Radiation

[molesworth]

...

You expect me to believe that the shielding on the Apollo 11 craft was superior to the orion craft that launched 50 years later and probed the heart of the VAB?  Is that what you want me to believe.  Really?

No, "belief" has nothing to do with it.  A rigorous approach would be to find out from verifiable sources (peer-reviewed if possible) what sheilding is incorporated into the designs of the Apollo and Orion modules, what radiation environments they encountered, and what dosage rates were measured in each.

And remember, not all space missions are equal.  The Orion unmanned test flight was sent through higher energy regions of the VARB for various reasons which, again, are well documented.

There is a huge amount of data available these days on almost every aspect of manned and unmanned spaceflight (apart, obviously, from most military and many commercial missions) which will provide input to, or directly answer, these issues.  Your approach to date seems to be to google a specific term and copy'n'paste a wall of text from the first hit.

As I've said before, you need to read the papers (not just the abstracts), understand them, go through the calulations, follow important references to other material, rinse and repeat.  A scattershot approach of repeating information which many people here already know, and not taking the time to understand it, is not helping your case.

[smartcooky]

So now you want me to believe that the Apollo had some form of shielding other than superstructure and equipment

No, the shielding is provided by the superstructure and equipment. The composition of the command module is not hard to come by in technical documentation. Can you do the calculation yourself to show that those layers of aluminium, steel, phenolic resin, kapton, plastics and so on are actually 'zero' shielding?

and and this space age shielding while highly effective to VAB proton and electron fluxes is permeable to GCR and SPE and neutron flux.

Yes, because they have different energies. This is the whole point of this entire discussion. I honestly cannot believe you don't actually get this at this point.

You expect me to believe that the shielding on the Apollo 11 craft was superior to the orion craft that launched 50 years later and probed the heart of the VAB?

Again no. The Apollo shielding was adequate for the part of the belts it actually passed through. You have been told and shown countless times how it avoided the 'heart' of the belts. Again, this is looking like wilful obtuseness designed to provoke us.

tim's approach is a great example of failure to understand that things in engineering are often designed with more than one purpose in mind and that very often, design features are multiply interconnected.

A good example of this is your car; it almost certainly has a windscreen. Ostensibly, it is there to protect the driver from the wind and the elements, but of course this is not its only purpose, if it were, then it could be made of steel. The windscreen also acts as a structural element of the car; it keeps the roof from collapsing. It also acts as a kind of backing plate for the passenger side airbag.

Of course, the reason it is made of glass is so that the driver can see where he is going.

CT's like tim think very one-dimensionally... if Apollo didn't have something that was specifically called "radiation shielding" then they conclude this means it had no shielding at all and was unprotected from radiation. Such a claim is just as ridiculous as claiming that you are totally unprotected from the car roof collapsing in an accident simply because the windscreen isn't called a roof brace. 

[Abaddon]

You have not proven the car has no engine.  At absolute best, you have proved that you don't understand how fuel efficiency works.  I have shown you ticket stubs from attractions across the country with my fingerprints on them.  I have shown you date-stamped pictures of me in front of buildings there, and other people have taken pictures showing me from different angles that show I was there.  You haven't looked at my car.  You have claimed, without knowing anything about my engine, that I haven't stopped for gas often enough.  But you don't know what mileage my car gets or what route I took to get there.

Thanks Gillian - an excellent analogy!

Tim is at the stage of having doubts about the receipts produced for buying fuel on the trip, despite having demonstrated no understanding of how a car engine works, or what the factory fuel efficency is for your model...

Thank you kindly!  To my mind, proving the car had no engine would be more like proving that the capsule couldn't have had enough fuel to get to the Moon and back, which of course would take quite a lot of understanding of engineering to get.

Car engine =Rocket engine.... Rocket fuel = Gasoline.  The ASVAB must have been a challenge for you.

Amusingly, you seem to labour under the delusion that Saturn burned all the way to the moon.

[Abaddon]

We know that Apollo 11 entered the TLI at 24200 mph @ 12:22...

You are aware that the CM had a surface density of 8 g cm^-2. Now, what was the variation in flux with energy for the outer electrons in the outer belts again? I don't believe you accounted for the performance of the CM materials against this flux profile in your calculations. Please add that information.

Do I need remind all involved that I forego including all but the lowest of radiations of the VAB.  You can look for kernels in that turd if you choose but you have to realize if the lowest radiations produce an exposure rate 6 times as high as the reported dose then anything else is simply adding fuel to a raging fire.  Know when to say "No".

No, we know already that 3 dimensions are outside of your understanding. There is no need to remind us.

[Abaddon]

I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs.  You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter.  Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose.  There is no getting around the facts.  It can not have happened and therefore it didn't.  I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..

