Page 15 of 19 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 450 of 545

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

  1. #421
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The CraTer Cislunar GCR reading for Feb 4th is .409mgy/day. The CraTer reading adjusted for the lunar surface was 13.29ugy/hr. (GCR 13.29ugy/hr + Neutron 3.1ugy/hr)*24 hr = .39336mgy/day. .39336/.409=.9617
    You forgot to include a comparison of the activity level of this cycle versus sol 20.

  2. #422
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    You forgot to include a comparison of the activity level of this cycle versus sol 20.
    And to account for for the lower particle energies of the secondary radiation (or for attenuation at all for that matter). And for the Apollo dosimetry insensitivity to neutrons.

  3. #423
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The CraTer Cislunar GCR reading for Feb 4th is .409mgy/day.
    And the source for that number ...?

    Grant Hutchison

  4. #424
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,686
    You for got to include a comparison of solar activity versus the third wee Jul. 69.

  5. #425
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    I mistakenly used data from 2021.
    The correct CGR for Feb 4th 2019 is .388mgy/day
    The CraTer Cislunar GCR reading for Feb 4th 2019 is .388mgy/day. The CraTer reading adjusted for the lunar surface was 13.29ugy/hr. (GCR 13.29ugy/hr + Neutron 3.1ugy/hr)*24 hr = .39336mgy/day. .39336/.388=1.01381
    # CRaTER micro-dosimeter dose rates
    # from 2019-02-01 DOY:032
    # through 2019-03-03 DOY:062
    #
    # Columns are separated by a tab character.
    # Dose rate units: cGy / day
    # All dose rates have a silicon to water correction applied and are altitude corrected to the lunar surface.
    # column_titles: Julian Date,Year,DOY,Year Fraction,H2O Factor,Altitude Factor,Dose Rate
    # column_units: ,,,,,,cGy/day
    # start_year: 2019
    # start_doy: 032
    # end_year: 2019
    # end_doy: 062
    #
    # Julian Date Year DOY Year Fraction H2O Alt. Dose Rate
    2458515.521 2019 32 2019.084989 1.333 0.756 3.66E-02
    2458515.563 2019 32 2019.085103 1.333 0.766 3.99E-02
    2458515.604 2019 32 2019.085217 1.333 0.75 4.49E-02
    2458515.646 2019 32 2019.085331 1.333 0.772 4.02E-02
    2458515.688 2019 32 2019.085445 1.333 0.745 4.07E-02
    2458515.729 2019 32 2019.085559 1.333 0.779 3.58E-02
    2458515.771 2019 32 2019.085674 1.333 0.741 3.92E-02
    2458515.813 2019 32 2019.085788 1.333 0.786 3.99E-02
    2458515.854 2019 32 2019.085902 1.333 0.737 4.09E-02
    2458515.896 2019 32 2019.086016 1.333 0.793 4.16E-02
    2458515.938 2019 32 2019.08613 1.333 0.733 4.04E-02
    2458515.979 2019 32 2019.086244 1.333 0.799 4.09E-02
    2458516.021 2019 32 2019.086358 1.333 0.73 4.09E-02
    2458516.063 2019 32 2019.086473 1.333 0.805 4.22E-02
    2458516.104 2019 32 2019.086587 1.333 0.728 3.35E-02
    2458516.146 2019 32 2019.086701 1.333 0.81 3.90E-02
    2458516.188 2019 32 2019.086815 1.333 0.726 4.32E-02
    2458516.229 2019 32 2019.086929 1.333 0.814 3.57E-02
    2458516.271 2019 32 2019.087043 1.333 0.725 3.68E-02
    2458516.313 2019 32 2019.087158 1.333 0.816 4.46E-02
    2458516.354 2019 32 2019.087272 1.333 0.724 3.99E-02
    2458516.396 2019 32 2019.087386 1.333 0.817 3.86E-02
    2458516.438 2019 32 2019.0875 1.333 0.724 3.61E-02
    2458516.479 2019 32 2019.087614 1.333 0.816 3.90E-02
    2458516.521 2019 33 2019.087728 1.333 0.725 3.70E-02
    2458516.563 2019 33 2019.087843 1.333 0.814 3.78E-02
    2458516.604 2019 33 2019.087957 1.333 0.726 3.97E-02
    2458516.646 2019 33 2019.088071 1.333 0.81 3.58E-02
    2458516.688 2019 33 2019.088185 1.333 0.728 4.01E-02
    2458516.729 2019 33 2019.088299 1.333 0.804 3.38E-02
    2458516.771 2019 33 2019.088413 1.333 0.73 3.96E-02
    2458516.813 2019 33 2019.088527 1.333 0.798 4.08E-02
    2458516.854 2019 33 2019.088642 1.333 0.734 4.08E-02
    2458516.896 2019 33 2019.088756 1.333 0.79 4.63E-02
    2458516.938 2019 33 2019.08887 1.333 0.738 3.68E-02
    2458516.979 2019 33 2019.088984 1.333 0.782 4.21E-02
    2458517.021 2019 33 2019.089098 1.333 0.743 3.61E-02
    2458517.063 2019 33 2019.089212 1.333 0.774 4.33E-02
    2458517.104 2019 33 2019.089327 1.333 0.749 3.77E-02
    2458517.146 2019 33 2019.089441 1.333 0.766 4.02E-02
    2458517.188 2019 33 2019.089555 1.333 0.756 4.06E-02
    2458517.229 2019 33 2019.089669 1.333 0.758 3.88E-02
    2458517.271 2019 33 2019.089783 1.333 0.763 3.81E-02
    2458517.313 2019 33 2019.089897 1.333 0.751 3.36E-02
    2458517.354 2019 33 2019.090011 1.333 0.771 3.88E-02
    2458517.396 2019 33 2019.090126 1.333 0.745 3.30E-02
    2458517.438 2019 33 2019.09024 1.333 0.779 3.89E-02
    2458517.479 2019 33 2019.090354 1.333 0.739 4.11E-02
    2458517.521 2019 34 2019.090468 1.333 0.788 4.39E-02

