Radiation

[timfinch]

So no one but me has directly addressed the elephant in the room in regards to the CraTer data.  Do we need to correct it to a daily dose or not and if we do is that adjustment a multiplier of 24 times?

[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?

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.

So, from that I am to understand that CME's and the subsequent CME induced SPE's do not contribute to the background radiation.  Is that correct?

[Luke Pemberton]

You lost me there.  Help me catch up.

If you are so excited by that graph, then that graph tells us about the modulation of GCR. Answer the questions please.

So if you want to use the data from this graph for Cycle 20, do you agree that your initial premise (based on cycle 24 data) using 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. Does this mean was can reject the CRaTER data, and you initial premise is now proven fallacious.

I'm going to ask the moderator that you answer these two questions.

[timfinch]

Based on all the data we have considered is anyone willing to estimate a realistic background radiation level for the apollo missions?  Something you feel comfortable with?

[Luke Pemberton]

So, from that I am to understand that CME's and the subsequent CME induced SPE's do not contribute to the background radiation.  Is that correct?

That's not what I said. SPEs did not occur an Apollo flight. They contribute to the dose, but are discrete events. CMEs contribute to the background flux but not dose as their energies are insufficient to produce a dose. CMEs have thermal energies, typical of the solar wind. We have been discussing dose, not flux. We've been discussing dose, not flux. Two different things.

[timfinch]

You lost me there.  Help me catch up.

If you are sop excited by that graph, then that graph tells us about the modulation of GCR. Answer the questions please.


So if you want to use the data from this graph for Cycle 20, do you agree that your initial premise (based on cycle 24 data) using 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. Does this mean was can reject the CRaTER data, and you initial premise is now proven fallacious.

I'm going to ask the moderator that you answer these two questions.

The CraTer Data is correct.  It has never been in questioned is the ability to interpret it's data and apply it across solar cycles.  I have stated on multiple occasions that I acknowledge the solar cycle is different but I am under the impression the current solar cycle is more active and as a consequence GCR levels are much higher in this cycle than in 20.  I have been a proponent of disregarding CraTer Data and using NASA GCR ranges of the apollo missions all along.  Where is the disconnect and why do you keep bringing this up?

[timfinch]

So, from that I am to understand that CME's and the subsequent CME induced SPE's do not contribute to the background radiation.  Is that correct?

That's not what I said. SPEs did not occur an Apollo flight. They contribute to the dose, but are discrete events. CMEs contribute to the background flux but not dose as their energies are insufficient to produce a dose. CMEs have thermal energies, typical of the solar wind. We have been discussing dose, not flux. We've been discussing dose, not flux. Two different things.

My bad.  I thought I read that CME's themselves are capable of producing SPE's.  Was I wrong?

[timfinch]

If Solar activity does not raise overall background radiation why would the average radiation be higher during solar peak?  If we took the data and eliminated peaks above a certain magnitude would not the remaining level be higher than GCR level.  I am asking for a friend.

[Luke Pemberton]

My bad.  I thought I read that CME's themselves are capable of producing SPE's.  Was I wrong?

No, only under certain conditions a CME will produce an SPE. A CME event is a precursor for an SPE, but only if the speed of the CME  exceeds a certain value. Also, it tends to be halo-CMEs that produce solar storms at the Earth-moon system. SPE events can graze the Earth or miss completely.

This picture of the magnetic field gives a picture of the problem:

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/solar-radiation-storm

This is  handy table to show you that space is not a raging sea of radiation:

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/noaa-scales-explanation

[timfinch]

My bad.  I thought I read that CME's themselves are capable of producing SPE's.  Was I wrong?

No, only under certain conditions a CME will produce an SPE. A CME event is a precursor for an SPE, but only if the speed of the CME  exceeds a certain value. Also, it tends to be halo-CMEs that produced solar storms at the Earth-moon system. SPE events can graze the Earth or miss completely.

This picture of the magnetic field gives a picture of the problem:

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/solar-radiation-storm

This is  handy table to show you that space is not a raging sea of radiation:

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/noaa-scales-explanation

So, in your estimations it is logical to assume during the most active part of a solar cycle these "certain conditions" can be eliminated from consideration?  Why is that?  I didn't follow your line of reasoning.

[timfinch]

This should clarify it all for me.  If you were planing a tourist trip to the moon, would you plan your trip during solar maximum or solar minimum or something in between?  Why?

[timfinch]

Based on all the data we have considered is anyone willing to estimate a realistic background radiation level for the apollo missions?  Something you feel comfortable with?

[Jason Thompson]

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.

Asked and answered. The data presented are daily dose rate equivalents. If you needed to do anything else they would not be presented in units of cGy/day.

[Jason Thompson]

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?

Repeatedly, you missed us pointing out that NASA does not call this a minimum, but an average over a perod of years.

[Jason Thompson]

So no one but me has directly addressed the elephant in the room in regards to the CraTer data.  Do we need to correct it to a daily dose or not and if we do is that adjustment a multiplier of 24 times?

This has been addressed. Look at the units, then explain why I would take 24 measurements in cGy/day and multiply them by anything to get another measurement in cGy/day. Units are important, but you don't seem to get it.