Radiation

[Luke Pemberton]

Consider this graph if you will.  Is is the same graph that performing a median of the data would provide.  All the data is lined up numerically from high to low.  If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat with a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.  The curve is not flat.  That suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.  It is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.

My bold in your quote, as I want to address that point.

1)  The curve won't be flat if the GCR is strongly modulated, will it? The background GCR flux is modulated, so it rises,
     won't it?.
2)  The peak at the end is due to SPE radiation events skewing the data. The SPE event contribute the most by
     magnitude, but temporally the background radiation is predominantly due to GCR.

Your attempts at analysis to step around the issue are quite unremarkable in that you are simply presenting the data in a different way and it tells the same story. You r new graph clearly show there are periods of time where the level is below the threshold, the rise GCR rises for less active parts of the solar, and is skewed for sharp peaks due to SPE events. Remember, this was your initial premise. I being deliberately tautological here.

There are prolonged periods where the GCR flux is below the threshold you stated, in every graph you have presented. That was your initial argument, but in any case you can dismiss the CRaTER data. Please refrain from discussing it again as it does not apply to the solar cycle 20.

[timfinch]

tim we were in the middle of a discussion concerning the amount of radiation received by the Apollo crews.
In post 3 and again in post 17 you stated:

A lunar transit requires transiting 4 radiation areas' The order of magnitude is as follows:
 1. The LEO is the lowest
 2. Cislunar space is the second lowest
 3. Lunar orbit and the lunar surface are the third highest
 4. finally, the Van Allen Belts are by far the highest.

After posting Bob Braeunig's calculation of radiation received during transit through the VARB

https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Your comment was:

I reject these calculations in their entirety. They are a poorly masqueraded attempt to distract. Table 2 of that article list the transit times as follows: Outbound VARB Transit =214 minutes & Inbound VARB Transit =140 minutes. Realizing the VAB span some 37 thousands miles it can be seen in Apollo 11 logs the rate of deceleration was such that the Apollo craft transited the VAB at an average speed of less than 8684 mph. It is not possible that they spent less than 4.5 hours transiting the VAB. Braeuning states that the entire VAB exposursure was from high energy protons and that there was no electron contribution to radiation exposure. Which is ridiculous at any level of consideration. I reject this article as a poor attempt at misdirection.

You have been repeatedly show that the trajectory through the VARB was not through the entire width of the belts but traversed through less dense parts of the torus shaped VARB as show in this video linked several times in this thread.

Now you as can clearly visualize the Apollo CSM transited the portion of the VARB in about 2 hours as Bob indicated, not the 4.5 hours you guess. 
Bob included the electron radiation, you just need to re-read and understand what Bob has calculated. Electron part was included about half way down on the page.

In summary to this long post:
The radiation received was not great through the VARB.
The transit time through the VARB was about two hours.
You are incorrect concerning the radiation received through the VARB, or the trajectory of Apollo and the corresponding time in the VARB.

Show me on this graph were the bad man hurt you.  Pick your color and we will use it in the calculation of a VAB transit.  I assure you that you will not like your color.

[timfinch]

Consider this graph if you will.  Is is the same graph that performing a median of the data would provide.  All the data is lined up numerically from high to low.  If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat with a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.  The curve is not flat.  That suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.  It is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.

My bold in your quote, as I want to address that point.

1)  The curve won't be flat if the GCR is strongly modulated, will it? The background GCR flux is modulated, so it rises,
     won't it?.
2)  The peak at the end is due to SPE radiation events skewing the data. The SPE event contribute the most by
     magnitude, but temporally the background radiation is predominantly due to GCR.

Your attempts at analysis to step around the issue are quite unremarkable in that you are simply presenting the data in a different way and it tells the same story. You r new graph clearly show there are periods of time where the level is below the threshold, the rise GCR rises for less active parts of the solar, and is skewed for sharp peaks due to SPE events. Remember, this was your initial premise. I being deliberately tautological here.

There are prolonged periods where the GCR flux is below the threshold you stated, in every graph you have presented. That was your initial argument, but in any case you can dismiss the CRaTER data. Please refrain from discussing it again as it does not apply to the solar cycle 20.

You just don't get it do you?  I remind you that each individual snapshot is approximately 1/24 of a days exposure.  Yes that is right they are not a days average.  Now having said that I also remind you that the D1 & D2 dose meter readings are uncorrected and should be multiplied by 1.3 to obtain the actual value.  How do you like me now?

[Luke Pemberton]

If your memory served you better you'd remember that I openly acknowledged it was not an apples and apples and comparison.  I wanted to use the stated GCR range of NASA which was 2.4 mgy/day to 6. mgy/day as the basis of my position.

If your memory served you better, the 'standard' you cite was 0.24 and 0.60 mGy day^-1. It's also point out to you that it says nowhere that this is a standard. A standard implies that the figure is broadly used by industry or scientists as a baseline. Only in your head is it a 'standard.' I dismiss any reference to you implying this a standard as it's something you invented in your own mind.