  6. #426
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    And to account for for the lower particle energies of the secondary radiation (or for attenuation at all for that matter). And for the Apollo dosimetry insensitivity to neutrons.
    This is not a comparison. This is the actual data from a specific date.

  7. #427
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    You forgot to include a comparison of the activity level of this cycle versus sol 20.
    I am not making a comparison as there is no actual lunar data from Solar cycle 20.

  8. #428
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I am not making a comparison as there is no actual lunar data from Solar cycle 20.
    Rather difficult to "show" a rate then put it in terms of almost 52 years. I find your conclusion lacking. The last data is not the 4th (35).

  9. #429
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I mistakenly used data from 2021.
    The correct CGR for Feb 4th 2019 is .388mgy/day
    The CraTer Cislunar GCR reading for Feb 4th 2019 is .388mgy/day. The CraTer reading adjusted for the lunar surface was 13.29ugy/hr. (GCR 13.29ugy/hr + Neutron 3.1ugy/hr)*24 hr = .39336mgy/day. .39336/.388=1.01381
    # CRaTER micro-dosimeter dose rates
    # from 2019-02-01 DOY:032
    # through 2019-03-03 DOY:062
    #
    # Columns are separated by a tab character.
    # Dose rate units: cGy / day
    # All dose rates have a silicon to water correction applied and are altitude corrected to the lunar surface.
    # column_titles: Julian Date,Year,DOY,Year Fraction,H2O Factor,Altitude Factor,Dose Rate
    # column_units: ,,,,,,cGy/day
    # start_year: 2019
    # start_doy: 032
    # end_year: 2019
    # end_doy: 062
    #
    # Julian Date Year DOY Year Fraction H2O Alt. Dose Rate
    2458515.521 2019 32 2019.084989 1.333 0.756 3.66E-02
    ...
    <snipped table rows>
    ...
    2458517.521 2019 34 2019.090468 1.333 0.788 4.39E-02
    So I see a table of hourly dose rates, corrected for the lunar surface, for 1 and 2 Feb 2019.
    Nothing there is relevant to your purported cis-lunar dose rate. (Or, indeed, for the date you mention.)

