Radiation

[Jason Thompson]

Looking under NASA's dress are we?  So because NASA did not outline the source of it's research in the article you discount it as fictitious.  In the absence of any conflicting data what choice have you but to accept it at its face value?

Tim, no-one is discounting it as fictitious. The point you are (I assume at this stage deliberately) refusing to grasp is that the 0.24mGy/day is stated to be an average, and without any information regarding what it is an average of, you cannot simply call it a minimum, a rate for the year, or whatever you want it to be. It is an average taken over the period of Apollo, with no accompanying data as to the range recorded to derive that average from. It is not a minimum. You are the only one calling it that. Ever.

[bknight]

For all of you that believe the Apollo craft folled some obscure path to avoid the highest radiation area I extend a challenge to you.  Show the data.  Show the course change and provide the corroborating tracking data.  If not the settle in and accept the same path the Orion EFT took for I can provide the data and the corroboration.

You have repeatedly shown the path that Apollo took and hand waved it away, you were linked both the TLI and radiation work that Bob B did and stated they were wrong and he was a NASA shill.  But you carefully avoided showing any other work that refuted Bob's or was in agreement with yours.  Why is that?  Could it be that you are the one that is incorrect in both your radiation assumption along with your assumption of the trajectory that Apollo generally took through the VARB?

Here is my work.  What part of it confuses you  or provides you with reason to doubt it?  It is simple, succinct and irrefutable and wrong.

FTFY

[bknight]

Back to subject matter at hand.  Can we all agree the Orion EFT's path into the VAB mirrored the Apollo's?

No they don't mirror one another.  That statement is incorrect and will be challenged every time you attempt it.

Do they share inclinations?

I have stated to you that they have similar inclinations in LEO, but at the time of ignition of the SIV-B that similarity ends.

so you contend they changed inclinations when that rocket fired?

No contention, just a fact

[bknight]

I would love if anyone of you could explain why NASA's test of the orion was on an identical inclination of the apollo trajectories and why it required greater shielding for future lunar missions if the apollo shielding was so effective in transiting the VAB and lunar operations.  Why fix that which is not broken?  How does that work in your mind.  Apollo ventured out in solar maximum and received a piddling of an exposure.  What was not to love about that?

You are trolling.  Many people here have attempted to explain why the trajectories of Orion and Apollo were different and this is the last time I will attempt.
Orion has been built with at least two generations of electronics advanced as those of Apollo.  The trajectory of Orion was to test the whether shielding would protect the electronics in the worst environment the engineers could think of the dense proton radiation (if that is the correct term) while Apollo engineers wished to avoid as much of the VARB as they could.  It is simple to understand once you get over your ignorance of orbital mechanics.  I suggested getting a copy of Kerbal Space Program and one other member suggested it also.  Further I suggest you discontinue posting until you have had a little experience with it.  You are wrong on so many levels concerning Apollo.
In your next post you requested members join you on Facebook to chat without Abaddon's thoughts, well he may come across a little rough, but he is right on in his ideas.  Perhaps he is weary of dealing with likes of HB's.  I get a chuckle out of his comments that needle you.

[bknight]

Looking under NASA's dress are we?  So because NASA did not outline the source of it's research in the article you discount it as fictitious.  In the absence of any conflicting data what choice have you but to accept it at its face value?

Tim, no-one is discounting it as fictitious. The point you are (I assume at this stage deliberately) refusing to grasp is that the 0.24mGy/day is stated to be an average, and without any information regarding what it is an average of, you cannot simply call it a minimum, a rate for the year, or whatever you want it to be. It is an average taken over the period of Apollo, with no accompanying data as to the range recorded to derive that average from. It is not a minimum. You are the only one calling it that. Ever.

Jason, thank you for restating that.  It has amazed me that averages still have tim over the edge.  Averages mean some values are higher and some are lower.  I know you know this but this fact has been missed by tim.  Perhaps a basic math course would help?  Just saying.

[Abaddon]

I am on facebook.  If any of you would like a one on one without the incessant and annoying chatter of Abaddon then send me a friend request and we can explore the depths of this subject sans the peanut gallery.

No. You want to adjourn to a venue where YOU can control any discussion. This is a transparent tactic to try to dodge the hard questions you are unable to handle RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.

If, as has been demonstrated, you cannot handle those questions right here, what are the chances that you will fare better in a venue where you have editorial control? None.

[onebigmonkey]

I am on facebook.  If any of you would like a one on one without the incessant and annoying chatter of Abaddon then send me a friend request and we can explore the depths of this subject sans the peanut gallery.

No. You want to adjourn to a venue where YOU can control any discussion. This is a transparent tactic to try to dodge the hard questions you are unable to handle RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.

If, as has been demonstrated, you cannot handle those questions right here, what are the chances that you will fare better in a venue where you have editorial control? None.

it also becomes clear that he can dish it out, but can't take it.

[LunarOrbit]

My bold represents another question that has not been answered which links to my previous questions, which have still not been answered.

2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.

4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.

5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?

Further, the geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane at TLI are inclined to each other.

How does this effect the distribution of radiation relative to the orbital plane?

Tim: Please answer all my questions.

Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?

Timfinch,

I have placed you under moderation until you answer all of Luke's and Jason's questions above to their satisfaction. Until you have done so your posts will require my approval before they can appear in the forum.

[Jason Thompson]

So realizing that NASA itself claims a baseline GCR level (.24 mgy/day)

No, they do not claim that is a baseline level, they claim that is an average level during the period of Apollo. Which bit of that is confusing for you?

[Jason Thompson]

On the surface it would seem if the environment the equipment was in was safe for people then the equipment itself would be safe from radiation.  I can't imagine radiation that could harm equipment is safe for people.

Your failure of imagination is not our concern. The more minaturised and sensitive our electronics become, the more they are vulnerable to radiaiton, whether that be in terms of damage or spurious readings. I worked for years on a very sensitive charge detector that would randomly spike way off the normal scale even when nothing was actually generating charge to be detcted. Why? Best hypothesis was muons from cosminc rays hitting the detector.

Furthermore, electronic systems are not self healing. Humans suffer radiation damage when the damage exceeds the natural ability of the repair mechanisms to correct it. Electronic have no repair mechaniss, so damage is permanent and cumulative.

[Jason Thompson]

The Crater graph has a median value of .23 mgy/day.

And many ten-day periods significantly lower than that.

[Jason Thompson]

For all of you that believe the Apollo craft followed some obscure path to avoid the highest radiation area I extend a challenge to you.  Show the data.

Why? You've been given it. You won't accept it anyway. You've been shown data about several things and you are discounting it. You've been shown a model of two coplanar ellipses interacting differently with an inclined torus and called it a 'spatial reasoning fail'.

[Jason Thompson]

Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?

[Luke Pemberton]

Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?

I've been discussing this with another forum member in private, just to clarify my thinking. Since Tim is moderated, can you explain where you are going with the line of question. I think it marries with mine. It would be appreciated for the sake of doing some actual learning.

I really did like the cardboard model.

[LunarOrbit]

Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit?

Thanks, Jason, I'll add it to the list.