Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 545

Thread: Does anyone still believe that Apollo 11 landed on the moon after Chang'E-4

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Grant went through that previously, here linked again:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...86#post2446986

    showing the cislunar dose x time and (also mentioned on page 7 under “cosmic rays”) the lower 0.6 mrad/hour dose on the moon as well as the short time in LEO (also partially protected from GCR) and the quick flight through the outer Van Allen belt, which altogether results in a combined dose in good agreement with what was reported for Apollo 11, unlike your claim.

    But you also claimed that “Any time spent on the moon would raise that value by 30 to 40% during orbital and surface operation.” I still see no presented evidence for and certainly no detailed explanation for this part of your claim. I ask still again that you show how you arrived at this, in detail, please.
    You do understand that LEO is protected from GCR don't you? GCR is higher beyond the Van Allen Belts than it is in LEO. The ISS in LEO, with 4 times the shielding of the Apollo craft receives more daily exposure than the Apollo 11 lunar mission. If you re-read the link you will see the the LRO identified this higher dose as well as the Chang'e 4 article.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    16,875
    Had I been old enough in 1969 and NASA came to me and offered to send me to the moon, but cautioned there might be radiation that could shorten my life by a few years, I'd simply have asked where to sign.
    And I've already had multiple cancers caused by radiation. Specifically, by sunshine.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    Had I been old enough in 1969 and NASA came to me and offered to send me to the moon, but cautioned there might be radiation that could shorten my life by a few years, I'd simply have asked where to sign.
    And I've already had multiple cancers caused by radiation. Specifically, by sunshine.
    You do understand that should an SPE had occurred the astronauts would have died don't you? Russia had years on the Americans and they never sent a man beyond LEO for a good reason.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    I looked at Grant Hutchinson's estimations and it amazes me that by any stretch of the imagination that anyone could possibly believe that a lunar transit passing through any portion of the Van Allen Belt could do so at an exposure rate less than the ISS orbiting in LEO. No matter how hard I try, I cannot make that work especially when one considers the ISS crew quarters has 40 cm^2 radiation shielding while the Apollo had arguably 10 cm^2.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    You do understand that should an SPE had occurred the astronauts would have died don't you?
    There were contingent plans to protect against such an event like turning the CSM so more fuel etc. shielded the crew. Now if on occurred as astronauts were on the Lunar surface, now that is different. Depending on the severity of the event the astronauts might get sick or perhaps die. However those event are rare.[/q

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Russia had years on the Americans and they never sent a man beyond LEO for a good reason.
    Yes the good reason was that they did not have a booster capable of a manned Lunar mission. One was on the drawing boards though, but without a booster the plans failed.
    Last edited by tusenfem; 2021-Apr-16 at 06:14 AM. Reason: fixed quote tags

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I looked at Grant Hutchinson's estimations and it amazes me that by any stretch of the imagination that anyone could possibly believe that a lunar transit passing through any portion of the Van Allen Belt could do so at an exposure rate less than the ISS orbiting in LEO. No matter how hard I try, I cannot make that work especially when one considers the ISS crew quarters has 40 cm^2 radiation shielding while the Apollo had arguably 10 cm^2.
    Others have asked and I'll throw my question out. Please show your calculation of the amount of radiation that the Apollo crews received going through the VARB. The calculation can be either one way or the round trip, your choice. Hopefully you understand that the trajectory was executed through the less intense regions of the VARB.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    You do understand that LEO is protected from GCR don't you?
    It’s partially protected, as I said. The Earth blocks some GCR directly, much as the Moon does, and lower energy GCR can be redirected by the Earth’s magnetic field so some of it won’t reach LEO. But some GCR reaches us here on Earth, even through the atmosphere, more at higher altitude and still more in LEO.

    GCR is higher beyond the Van Allen Belts than it is in LEO. The ISS in LEO, with 4 times the shielding of the Apollo craft receives more daily exposure than the Apollo 11 lunar mission.
    The ISS receives more daily radiation exposure because it passes through the South Atlantic Anomaly (part of the Van Allen belts) during each (approximately) 90 minute orbit, unlike Apollo 11, which left LEO in fairly short order, and only spent a short time in the fringe of the Van Allen belts.