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2021-Apr-20 at 08:35 PM.

  10. #430
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I am not making a comparison as there is no actual lunar data from Solar cycle 20.
    I know that as the LRO wasn't launched until 2009. But alas you are comparing when you state
    The lunar Surface is roughly 96% of the exposure rate of Cislunar space. It is further proof that Apollo 11 could not have made a lunar

  11. #431
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    So I see a table of hourly dose rates, corrected for the lunar surface, for 1 and 2 Feb 2019.
    Nothing there is relevant to your purported cis-lunar dose rate. (Or, indeed, for the date you mention.)

    Grant Hutchison
    How about this one?
    # CRaTER micro-dosimeter dose rates
    # from 2019-02-01 DOY:032
    # through 2019-03-03 DOY:062
    #
    # Columns are separated by a tab character.
    # Dose rate units: cGy / day
    # All dose rates have a silicon to water correction applied and are altitude corrected to the lunar surface.
    # column_titles: Julian Date,Year,DOY,Year Fraction,H2O Factor,Altitude Factor,Dose Rate
    # column_units: ,,,,,,cGy/day
    # start_year: 2019
    # start_doy: 032
    # end_year: 2019
    # end_doy: 062
    #
    # Julian Date Year DOY Year Fraction H2O Alt. Dose Rate no Alt. adj
    2458515.521 2019 32 2019.084989 1.333 0.756 3.66E-02 4.84E-02
    2458515.563 2019 32 2019.085103 1.333 0.766 3.99E-02 5.20E-02
    2458515.604 2019 32 2019.085217 1.333 0.75 4.49E-02 5.99E-02
    2458515.646 2019 32 2019.085331 1.333 0.772 4.02E-02 5.21E-02
    2458515.688 2019 32 2019.085445 1.333 0.745 4.07E-02 5.47E-02
    2458515.729 2019 32 2019.085559 1.333 0.779 3.58E-02 4.60E-02
    2458515.771 2019 32 2019.085674 1.333 0.741 3.92E-02 5.29E-02
    2458515.813 2019 32 2019.085788 1.333 0.786 3.99E-02 5.07E-02
    2458515.854 2019 32 2019.085902 1.333 0.737 4.09E-02 5.55E-02
    2458515.896 2019 32 2019.086016 1.333 0.793 4.16E-02 5.25E-02
    2458515.938 2019 32 2019.08613 1.333 0.733 4.04E-02 5.51E-02
    2458515.979 2019 32 2019.086244 1.333 0.799 4.09E-02 5.12E-02
    2458516.021 2019 32 2019.086358 1.333 0.73 4.09E-02 5.60E-02
    2458516.063 2019 32 2019.086473 1.333 0.805 4.22E-02 5.25E-02
    2458516.104 2019 32 2019.086587 1.333 0.728 3.35E-02 4.60E-02
    2458516.146 2019 32 2019.086701 1.333 0.81 3.90E-02 4.81E-02
    2458516.188 2019 32 2019.086815 1.333 0.726 4.32E-02 5.94E-02
    2458516.229 2019 32 2019.086929 1.333 0.814 3.57E-02 4.38E-02
