  He should be old enough to understand!

[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?

So now your claim is that some private enterprise is offering moon trips for  2 million.

OK. Maybe that happens on Planet Sausage, but here on Earth not so much. There have been a few "Space Tourists", a very few. They hitched rides on rockets that were going anyway with or without them. On top of that the cost was 20-40 million just to rent a chair.

Once again, your head has married your butt.

Do you ever read the articles or you simply winging your way through this?

[Abaddon]

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.

Your response is nothing? Really? Well, that's convincing......not.

[timfinch]

So, no one wants to discuss real issues?  Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting?  I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello.  I have better things to do with my time.

[gillianren]

Jeez, now I want to do a whole YouTube thing--"Explaining Concepts to My Four-Year-Old."  I'm sure Simon can get his head around "calculated risk."

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

There are several issues going on with the data, and they need to be addressed in some sort of order.

The CRaTER data actually show the complexity of the issue, as the data for the GCR background falls with increasing solar activity, therefore citing an average is utter nonsense.

The CRaTER data very clearly shows that the GCR flux varies significantly about an average.

The next point, which we have not got onto yet, is that the detectors all give different values. So even if we did have CRaTER type data for the missions, could we necessarily compare the data from an orbiting satellite with dosimeter data taken from the CSM and the astronauts. Not all methods of measuring dose are the same.

The argument presented is erroneous given the complexity of the problem, not only from the point of view of the complex nature of space radiation, but measurement theory.

The discussion, why appearing trivial and semantic based, really shows evidence of this claimant's lack of understanding. The log scale might seem trivial to the outsider, but it's actually the source of why the claimant is wrong.

Apologies if you knew all of the above.

[gillianren]

So, no one wants to discuss real issues?  Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting?  I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello.  I have better things to do with my time.

I tried.  I tried to get you to understand that "I don't know how they faked it, but they must have, because my understanding of [thing] proves that it was faked" is less likely than "I don't understand how they did [thing]," but you're not getting that.  Unlike you, I won't ascribe that to any cognitive malfunction.  Frankly, I just don't think you want to admit you're wrong.

[bknight]

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.

tim you were shown that the amount of radiation received during transit of the VARB was < .1 of the total received from the missions, lower GCR's those two values alone are over one half of the roughly two week missions.  Now all you have to do is calculate the amount of radiation received while on the Lunar surface which won't be that much higher than GCR's and you have a mission average of .24 quite simple.

[Abaddon]

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

Sure. You and your ilk have taken away NASA's funding so they can't afford to go anymore. Thus NASA must hitchhike on the efforts of others. Why do you think NASA has a "rent-a-seat" arrangement with Russia to reach the ISS? It is because cranks have made sure that NASA can't afford it on their own.

[Jason Thompson]

Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data.  Is that really not obvious?

It's wrong. You can plot any numbers on any scale. Even your own graphs show that. If the scale goes up by multiples of 10 equidistantly spaced it is a log scale. End of discussion.

[gillianren]

Apologies if you knew all of the above.

Oh, dear Gods, no.  Honestly, I'd never even heard of CRaTER data before this discussion.  Like I said, not my area of expertise.  However, he's taking two areas in which I do have a pretty firm amateur understanding and insisting that I'm just being fooled by a magic trick, so there we are.

[Abaddon]

So, no one wants to discuss real issues?  Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting?  I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello.  I have better things to do with my time.

What issues? The only issue you have presented is that you can't read graphs. That's hardly our problem, is it?

[nomuse]

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.

I can only imagine how much longer it would take to bring him to understanding of distribution. From his first post here, he seems to think the world can be best approximated linearly, and problems treated arithmetically.

[gillianren]

Apologies if you knew all of the above.

Oh, dear Gods, no.  Honestly, I'd never even heard of CRaTER data before this discussion.  Like I said, not my area of expertise.  However, he's taking two areas in which I do have a pretty firm amateur understanding and insisting that I'm just being fooled by a magic trick, so there we are.

Oh, three--I have a better-than-layman's understanding of psychology, too.