I asked if anyone hand any information to the contrary and then I would use it instead.

If your mathematical skills serve you better, then you'd understand it was an average based on modulated data. The 0.24 mGy day^-1 will have be based on values that are higher and lower.

It was subtle but it obviously went under your radar.

Save the patronising, as your tone is a form of trolling. You've already served a 5 day expulsion for a similar tone.

Touche! Your serve.

Since you place so much reliance on the CRaTER data. Then I take it you won't mind if we put this in the mix then.

http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

I draw your attention to Figure 2. That put the doses due to GCR well below your arbitrary threshold. And you know the nice thing about it... it's a graph that even you might understand, although I doubt that very much.

[Luke Pemberton]

Now having said that I also remind you that the D1 & D2 dose meter readings are uncorrected and should be multiplied by 1.3 to obtain the actual value

Where does the 1.3 come from please?

How do you like me now?

I'm ambivalent.

[timfinch]

Luke, you don't like my graphs and numbers but I am willing to use your numbers to prove my point.  You see there exist no realistic numbers than can validate the apollo lunar transit.  None!  Not old data and not new.  Let's try anyway.  Tell me what numbers you would use and why and I gladly make the calculations using numbers of your choice.

[timfinch]

Now having said that I also remind you that the D1 & D2 dose meter readings are uncorrected and should be multiplied by 1.3 to obtain the actual value

Where does the 1.3 come from please?

How do you like me now?

I'm ambivalent.

You will grow to love me.  The ride start slow but picks up speed as we go along.

http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

Appendix B: Calculation of the D1-D2 Dose Rate [54] Many measurements of space radiation have been, and continue to be, made using silicon detectors. In many experiments, the quantities of interest are the fluxes of individual ion species in particular energy bins. Detectors and electronics are optimized accordingly. ACE/CRIS provides a good example of this. In contrast, CRaTER is optimized to measure energy deposition distributions in silicon over a very wide dynamic range. These measurements must E00H13 SCHWADRON ET AL.: LUNAR RADIATION AND SPACE WEATHERING E00H13 10 of 13 be converted to tissue dose. As in analysis done by other groups [e.g., Beaujean et al., 2002] a single scaling factor is used to perform this conversion. [55] In principle, calculation of dose requires knowledge of the charge, mass, and energy of each incident particle in order to calculate its LET in water; the LET values of individual particles are multiplied by path length (detector thickness), summed and divided by the mass. In practice, we do not have this detailed information, so instead we add together all the energy depositions in silicon and divide by the mass to get the dose in silicon. We then need to account for the difference in ionization potentials between silicon and water. The ionization potential appears in the logarithmic term in the Bethe-Bloch equation, and introduces energy dependence when the ratio of dE/dx in two materials is computed. At typical GCR energies of several hundred to a few thousand MeV/nuc, the ratio of dE/dx in the two materials is fairly constant. The lower ionization potential of water compared to silicon results in larger energy depositions per unit mass for a particle with a given charge and velocity. Careful study shows that for the GCR energy range of interest the ratio of dE/dx in silicon to dE/dx in water is about 1.75, an estimate that includes d-ray escape from finite depths of silicon. This also includes the effect of the higher density of silicon, which must be factored out, resulting in a multiplicative factor of 1.33 to be applied to the silicon dose. This can be seen from considering the sums over energy depositions, DEi, in the two materials:

[bknight]

tim we were in the middle of a discussion concerning the amount of radiation received by the Apollo crews.
In post 3 and again in post 17 you stated:

A lunar transit requires transiting 4 radiation areas' The order of magnitude is as follows:
 1. The LEO is the lowest
 2. Cislunar space is the second lowest
 3. Lunar orbit and the lunar surface are the third highest
 4. finally, the Van Allen Belts are by far the highest.

After posting Bob Braeunig's calculation of radiation received during transit through the VARB

https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Your comment was:

I reject these calculations in their entirety. They are a poorly masqueraded attempt to distract. Table 2 of that article list the transit times as follows: Outbound VARB Transit =214 minutes & Inbound VARB Transit =140 minutes. Realizing the VAB span some 37 thousands miles it can be seen in Apollo 11 logs the rate of deceleration was such that the Apollo craft transited the VAB at an average speed of less than 8684 mph. It is not possible that they spent less than 4.5 hours transiting the VAB. Braeuning states that the entire VAB exposursure was from high energy protons and that there was no electron contribution to radiation exposure. Which is ridiculous at any level of consideration. I reject this article as a poor attempt at misdirection.

You have been repeatedly show that the trajectory through the VARB was not through the entire width of the belts but traversed through less dense parts of the torus shaped VARB as show in this video linked several times in this thread.

Now you as can clearly visualize the Apollo CSM transited the portion of the VARB in about 2 hours as Bob indicated, not the 4.5 hours you guess. 
Bob included the electron radiation, you just need to re-read and understand what Bob has calculated. Electron part was included about half way down on the page.

In summary to this long post:
The radiation received was not great through the VARB.
The transit time through the VARB was about two hours.
You are incorrect concerning the radiation received through the VARB, or the trajectory of Apollo and the corresponding time in the VARB.

Show me on this graph were the bad man hurt you.  Pick your color and we will use it in the calculation of a VAB transit.  I assure you that you will not like your color.

You pick your color of choice and then calculate the radiation received.  SHow your work.

[Luke Pemberton]

Luke, you don't like my graphs and numbers but I am willing to use your numbers to prove my point.  You see there exist no realistic numbers than can validate the apollo lunar transit.  None!  Not old data and not new.  Let's try anyway.  Tell me what numbers you would use and why and I gladly make the calculations using numbers of your choice.

This also includes the effect of the higher density of silicon, which must be factored out, resulting in a multiplicative factor of 1.33 to be applied to the silicon dose.[/glow] This can be seen from considering the sums over energy depositions, DEi, in the two materials:

Good, now since you place so much credence on the CRaTER scientists being correct. What did they conclude about the dose in 1969 from their data and models?

http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

Figure 2 please?

[Jason Thompson]

My claim is and has always been that the baseline for lunar transit radiation dosage has to be GCR.  No mission can have a mission dosage less than GCR.

And no-one here disputes that. It is your inability to actually show that the GCR actually is higher than any Apollo mission dose that is the problem in your arguments, no matter how many times you insts you have proven it. The numbers simply do not work.

If we can't demonstrate the apollo's mission dose was not at least as high as cislunar space radiation

Which we have, repeatedly, but you just won't accept it.

then what hope have we of proving they did any of it?

You've been given a not exhaustive list of things you have to explain if it was faked.

[timfinch]

If your memory served you better you'd remember that I openly acknowledged it was not an apples and apples and comparison.  I wanted to use the stated GCR range of NASA which was 2.4 mgy/day to 6. mgy/day as the basis of my position.

If your memory served you better, the 'standard' you cite was 0.24 and 0.60 mGy day^-1. It's also point out to you that it says nowhere that this is a standard. A standard implies that the figure is broadly used by industry or scientists as a baseline. Only in your head is it a 'standard.' I dismiss any reference to you implying this a standard as it's something you invented in your own mind.

I asked if anyone hand any information to the contrary and then I would use it instead.

If your mathematical skills serve you better, then you'd understand it was an average based on modulated data. The 0.24 mGy day^-1 will have be based on values that are higher and lower.

It was subtle but it obviously went under your radar.

Save the patronising, as your tone is a form of trolling. You've already served a 5 day expulsion for a similar tone.

Touche! Your serve.

Since you place so much reliance on the CRaTER data. Then I take it you won't mind if we put this in the mix then.

http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

I draw your attention to Figure 2. That put the doses due to GCR well below your arbitrary threshold. And you know the nice thing about it... it's a graph that even you might understand, although I doubt that very much.

Explain to me how you are interpreting this graph.  Are you using the red line or the green.  Maybe an average and if you chose one over the other then why.  Finally tell me the value you extrapolated from this graph that I might consider properly the ramifications.

[Jason Thompson]

You just don't get it do you?  I remind you that each individual snapshot is approximately 1/24 of a days exposure.  Yes that is right they are not a days average.

Yes, we know. I showed you two graphs with huge sections of CraTER data where

not one single point

actually goes over your magic 0.22mGy/day threshold. So you can take a day's average, a ten days' average, or any period average you like over those time scales and the average will not (indeed mathematically cannot) exceed your stated minimum GCR dose.

[timfinch]

Luke, you don't like my graphs and numbers but I am willing to use your numbers to prove my point.  You see there exist no realistic numbers than can validate the apollo lunar transit.  None!  Not old data and not new.  Let's try anyway.  Tell me what numbers you would use and why and I gladly make the calculations using numbers of your choice.

This also includes the effect of the higher density of silicon, which must be factored out, resulting in a multiplicative factor of 1.33 to be applied to the silicon dose.[/glow] This can be seen from considering the sums over energy depositions, DEi, in the two materials:

Good, now since you place so much credence on the CRaTER scientists being correct. What did they conclude about the dose in 1969 from their data and models?

http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

Figure 2 please?

This is the model they constructed using information from the past coupled with today's technology.  The blue line represents the results of that modeling.  Do you want to use the value from that table in our estimation of Apollo 11's cislunar dose rate?

[Luke Pemberton]

Explain to me how you are interpreting this graph.  Are you using the red line or the green.  Maybe an average and if you chose one over the other then why.  Finally tell me the value you extrapolated from this graph that I might consider properly the ramifications.

No, you tell me how you interpret it. It's produced by the CRaTER team that you Timothy, hold with so great authority. You tell use how you interpret it, and then answer the question. Does it meet your criteria or not?

LO: I want this moderated if you can spare the time. I want Timothy to interpret the graph, and answer the question I placed in bold.

I suggest no other person here gives the answers. Over to you Timothy. Interpret that graph.

[timfinch]

I remind you that chart not only emcompasses the apollo era it aslo includes the CraTer era as a defacto comparison to the available data on cislunar background radiation.