    If you re-read the link you will see the the LRO identified this higher dose as well as the Chang'e 4 article.
    I saw nothing that contradicts the Apollo record, that supports your claims of a highly radioactive lunar surface (which you have yet to characterize beyond just saying “radioactive,” despite my requests you do so) nor have you provided evidence or detailed explanation for your claim that “The 8 day mission without passing through the Van Allen Belt would result in a .24 mgy/day exposure from the GCR of space. Any time spent on the moon would raise that value by 30 to 40% during orbital and surface operation.” For the fourth time I ask: Please provide a detailed explanation and evidence for your claim. Please consider this a direct question regarding your conspiracy theory claim.

    If you’re using radiation detector results from Chang'e 4 or the LRO you at least need to show how that would translate to Apollo 11 dosimeter readings if you wish to claim a discrepancy with those readings. I’m very curious how you would do that. Never mind that Chang’e 4 is on the other side of the Moon from the Apollo 11 landing site, that LRO never could land, or that these missions have occurred decades after the Apollo 11 landing, you haven’t shown the process of how you reached your conclusions in the first place.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    There were contingent plans to protect against such an event like turning the CSM so more fuel etc. shielded the crew. Now if on occurred as astronauts were on the Lunar surface, now that is different. Depending on the severity of the event the astronauts might get sick or perhaps die. However those event are rare.
    Russia had years on the Americans and they never sent a man beyond LEO for a good reason.

    Yes the good reason was that they did not have a booster capable of a manned Lunar mission. One was on the drawing boards though, but without a booster the plans failed.
    I said they never left LEO. They had the capacity to venture into the Van Allen Belt.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Others have asked and I'll throw my question out. Please show your calculation of the amount of radiation that the Apollo crews received going through the VARB. The calculation can be either one way or the round trip, your choice. Hopefully you understand that the trajectory was executed through the less intense regions of the VARB.
    I have not calculated the exposure from a Van Allen Belt transit but I am pretty sure it would add to the background radiation of space and therefore a lunar transit has to be higher than background, Ditto for a lunar orbit and a lunar landing. If there were no Van Allen Belt at all, the minimum exposure for any space transit would be GCR background of .24mgy/day. This has been demonstrated by the MSL probe on its journey to Mars.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Others have asked and I'll throw my question out. Please show your calculation of the amount of radiation that the Apollo crews received going through the VARB. The calculation can be either one way or the round trip, your choice. Hopefully you understand that the trajectory was executed through the less intense regions of the VARB.
    I am under the impression that the Orion entered the VAB at the exact path the Apollo missions had taken expect on smaller elliptical plane of 3600 miles. Such a path would have caught the edge of the most intense radiation concentration of the VAB but What it did pass through was thousands of times higher than the SAA that the ISS passes through.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    You do understand that should an SPE had occurred the astronauts would have died don't you?
    Bknight covered much of this, so I won’t say much, but no, this is not at all clear. The potential existed for an intense enough SPE directed just the right direction to cause fatal exposure, but that was very unlikely, especially considering they were monitoring space weather and had rules about not launching under concerning conditions.

    If I had been old enough and given the opportunity, I would not have hesitated to go myself. The possibility of an extreme SPE would have been one of my least concerns.

    Russia had years on the Americans and they never sent a man beyond LEO for a good reason.
    Quite right: They couldn’t go to the moon so there was no point. They did have a crewed moon landing program, but their rocket kept blowing up.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Bknight covered much of this, so I won’t say much, but no, this is not at all clear. The potential existed for an intense enough SPE directed just the right direction to cause fatal exposure, but that was very unlikely, especially considering they were monitoring space weather and had rules about not launching under concerning conditions.

    If I had been old enough and given the opportunity, I would not have hesitated to go myself. The possibility of an extreme SPE would have been one of my least concerns.