No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled.  No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.

NASA considered two trajectories.  The first was a direct one straight through the heart of the VAB to the moon and the second one a translunar injection using a technique invented and proven by the Russians.  They determined the direct shot would actually receive the least radiation because the speed and time in the heart of the VAB would actually reduce overall exposure.  The Russian method spent more time in the VAB but was far more fuel efficient.  They opted for the the Russian method.  There is no secret safe passage.  Many pretend it is but they cannot document it.  Why would we send the Orion into the heart of the VAB if such a path had been discovered?

Red herring.  Besides you have already been informed why the Orion trajectory was not the same as Apollo's general trajectory.  You really don't understand anything concerning orbital mechanics.  The Russians didn't "invent" sny trajectory it is all in the mathematics.
Apollo's trajectory was to skirt the more intense areas of the VARB, look at the image you plotted the 2 dimensional representation of the 3 dimensional torus.  You can see for your self that the trajectory was a the edges and did not go through the whole VARB.  Not 4.5 hrs. but around 2 hrs. as Bob B. indicated in his computations, you're what, I think Jay coined the phrase, willfully ignorant.  The data is there you either refuse to accept it or hand wave it away.

Now for your calculation please, show your work as Bob did.

Just glancing through the threads are you.  Try a more detailed approach Johnny come lately. I already posted the math for the inquisitive.

bknight has been here from the outset. Try to pay attention.

[Abaddon]

Why concentrate on electrons when the share territory with protons?

... because the Apollo craft followed a trajectory that skirted the outer belts. The main flux in the outer belts are due to electrons. It's a bit like someone firing 1000 paintballs at you, 999 are green and 1 are red. The electrons are the green ones.

Now, how does the shielding perform against the electron flux at the electron energies that are relevant to the problem? You need to perform an integrated flux attenuated against shielding at 8 g cm^-2.

I am not the brightest candle in the candelera ( yes I am but I am trying to be modest)

It's called a "candelabra". We know already that you are not the brightest bulb. Your error is in thinking that a badge of honour.

but the TLI is an elliptical orbit somewhere around 30% off the equatorial plane or 15% if you are using the lunar plane so realizing this elliptical orbit would be like slicing diagonally through the proverbial donut, just exactly how do you think they "Skirted" the VAB?

3D spatial reasoning fail.

[Jason Thompson]

CT's like tim think very one-dimensionally... if Apollo didn't have something that was specifically called "radiation shielding" then they conclude this means it had no shielding at all and was unprotected from radiation. Such a claim is just as ridiculous as claiming that you are totally unprotected from the car roof collapsing in an accident simply because the windscreen isn't called a roof brace. 

^^ This.

What Tim is failing (and honestly I can only believe it is deliberate now) to grasp is that when it comes to particle radiation such as CGRs, SPEs, VABs and so on, all matter will shield all of it to some degree. That's simply the physics of putting something in the way. It was exactly this that actually allowed Rutherford to deduce the structure of the atom in the first place. The only question is how much shielding is afforded. The superstructure and internal layout of the spacecraft is inherently a radiation shield, just by virtue of its existence. Add up the layers and densities of materials to figure out how effective it might be.

And this is Tim's second major failing: he grasps the differences between the various types of radiation when it comes to different particles, but cannot conceive that these types themselves exist as a spectrum of energies, and so something that is effective against relatively low energy protons in the VAB will be entirely permeable to the much higher energy protons in the GCR. Same particle, different energy, different penetrating power and different results if it does get absorbed. Rather like throwing a bullet at a window and having it bounce off, then firing the same kind of bullet at the same window and blowing a hole through it. Same bullet, different energy, therefore different effects.

[Abaddon]

We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long

Along the geomagentic equator maybe, but as you have been told and shown repeatedly, the Apollo spacecraft did not take that route (indeed it was virtually impossible for it to do so due to the different inclinations ot the orbit and the geomagentic plane) so why do you think using the full thickness of the belt is valid?

Actually a good question.  I used it because we all know the VAB expansds thousands of miles during Solar max and not having any reference I thought it a fairly conservative estimate.

Jason with regard to this 37000 figure do you know of a 3d picture or chat which shows the 3d path the vehicles took to transverse the edges. I have seen many 2d's but not 3d

Ben here is the video

brill thanks for that

You like that? have another...

These animations make it clear how the worst of the VAB were avoided.

Unfortunately, they also demonstrate how TF is unable to fathom 3 dimensions.

ETA: I am wondering what TF will make of the contour lines?

[smartcooky]

Why concentrate on electrons when the share territory with protons?

... because the Apollo craft followed a trajectory that skirted the outer belts. The main flux in the outer belts are due to electrons. It's a bit like someone firing 1000 paintballs at you, 999 are green and 1 are red. The electrons are the green ones.