    2458516.271 2019 32 2019.087043 1.333 0.725 3.68E-02 5.08E-02
    2458516.313 2019 32 2019.087158 1.333 0.816 4.46E-02 5.47E-02
    2458516.354 2019 32 2019.087272 1.333 0.724 3.99E-02 5.51E-02
    2458516.396 2019 32 2019.087386 1.333 0.817 3.86E-02 4.73E-02
    2458516.438 2019 32 2019.0875 1.333 0.724 3.61E-02 4.99E-02
    2458516.479 2019 32 2019.087614 1.333 0.816 3.90E-02 4.77E-02
    2458516.521 2019 33 2019.087728 1.333 0.725 3.70E-02 5.10E-02
    2458516.563 2019 33 2019.087843 1.333 0.814 3.78E-02 4.64E-02
    2458516.604 2019 33 2019.087957 1.333 0.726 3.97E-02 5.47E-02
    2458516.646 2019 33 2019.088071 1.333 0.81 3.58E-02 4.42E-02
    2458516.688 2019 33 2019.088185 1.333 0.728 4.01E-02 5.51E-02
    2458516.729 2019 33 2019.088299 1.333 0.804 3.38E-02 4.21E-02
    2458516.771 2019 33 2019.088413 1.333 0.73 3.96E-02 5.43E-02
    2458516.813 2019 33 2019.088527 1.333 0.798 4.08E-02 5.12E-02
    2458516.854 2019 33 2019.088642 1.333 0.734 4.08E-02 5.55E-02
    2458516.896 2019 33 2019.088756 1.333 0.79 4.63E-02 5.86E-02
    2458516.938 2019 33 2019.08887 1.333 0.738 3.68E-02 4.99E-02
    2458516.979 2019 33 2019.088984 1.333 0.782 4.21E-02 5.38E-02
    2458517.021 2019 33 2019.089098 1.333 0.743 3.61E-02 4.86E-02
    2458517.063 2019 33 2019.089212 1.333 0.774 4.33E-02 5.59E-02
    2458517.104 2019 33 2019.089327 1.333 0.749 3.77E-02 5.03E-02
    2458517.146 2019 33 2019.089441 1.333 0.766 4.02E-02 5.25E-02
    2458517.188 2019 33 2019.089555 1.333 0.756 4.06E-02 5.38E-02
    2458517.229 2019 33 2019.089669 1.333 0.758 3.88E-02 5.12E-02
    2458517.271 2019 33 2019.089783 1.333 0.763 3.81E-02 4.99E-02
    2458517.313 2019 33 2019.089897 1.333 0.751 3.36E-02 4.47E-02
    2458517.354 2019 33 2019.090011 1.333 0.771 3.88E-02 5.03E-02
    2458517.396 2019 33 2019.090126 1.333 0.745 3.30E-02 4.42E-02
    2458517.438 2019 33 2019.09024 1.333 0.779 3.89E-02 4.99E-02
    2458517.479 2019 33 2019.090354 1.333 0.739 4.11E-02 5.56E-02
    2458517.521 2019 34 2019.090468 1.333 0.788 4.39E-02 5.58E-02
    2458517.563 2019 34 2019.090582 1.333 0.734 3.63E-02 4.95E-02
    2458517.604 2019 34 2019.090696 1.333 0.797 4.15E-02 5.20E-02
    2458517.646 2019 34 2019.090811 1.333 0.73 3.74E-02 5.12E-02
    2458517.688 2019 34 2019.090925 1.333 0.805 3.49E-02 4.34E-02
    2458517.729 2019 34 2019.091039 1.333 0.727 4.26E-02 5.85E-02
    2458517.771 2019 34 2019.091153 1.333 0.813 4.20E-02 5.16E-02
    2458517.813 2019 34 2019.091267 1.333 0.724 3.68E-02 5.08E-02
    2458517.854 2019 34 2019.091381 1.333 0.819 3.91E-02 4.77E-02
    2458517.896 2019 34 2019.091495 1.333 0.722 4.35E-02 6.03E-02