    Quite right: They couldn’t go to the moon so there was no point. They did have a crewed moon landing program, but their rocket kept blowing up.
    There are many reasons they would have if they could have. Chief among those would be to ascertain exposure and to test shielding.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,992
    I could respond, but let’s not get distracted. Please answer my direct question here:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...56#post2535256

    Thank you.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    It’s partially protected, as I said. The Earth blocks some GCR directly, much as the Moon does, and lower energy GCR can be redirected by the Earth’s magnetic field so some of it won’t reach LEO. But some GCR reaches us here on Earth, even through the atmosphere, more at higher altitude and still more in LEO.



    The ISS receives more daily radiation exposure because it passes through the South Atlantic Anomaly (part of the Van Allen belts) during each (approximately) 90 minute orbit, unlike Apollo 11, which left LEO in fairly short order, and only spent a short time in the fringe of the Van Allen belts.



    I saw nothing that contradicts the Apollo record, that supports your claims of a highly radioactive lunar surface (which you have yet to characterize beyond just saying “radioactive,” despite my requests you do so) nor have you provided evidence or detailed explanation for your claim that “The 8 day mission without passing through the Van Allen Belt would result in a .24 mgy/day exposure from the GCR of space. Any time spent on the moon would raise that value by 30 to 40% during orbital and surface operation.” For the fourth time I ask: Please provide a detailed explanation and evidence for your claim. Please consider this a direct question regarding your conspiracy theory claim.

    If you’re using radiation detector results from Chang'e 4 or the LRO you at least need to show how that would translate to Apollo 11 dosimeter readings if you wish to claim a discrepancy with those readings. I’m very curious how you would do that. Never mind that Chang’e 4 is on the other side of the Moon from the Apollo 11 landing site, that LRO never could land, or that these missions have occurred decades after the Apollo 11 landing, you haven’t shown the process of how you reached your conclusions in the first place.
    I am pretty sure I have addressed this question a number of times but here we go. Background GCR radiation is .24mgy/day. This is true anywhere in the solar system except in LEO and on Earth. That being the case the minimum daily exposure on any lunar transit has to be at least .24mgy/.day. We have empirical proof because the MSL lander recorded radiation exposure on its way to Mars. Now when you consider the additional radiation sources on a lunar transit then it becomes obvious that it would not be possible for Apollo 11 to have transited to the moon.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I am pretty sure I have addressed this question a number of times but here we go. Background GCR radiation is .24mgy/day. This is true anywhere in the solar system except in LEO and on Earth.
    Now please, we’ve discussed this, and that obviously is untrue. Of immediate relevance, the Moon also blocks much of the GCR that would otherwise reach astronauts on the lunar surface or in low lunar orbit. (The same would be true of other solar system bodies, of course, but not relevant to Apollo.) So the total Apollo mission dose must take into account the lower dose on or near the Moon and the time astronauts spent there.

    To get around this, you claimed an additional radiation source. Specifically, you said this:

    The 8 day mission without passing through the Van Allen Belt would result in a .24 mgy/day exposure from the GCR of space. Any time spent on the moon would raise that value by 30 to 40% during orbital and surface operation.

    For the fifth time, please show your evidence and provide a detailed explanation to support the claim in bold. If you can’t, just say so. No more misdirection please. I can’t believe at this point you still are unable to understand this simple request.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Now please, we’ve discussed this, and that obviously is untrue. Of immediate relevance, the Moon also blocks much of the GCR that would otherwise reach astronauts on the lunar surface or in low lunar orbit. (The same would be true of other solar system bodies, of course, but not relevant to Apollo.) So the total Apollo mission dose must take into account the lower dose on or near the Moon and the time astronauts spent there.

    To get around this, you claimed an additional radiation source. Specifically, you said this:

    The 8 day mission without passing through the Van Allen Belt would result in a .24 mgy/day exposure from the GCR of space. Any time spent on the moon would raise that value by 30 to 40% during orbital and surface operation.

    For the fifth time, please show your evidence and provide a detailed explanation to support the claim in bold. If you can’t, just say so. No more misdirection please. I can’t believe at this point you still are unable to understand this simple request.
    Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky.

    Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

    "The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

    While the moon blocks galactic cosmic rays to some extent, the hazards posed by the secondary radiation showers counter the shielding effects, Spence said at a press conference at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco this week.

    Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34470642#.Wrren4jwaUl

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    FYI: Here is a second more technical article that discusses the higher than expected lunar radiation. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2013SW000995

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I have not calculated the exposure from a Van Allen Belt transit but I am pretty sure it would add to the background radiation of space and therefore a lunar transit has to be higher than background, Ditto for a lunar orbit and a lunar landing. If there were no Van Allen Belt at all, the minimum exposure for any space transit would be GCR background of .24mgy/day. This has been demonstrated by the MSL probe on its journey to Mars.

    I think that it is about time that you do calculate the radiation doses and show your results here.
    This is an official moderator request.
    Otherwise it makes no sense to continue this discussion, when you just keep throwing around all kind of dosage claims.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    FYI: Here is a second more technical article that discusses the higher than expected lunar radiation. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2013SW000995
    For those without access to AGU's "Space Weather", I have the pdf.
    Intersting quote from the abstract:

    [quote = Spence et al.]
    Finally, we note that when considering the lunar radiation
    environment, although the Moon blocks approximately half of the sky, thus essentially halving the
    absorbed dose rate near the Moon relative to deep space, the secondary radiation created by the presence
    of the Moon adds back a small, but measurable, absorbed dose (~8%) that can and should be now
    accounted for quantitatively in radiation risk assessments at the Moon and other similar
    exploration targets.
    [/quote]
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    The dust was found to be very angular not rounded and tended to cling to the spacesuits not float in the oxygen environment of the LM. You really need to do better research.
    Consider this article on moon dust and Apollo astronauts. https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...mellofmoondust

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post

    I think that it is about time that you do calculate the radiation doses and show your results here.
    This is an official moderator request.
    Otherwise it makes no sense to continue this discussion, when you just keep throwing around all kind of dosage claims.
    Calculating doses in beyond my pay grade. My contention is Apollo 11's mission dosage is too low to have left LEO. If you doubt this simple fact then I can quote NASA's measurement for GCR during the Apollo era. If you can envision a radiation sink that removes radiation then I am all ears. This is not complicated. The baseline is .24mgy/day and Apollo was less than that.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spence
    While the moon blocks galactic cosmic rays to some extent, the hazards posed by the secondary radiation showers counter the shielding effects, Spence said at a press conference at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco this week.

    Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34470642#.Wrren4jwaUl

    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    For those without access to AGU's "Space Weather", I have the pdf.
    Intersting quote from the abstract:

    Quote Originally Posted by Spence et al.
    Finally, we note that when considering the lunar radiation environment, although the Moon blocks approximately half of the sky, thus essentially halving the absorbed dose rate near the Moon relative to deep space, the secondary radiation created by the presence of the Moon adds back a small, but measurable, absorbed dose (~8%) that can and should be now accounted for quantitatively in radiation risk assessments at the Moon and other similar exploration targets.
    Okay, this makes a lot more sense. Lord Foul, your claim was that an astronaut’s radiation dose on the Moon would be 30 to 40% higher than in cislunar space. Your own quote shows that to be wrong. The actual argument from Spence is that the produced secondaries would somewhat reduce the shielding advantage of being on or near the Moon, but the absorbed dose would still be much lower compared to cislunar space.

    Thanks tusenfem and Lord Foul, that clears up the mystery. No contradiction with the Apollo record has been shown, but it is absolutely reasonable that secondaries can’t be ignored for a more complete picture of the radiation environment.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Calculating doses in beyond my pay grade. My contention is Apollo 11's mission dosage is too low to have left LEO. If you doubt this simple fact then I can quote NASA's measurement for GCR during the Apollo era. If you can envision a radiation sink that removes radiation then I am all ears. This is not complicated. The baseline is .24mgy/day and Apollo was less than that.
    The simple answer is, of course, .24mgy/day is not the mission baseline so of course it was less than that. And no, that is not complicated and I already explained this in post #45.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    The simple answer is, of course, .24mgy/day is not the mission baseline so of course it was less than that. And no, that is not complicated and I already explained this in post #45.
    This all sounds so very familiar - bandying the .24mgy/day figure about and the claims of GCRs and Moon radiation.
    https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1444.0

    Now that was some real painful reading, the penny of course never dropped.