Now, how does the shielding perform against the electron flux at the electron energies that are relevant to the problem? You need to perform an integrated flux attenuated against shielding at 8 g cm^-2.

I am not the brightest candle in the candelera ( yes I am but I am trying to be modest)

It's called a "candelabra". We know already that you are not the brightest bulb. Your error is in thinking that a badge of honour.

but the TLI is an elliptical orbit somewhere around 30% off the equatorial plane or 15% if you are using the lunar plane so realizing this elliptical orbit would be like slicing diagonally through the proverbial donut, just exactly how do you think they "Skirted" the VAB?

3D spatial reasoning fail.

"his pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking"
- Cdr. Spock

[Luke Pemberton]

What Tim is failing (and honestly I can only believe it is deliberate now) to grasp is that when it comes to particle radiation such as CGRs, SPEs, VABs and so on, all matter will shield all of it to some degree. That's simply the physics of putting something in the way.

Precisely. A thick piece of card will be a good shield for alpha particles. A beta source is usually stored in a box constructed of aluminium and wood. Of course, the HB connects a radiation shield to lead or concrete because of everyday experiences such as visits to radiologists or their understanding of nuclear reactors. They do no understand that those materials are used to attenuate x-rays and gamma rays, and in the case of a nuclear reactor there are other reasons for having a thick concrete surrounding the reactor walls.

The claim of an unshielded CM exposes their understanding immediately, yet we need to remind Tim that he was citing the use of polythene on the ISS as a radiation shield. Of course, he now fails in his consistency when applying his 'knowledge' to the CM, which was constructed of metals and polymers.

[Luke Pemberton]

And this is Tim's second major failing: he grasps the differences between the various types of radiation when it comes to different particles, but cannot conceive that these types themselves exist as a spectrum of energies, and so something that is effective against relatively low energy protons in the VAB will be entirely permeable to the much higher energy protons in the GCR. Same particle, different energy, different penetrating power and different results if it does get absorbed. Rather like throwing a bullet at a window and having it bounce off, then firing the same kind of bullet at the same window and blowing a hole through it. Same bullet, different energy, therefore different effects.

My bold. The objection of using ground based neutron monitors to correlate terrestrial detection events with the solar cycle was most revealing. Most high school students understand that GCR impact on our upper atmosphere to produce neutrons. An increase in neutrons at ground level correlates with increased GCR fluxes or an SPE. Ground based monitors are a valuable source in GCR studies. There are even details on YouTube to make a rudimentary cloud chamber to detect GCR.

The analysis of ice has revealed so much abut the Carrington SPE. Only through the analysis of the nuclear forensics have we determined the nature and size of the Carrington event. Further, pilots and frequent filers have increased doses due to increased exposure to GCR at high altitudes. This is well documented in health science. The lifetime of pions produced in GCR events in our atmosphere have been used to test special relativity.

The very notion that we are protected from GCR by the VABs shows Tim's ignorance, but then he is an ex-nuclear technician. He must be right.

[gillianren]

I'll also freely admit I've never taken the ASVAB.  Why would I?

[molesworth]

I'll also freely admit I've never taken the ASVAB.  Why would I?

I think most of the contributors here would never have taken it either.  As a non-US citizen, I'd never heard of it before now, but tried a sample test to get an idea of the level of knowledge and ability expected.

I admit I didn't finish it, as I got bored after about 70 questions...    Overall, the questions were fairly straightforward, and of a first to second year high school level.  Maths covered basic algebra, percentages and the like, and didn't get into trigonometry or calculus (although I recall doing trig in my first couple of years at high school).  General science, reading comprehension, basic mechanics (mainly relating to vehicle mechanics) and electronics were all of a similar level.

I'm not intending to disparage anyone who volunteers for military service, and I would expect the test to be a good basis for specialisation selection amongst military recruits, but it is perhaps a bit short of what's required for calculations of radiation exposures in the space environment, or understanding the complexity of the science, engineering and sheers scale of the Apollo project.

[bknight]

I took the ASVAB or its predecessor in 1970, twice.  Once before entering the Army and then during Basic Training.  I hadn't thought again of that until this thread, wow almost 50 years ago.

[nomuse]

I took it -- was I think compulsory at the time -- and scored high, but it otherwise doesn't stand out in my memory. It's not an intelligence test (well, nothing is, not really) but a weird mashup of a vocational placement test and a recruiting pitch. As in; "The test says you'd be really great at being in the infantry. Sure you don't want to join?"

As long as we're waving them in the air like this, I got into and passed jump school and was assigned to an airborne unit. That was at the time about a one in six pass rate. That doesn't say anything about my qualifications to understand space weather, either.