    2458517.938 2019 34 2019.09161 1.333 0.824 3.90E-02 4.73E-02
    2458517.979 2019 34 2019.091724 1.333 0.721 3.91E-02 5.42E-02
    2458518.021 2019 34 2019.091838 1.333 0.826 4.52E-02 5.47E-02
    2458518.063 2019 34 2019.091952 1.333 0.721 4.28E-02 5.94E-02
    2458518.104 2019 34 2019.092066 1.333 0.827 4.05E-02 4.90E-02
    2458518.146 2019 34 2019.09218 1.333 0.721 4.16E-02 5.77E-02
    2458518.188 2019 34 2019.092295 1.333 0.824 4.76E-02 5.77E-02
    2458518.229 2019 34 2019.092409 1.333 0.722 3.70E-02 5.12E-02
    2458518.271 2019 34 2019.092523 1.333 0.82 4.45E-02 5.42E-02
    2458518.313 2019 34 2019.092637 1.333 0.724 3.67E-02 5.07E-02
    2458518.354 2019 34 2019.092751 1.333 0.814 4.17E-02 5.12E-02
    2458518.396 2019 34 2019.092865 1.333 0.726 3.59E-02 4.95E-02
    2458518.438 2019 34 2019.09298 1.333 0.807 3.71E-02 4.60E-02
    2458518.479 2019 34 2019.093094 1.333 0.729 4.27E-02 5.86E-02
    2458518.521 2019 35 2019.093208 1.333 0.799 3.86E-02 4.84E-02
    2458518.563 2019 35 2019.093322 1.333 0.733 4.26E-02 5.82E-02
    2458518.604 2019 35 2019.093436 1.333 0.791 3.91E-02 4.94E-02
    2458518.646 2019 35 2019.09355 1.333 0.738 4.03E-02 5.47E-02
    2458518.688 2019 35 2019.093664 1.333 0.782 4.11E-02 5.25E-02
    2458518.729 2019 35 2019.093779 1.333 0.743 3.84E-02 5.16E-02
    2458518.771 2019 35 2019.093893 1.333 0.774 3.73E-02 4.81E-02
    2458518.813 2019 35 2019.094007 1.333 0.749 3.80E-02 5.08E-02
    2458518.854 2019 35 2019.094121 1.333 0.766 3.95E-02 5.16E-02
    2458518.896 2019 35 2019.094235 1.333 0.756 4.03E-02 5.34E-02
    2458518.938 2019 35 2019.094349 1.333 0.758 3.88E-02 5.12E-02
    2458518.979 2019 35 2019.094464 1.333 0.763 3.94E-02 5.16E-02
    2458519.021 2019 35 2019.094578 1.333 0.751 4.01E-02 5.34E-02
    2458519.063 2019 35 2019.094692 1.333 0.771 4.11E-02 5.34E-02
    2458519.104 2019 35 2019.094806 1.333 0.745 3.52E-02 4.73E-02
    2458519.146 2019 35 2019.09492 1.333 0.779 4.19E-02 5.38E-02
    2458519.188 2019 35 2019.095034 1.333 0.74 3.88E-02 5.25E-02
    2458519.229 2019 35 2019.095148 1.333 0.787 4.33E-02 5.51E-02
    2458519.271 2019 35 2019.095263 1.333 0.735 4.21E-02 5.73E-02
    2458519.313 2019 35 2019.095377 1.333 0.794 4.34E-02 5.47E-02
    2458519.354 2019 35 2019.095491 1.333 0.732 4.22E-02 5.77E-02
    2458519.396 2019 35 2019.095605 1.333 0.801 4.31E-02 5.38E-02
    2458519.438 2019 35 2019.095719 1.333 0.729 4.11E-02 5.64E-02
    2458519.479 2019 35 2019.095833 1.333 0.807 4.27E-02 5.29E-02
    2458519.521 2019 36 2019.095948 1.333 0.727 3.99E-02 5.49E-02