    I'm particularly intrigued how it is ok to cite the LROC data, whilst implying that it has faked the images of Apollo hardware.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Thanks tusenfem and Lord Foul, that clears up the mystery. No contradiction with the Apollo record has been shown, but it is absolutely reasonable that secondaries can’t be ignored for a more complete picture of the radiation environment.
    And the NASA figures I used in my calculation, of 0.6mrad/hr at the Moon compare to 1mrad/hr in cis-lunar space, folds in the effect of local radiation--otherwise the cis-lunar figure would simply have been halved, as Spence et al. indicate.

    Grant Hutchison

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,581
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    I have a pdf of this paper.
    Ah, good.
    My current copy is an antique photocopy dating from 1974, with a first page that has largely faded into illegibility. And those old photocopy machines didn't reproduce photographs at all well.
    So at least this thread has reminded me that I should replace it with third-millennium technology. The National Library of Scotland should let me pull a copy off JSTOR.

    Grant Hutchison

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Calculating doses in beyond my pay grade. My contention is Apollo 11's mission dosage is too low to have left LEO. If you doubt this simple fact then I can quote NASA's measurement for GCR during the Apollo era. If you can envision a radiation sink that removes radiation then I am all ears. This is not complicated. The baseline is .24mgy/day and Apollo was less than that.
    Lord Foul

    If you have not made yourself familiar with our rules, I suggest you do so immediately. Rule 17 states
    "Do not respond to moderation in-thread, unless asked a question by a moderator." You were not asked a question, you were given instructions. If you wish to argue those instructions, Rule 17 also says how to do so.

    And if you are going to argue moderation, you will at least do so politely. If you can't do the calculations, then just say so; keep the "smart" comments to yourself.

    This will earn you a zero-point warning. If you are not familiar with our infraction system, you may wish to do so, as further rule violations can lead to suspensions and bannings.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    The simple answer is, of course, .24mgy/day is not the mission baseline so of course it was less than that. And no, that is not complicated and I already explained this in post #45.
    NASA thought the base line was .24 mg/day during the Apollo era. If you have some other value then please share it.

    Cosmic Rays
    Cosmic-ray fluxes have provided average dose rates of 1. 0 mr/hr in cislunar
    space and 0. 6 mr /hr on the lunar surface. These values are expected to double at the
    low point in the 11-year cycle of solar-flare activity (solar minimum) because of decreased solar magnetic shielding of the central planets. The effect of high-energy
    (but l ow dose rate) cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities to be of relatively minor consequence for exposures of less than a few years.
    Experimental evidence of the effects of these radiations is dependent on the development of highly advanced particle accelerators or the advent of long-term manned missions outside the geomagnetic influence.
    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    And the NASA figures I used in my calculation, of 0.6mrad/hr at the Moon compare to 1mrad/hr in cis-lunar space, folds in the effect of local radiation--otherwise the cis-lunar figure would simply have been halved, as Spence et al. indicate.

    Grant Hutchison
    .6mrad/hr lunar surface was what NASA believed radiation from GCR would be due to expected shielding. This proved to be false as detected by both the LRO launched in 2009 and Chang'e-4 in 2019. It is the whole point really.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    .6mrad/hr lunar surface was what NASA believed radiation from GCR would be due to expected shielding. This proved to be false as detected by both the LRO launched in 2009 and Chang'e-4 in 2019. It is the whole point really.
    I'm having difficulty seeing the point. Given the difference in shielding, instrumentation and solar cycle, the difference between measured lunar-environment dose rates isn't remotely surprising, and would have had no discernible biological effect.
    Are you really suggesting that Apollo measurements in 1969 should exactly match measurements taken decades later?

    Grant Hutchison

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •