Radiation

[timfinch]

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/MSL-RAD-radiation-environment-measurements.-Guo-Zeitlin/89c373715bc38905ea2cf8c4ae3709d0e626e218/figure/1

Taken during cycle 24 and enroute to Mars. Rejected based on fallacy of equivalence.

I am sure that you will note that the graph is inclusive of solar cycle 20 .  It is easily over looked.

[timfinch]

I love this graph.  It easily allows a comparison across solar cycles.  What say we used it exclusively for our discussion on GCR levels?  Can we vote on this.

[Luke Pemberton]

We used a ground based neutron detector shielded by the VAB to determine cislunar GCR radiation?  You are good with that assessment?  That is the method you would choose above all others?  Why in your data mining did you pass on this more realistic assessment taken from detectors in space?

If you look at the ground based detectors, they both give greater readings than CRaTER, despite being shielded by the VABs (as you tell us).    You are aware that the C14 in the atmosphere is produced by GCR. So you think that GCR does impinge on the upper atmosphere now?

It's not the point though is it? The ground based detector readings are also modulated with the solar cycle. So answer the question that pertains to the point I was making rather than your strawman.

If the ground based detector readings are modulated by solar cycle, what would that tell us about the CRaTER data, if we had CRaTER data from 1969? Would it be lower or higher?

[Jason Thompson]

And here is a plot of the daily dose rate received over 10-day periods on the CraTER data. I started this set from day 178 on the data file, but of course you can choose any starting point. The clear point here is that once again we see a significant number of 10-day periods where the dose rates lie well below that magical Apollo 11 0.22mGy/day dose...

[Luke Pemberton]

I am sure that you will note that the graph is inclusive of solar cycle 20 .  It is easily over looked.

What, the Year 2011-12 is solar cycle 20? It's taken from the Mars Surface Laboratory, it launched November 26, 2011. The date on the graphs runs from 2011 - 2012.

Graphs still not your strong point Timothy?

[Jason Thompson]

I love this graph.  It easily allows a comparison across solar cycles.  What say we used it exclusively for our discussion on GCR levels?  Can we vote on this.

Why bother? EVen if we show it proves you wrong you will just backtrack.

But assuming you won't, do you agree that it shows a lunar surface dose rate of between 4-6Gy/yr during the period of the lunar phase of Apollo?

[timfinch]

And here is a plot of the daily dose rate received over 10-day periods on the CraTER data. I started this set from day 178 on the data file, but of course you can choose any starting point. The clear point here is that once again we see a significant number of 10-day periods where the dose rates lie well below that magical Apollo 11 0.22mGy/day dose...

Jason, Jason, Jason....  I ask the question again.  Should you not be summing readings over a day to arrive at a daily dose rate and shouldn't some type of multiplier be used to account for the fact that you were not continually monitoring.  If an astronaut only receives discrete pulses of radiation then I guess your method could work, I am not sure but I think it could.

[Luke Pemberton]

But assuming you won't, do you agree that it shows a lunar surface dose rate of between 4-6Gy/yr during the period of the lunar phase of Apollo?

I was hoping Tim would work that out. I am sure he has, but insisted I did so he could reject it.

[timfinch]

I am sure that you will note that the graph is inclusive of solar cycle 20 .  It is easily over looked.

What, the Year 2011-12 is solar cycle 20? It's taken from the Mars Surface Laboratory, it launched November 26, 2011. The date on the graphs runs from 2011 - 2012.

Graphs still not your strong point Timothy?

Are we referring to the same graph?

[Luke Pemberton]

I am sure that you will note that the graph is inclusive of solar cycle 20 .  It is easily over looked.

What, the Year 2011-12 is solar cycle 20? It's taken from the Mars Surface Laboratory, it launched November 26, 2011. The date on the graphs runs from 2011 - 2012.

Graphs still not your strong point Timothy?

Are we referring to the same graph?

When you quote, try not to quote a link with one graph and an attachment at the same time.

[timfinch]

I love this graph.  It easily allows a comparison across solar cycles.  What say we used it exclusively for our discussion on GCR levels?  Can we vote on this.

Why bother? EVen if we show it proves you wrong you will just backtrack.

But assuming you won't, do you agree that it shows a lunar surface dose rate of between 4-6Gy/yr during the period of the lunar phase of Apollo?

I will agree that it shows 4-6 cgy/year during the lunar phase of the the apollo missions, yes, wholeheartedly.

[timfinch]

It would be an amazing stretch of luck to assume no contribution to background radiation from SPE's and CME during the most active  time of a solar cycle when CME's occur at a rate of 3 time a day but let's proceed with this as the basis of our discussion.  Where are we?

[Luke Pemberton]

I will agree that it shows 4-6 cgy/year during the lunar phase of the the apollo missions, yes, wholeheartedly.

... and state your assumptions for that value. Remember, it's based on modelling of ground based neutron detectors.

So if you want to use the data from this graph for CYle 20, do you agree that your initial premise based on cycle 24 data from CRaTER was incorrect.

Would you also agree that Solar cycle 20 is more active than 24, and the dose in cycle 20 is correspondingly lower. Which is what we have telling you all along. This means you can reject the CRaTER data, and you initial premise is now proven fallacious.

[timfinch]

I will agree that it shows 4-6 cgy/year during the lunar phase of the the apollo missions, yes, wholeheartedly.

... and state your assumptions for that value. Remember, it's based on modelling of ground based neutron detectors.

So if you want to use the data from this graph for CYle 20, do you agree that your initial premise based on cycle 24 data from CRaTER was incorrect.

Would you also agree that Solar cycle 20 is more active than 24, and the dose in cycle 20 is correspondingly lower. Which is what we have telling you all along. This means you can reject the CRaTER data, and you initial premise is now proven fallacious.

You lost me there.  Help me catch up.  I was under the assumption that I was promoting a range of .24-6 mg/day citing a NASA report as the basis of that assumption.  I thought I was trying to get everyone to accept NASA's minimum as the reference.  What did I miss?

[Luke Pemberton]

It would be an amazing stretch of luck to assume no contribution to background radiation from SPE's and CME during the most active  time of a solar cycle when CME's occur at a rate of 3 time a day but let's proceed with this as the basis of our discussion.  Where are we?

SPEs are discrete events, so they've taken them out to provide the background GCR flux; that's what the study is interest in. Were there any SPEs during the actual flight of the Apollo missions? No, so we can discount them from this discussion.

You do know the relationship between CMEs and SPEs? I'll tell you, as you don't know.

A large majority of CMEs have Alven wave speeds less than the solar wind. In other words, the matter in the CME contributes to the solar wind.  CMEs above a certain speed produce SPEs by a shock driven event in the plasma. It tends to be a halo-CME event that gives rise to solar storms at the moon-Earth system. a vast majority of CME events produce particles with thermal energies. CMEs are frequent and produce huge amounts of mass, but would not contribute to the overall dose owning to the low energy of the constituent particles.