  12. #432
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    How about this one?
    Nope. How many times do I need to point it out?
    # All dose rates have a silicon to water correction applied and are altitude corrected to the lunar surface.
    Grant Hutchison

  13. #433
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Nope. How many times do I need to point it out?
    Grant Hutchison
    The altitude correction is removed in the last column on the right. Pretty much all detectors use a silicone to water correction to simulate the impact on human tissue.

  14. #434
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    0.052899093 cgy/day is the average non-altitude adjusted value.

  15. #435
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    This is not a comparison. This is the actual data from a specific date.
    Which you are then comparing with Apollo dosimetry data to draw conclusions about Apollo. But you haven't demonstrated how you are accounting for, amongst other things, differences in sensitivity between the modern detectors and the Apollo dosimeters or to attenuation from shielding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    0.052899093 cgy/day is the average non-altitude adjusted value.
    That's not a cislunar reading though. The telescope is in low lunar orbit.

  16. #436
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The altitude correction is removed in the last column on the right.
    Removing the altitude correction simply shifts the reading back to about 100km above the moon's surface, the altitude of LRO's orbit. This shows the obvious result that the dose rate goes up as you move away from the moon, so that you're less shielded by it and exposed to more GCR from the sky. So 3.66E02 at the surface, but 4.84E-02 at 100km in the first row of your most recent table.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    # Julian Date Year DOY Year Fraction H2O Alt. Dose Rate no Alt. adj
    2458515.521 2019 32 2019.084989 1.333 0.756 3.66E-02 4.84E-02
    So not only is the last column very much not the cis-lunar free space dose rate I've been asking for, it demonstrates the expected result that moving away from the moon increases the dose rate. I think you may just have shot yourself in the foot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Pretty much all detectors use a silicone to water correction to simulate the impact on human tissue.
    That'd be silicon, I think, unless they've found a new use for breast implants.

    Grant Hutchison

  17. #437
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,545
    The Altitude Factor calculation is given on the CRaTER algorithms pages, under the "Dose Rates" tab. The relevant page doesn't have a unique URL, so here's a screenshot--click the thumbnail to read.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Altitude factor.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	104.4 KB 
ID:	26091
    It's simple geometry, reaching 1 as altitude decreases to zero, and approaching 0.5 as altitude increases towards infinity. So, basically, it's saying that, as far as the microdosimeter is concerned, the dose rate very far from the moon is double the dose rate at the lunar surface. Surprise.

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2021-Apr-20 at 10:25 PM. Reason: added link

  18. #438
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    The Altitude Factor calculation is given on the CRaTER algorithms pages, under the "Dose Rates" tab. The relevant page doesn't have a unique URL, so here's a screenshot--click the thumbnail to read.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Altitude factor.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	104.4 KB 
ID:	26091
    It's simple geometry, reaching 1 as altitude decreases to zero, and approaching 0.5 as altitude increases towards infinity. So, basically, it's saying that, as far as the microdosimeter is concerned, the dose rate very far from the moon is double the dose rate at the lunar surface. Surprise.

    Grant Hutchison
    What is simple is the fact that lunar radiation is higher than expected by 30 to 40%. That has not changed.

  19. #439
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    What is simple is the fact that lunar radiation is higher than expected by 30 to 40%. That has not changed.
    But what we can see quite clearly demonstrated, above, is that you don't actually understand the numbers you're playing with. And that you still haven't provided a contemporaneous figure for the dose rate in cis-lunar space, to go with the Chang'E-4 surface measurement. In fact, you've just undermined your own argument, big style.

    So now: what do you believe this "expected" value was, which has now been exceeded by 30 or 40%? We need to know "Percentage of what?" and "Which expected value?"

    I'd say that what we've discovered from Chang'E-4 and LRO is that instead of the lunar surface adding about a fifth more radiation, over and above the half-sky GCR dose, it actually adds something between a quarter and a third more. A quarter is 25% more than a fifth, so that's too little; a third is 66% more than a fifth, so that's too much. So not a big change, and it certainly doesn't make the moon more radioactive than the sky.

    Grant Hutchison

  20. #440
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    But what we can see quite clearly demonstrated, above, is that you don't actually understand the numbers you're playing with. And that you still haven't provided a contemporaneous figure for the dose rate in cis-lunar space, to go with the Chang'E-4 surface measurement. In fact, you've just undermined your own argument, big style.

    So now: what do you believe this "expected" value was, which has now been exceeded by 30 or 40%? We need to know "Percentage of what?" and "Which expected value?"

    I'd say that what we've discovered from Chang'E-4 and LRO is that instead of the lunar surface adding about a fifth more radiation, over and above the half-sky GCR dose, it actually adds something between a quarter and a third more. A quarter is 25% more than a fifth, so that's too little; a third is 66% more than a fifth, so that's too much. So not a big change, and it certainly doesn't make the moon more radioactive than the sky.

    Grant Hutchison
    No we do not need to know any more. NASA was "surprised" which means they did not know. Pursuing the minutiae is simply and academic exercise. If they had actually gone to the moon then they would have known.

  21. #441
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Small radiation packs containing nuclear emulsions and plastic foil detectors carried by the Apollo XI astronauts furnished a detailed record of the astronauts' radiation exposure. The exposure was found to result mainly from nuclear particles, with electrons and gamma rays contributing only about 15% to the total dose equivalent. A mission dose of 201 mrads corresponding to 402 mrems was found. By far the largest part of the dose was due to trapped protons encountered in two passes of the radiation belt on translunar and trans-Earth injection. Orientation of the plane of orbit to the geomagnetic equator was extremely favorable on both passages, resulting in very peripheral crossings of the inner belt. Mission doses on lunar missions in general, therefore, can be expected to be substantially larger. This has been borne out subsequently by Apollo XIV, which had to go through the core of the inner belt on translunar injection and accumulated a total mission-dose equivalent slightly above 1,000 mrems.
    https://meridian.allenpress.com/radi...the-Astronauts
    201 mrads = 2.01 mgy. 2.01mgy/8.08 days = .24876 mgy/day. Apollo 11 mission dose = .22

  22. #442
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Small radiation packs containing nuclear emulsions and plastic foil detectors carried by the Apollo XI astronauts furnished a detailed record of the astronauts' radiation exposure. The exposure was found to result mainly from nuclear particles, with electrons and gamma rays contributing only about 15% to the total dose equivalent.
    85% of a translunar dose comes from the trapped protons in the radiation belt. Amazing!

  23. #443
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Look what I found:

    Neutrons
    Neutrons created by cosmic rays in collision with lunar materials were postulated
    to be a potential hazard to Apollo crewmen (ref. 6). It has been proposed that the neutron hazard be evaluated by the use of whole-body activation measurement of crewmen
    to determine the extent of neutron-induced sodi.um-24 and by use of neutron-resonant
    metal foils that have a known activation response for the type of neutrons expected.
    Both methods for neutron-dose assessment have been used at the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC). Whole-body counting and neutron-resonant foil techniques had
    been initiated on the Apollo 11 mission. The results of these analyses indicated that
    neutron doses were significantly lower than had been anticipated. Activation products
    were below the limits of detection by whole-body spectroscopy, and activities were extremely low even in the neutron-resonant foils (ref. 7). The whole-body and neutronresonant foil methods of neutron-dose determination have been retained because of the
    remaining potential for neutron production by solar-event particles or for excessive
    crewman exposure to neutrons from the SNAP-27 radioisotope thermal generator used
    to power the Apollo lunar surface experiments packages.
    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf

    Maybe 1969 technology was not up to the task.
    Last edited by Lord Foul; 2021-Apr-21 at 05:17 AM. Reason: Reference cited

  24. #444
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Pursuing the minutiae is simply and academic exercise.
    Your methodology is sloppy. Science is about precision. Dismissing actual accuracy as an "academic exercise" means you fundamentally do not understand the very factors and numbers you're trying to use as "evidence".

    You just keep shouting "What about that? No, wait, what about that other thing? Look over there!" And ignoring when each detail you point to fails to support your argument.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  25. #445
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Look what I found:


    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf

    Maybe 1969 technology was not up to the task.
    This is a partial sentence, no one can figure out what you are referring. So please complete the thought or just let it pass as much of your research indicates.

  26. #446
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Your methodology is sloppy. Science is about precision. Dismissing actual accuracy as an "academic exercise" means you fundamentally do not understand the very factors and numbers you're trying to use as "evidence".

    You just keep shouting "What about that? No, wait, what about that other thing? Look over there!" And ignoring when each detail you point to fails to support your argument.
    I agree wholeheartedly LJ continues to bombard this thread with links that are a patchwork of surfing the web, posting the surfing results here.

  27. #447
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    https://meridian.allenpress.com/radi...the-Astronauts
    201 mrads = 2.01 mgy. 2.01mgy/8.08 days = .24876 mgy/day. Apollo 11 mission dose = .22
    These two values are close. The article that you quote gives one reason that the radiation was higher in A15
    This has been borne out subsequently by Apollo XIV, which had to go through the core of the inner belt on translunar injection
    A slightly different trajectory passing more of the the proton region of the VARB than A11 did.

  28. #448
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    85% of a translunar dose comes from the trapped protons in the radiation belt. Amazing!
    How quaint, your googling relies on the abstract from the journal and you have misinterpreted the article accordingly. The article itself points to active-dosimeters specifically designed to pick up on these emissions and that is what that quote refers to(see figures below in image).

    Question - be so kind as to answer this:

    What analysis have you done or researched to establish the comparative sensitivity between the active and passive dosimeters?

    In addition have you done any proper comparison between the Apollo multiple forms of dose gathering in a shielded cabin, with the modern fully functional ones you rely on?

    I'm sure you haven't read the full article, because there are numerous references to the TLI path of Apollo 11 or maybe you just didn't like that bit?



    Further:

    Finally, Fig. 13 shows the spectrum for solar maximum in Fig. 12 redrawn on a larger scale, with the section of the total flux escaping nuclear collision and leading to enders or thindowns indicated separately. Two facts concerning the ender flux are seen clearly in Fig. 13. Firstly, the ender flux represents only a small fraction of the total flux. Secondly, enders are almost completely excluded from near-Earth orbits of low inclination. Even at a geomagnetic latitude of 43 degrees, almost the entire ender flux is located to the left of the cutoff energy, i.e., in the forbidden energy interval. Since Apollo XI was flown closely to the maximum of the present solar cycle.

    So reiterating your failure at acknowledging the trajectory flightpath and the inevitable massive variation between Apollo exposure and the data you reference.

    Examining the article further we see that the analysis used specific parts of the overall dosimeter readings that are particularly sensitive to high energy protons - notice how small a section of the overall dose this study refers to:



    Then we have this conclusion:

    "The inherent shielding of vehicle frame and equipment of the Apollo Command and Service modules affords a very substantial protection especially against trapped protons in the radiation belt. Secondly, indirect appraisal of the astronauts' radiation exposure from data on fluxes and spectra of the radiation incident on the vehicle can never replace direct measurement with dosimeters on the astronauts themselves."

    Since you have repeatedly said the VAB is far worse than the GCR, we can assume that the shielding proven to be highly adequate for VAB transit is better for much less powerful GCRs (and at solar maximum 100% higher than YOUR data)!

  29. #449
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    No we do not need to know any more. NASA was "surprised" which means they did not know. Pursuing the minutiae is simply and academic exercise. If they had actually gone to the moon then they would have known.
    Every aspect of this problem I've explored with you, I've caught you out in a fundamental gap or misapprehension in your knowledge--rocketry, orbital mechanics, dosimetry, the practicalities of CRaTER. So I can see why you might want to avoid discussing these "minutiae" (that is, the actual science). But falling back on a vague expression of surprise by "NASA" just doesn't remotely hack it. These are your minutiae, offered in evidence. It's your job to defend them.

    Here are my outstanding questions:
    Where is the contemporaneous cis-lunar free-space dose measurement that led you to conclude the moon is more radioactive than free space?
    In what way is the moon "30% or 40% more radioactive" than expected? What measure of radioactivity has increased? Who expected this not to be the case, why, and when?

    You've got a bunch of other stuff pending, too.

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2021-Apr-21 at 12:38 PM.

  30. #450
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Look what I found:


    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf

    Maybe 1969 technology was not up to the task.
    Yes, we know. People have referred to that limitation in-thread a couple of times. I first brought it up, supported by a reference, in post #8. It's one of several reason why the Chang'E-4 surface measurement can't be used naively to critique Apollo dosimetry. Did you just shoot yourself in your other foot?

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2021-Apr-21 at 02:21 PM. Reason: added link

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
  •