Before you even dream of going to Mars, first think about going the the Moon, which you are far from being capable of. Then before Mars, first send up real robots, instead of faked one.
How about providing some evidence against the Moon landings? How about keeping your mouth shut? Don't say "fake" if you don't understand things. It's a bit childish.
The proofs are out there for those free to wonder, in stead of the childish people who cannot or don't want, to see the fake, because it's to big to cromprehend.
Why do you suppose there isn't a REAL expert or credentialed person anywhere in the world who would agree with your hoax theories? When was the last time you saw amateur, semi-educated, wannabe conspiracy theorists overthrow the entire planet's academic, journalistic, and technological consensus?
Yet another interesting and informative video. I won't pretend I understand the science behind this presentation but I get the gist of it and believe it to be an honest effort by the uploader which is 100 % more than I can say about most of the hoax videos.
As for radiation dosage on a Mars mission ... all hypothetical I'm afraid, the economic opportunity has passed for a manned mission and robotics are the future of deep space exploration.
Thanks. I agree with your hypothesis.... I'm afraid unmanned probes will do the work the next decades. Travel into space was extremely expensive in the 60s, and remains so. The US Moon landings were as much achievement of a political goal during the cold war as anything else.
lets face it people conspirationist nutjob like the stuff, they seem to forgot that radiation is well understood, it is something that we have number on and clear fact
the russian Valeri Polyakov spend 437 days in space the longest,
and yet they claims a 8 days strip in space is impossible, that the astronaut of apolo 11 woulve been fried!! funny,
Anything can pass through the Van Allen Radiation belts with minimum hazard if you do as NASA did and plot a course to minimise time spent in the higher areas of radiation. Did you know there is a large gap between the two belts known as the safe zone that can be utilised in travelling to minimise exposure. In a nut shell the total radiation absorbed by a Apollo crew was Apollo 14 with a total of 2.85 rem which is about 1/140 the lethal dose. Hardly deadly.
@Rob260259 Yes. 10^27 ergs per second can be converted to rads or any other unit of energy. This is possible because of Einstein's E=mc2 theory. If you knew how many rads that converts to, you wouldn't laugh. It makes any idea of manned missions past 300 miles impossible. Take the energy from solar flares that happen twice a week, galactic cosmic rays that happen every second of every day then take the solar winds and calculate how much radiation is in space. You get a huge number.
@lapmarty The sun averages about 100 solar flares a month . Some of them are major solar flares, about 1 or 2 a week. Do you even have a clue as to what you are talking about? That info is from NASA.
Please daddy, don't bother us with your nonsense You sit here at YouTube playing the big figures man. Most of the people you slander and libel would only have to take a look at your 'science' and would laugh themselves silly. Your stupidities have been met with your ass being handed to you on a plate and you even don't realize that.
@Rob260259 doodyo thinks the ionosphere blocks gamma rays, thinks all H-alpha' are SPE's, thinks he knows the Carrington heliographic, thinks Gamma ray Bursts or supernovae are NOT subject to the inverse² law and thinks Jan Raas, Gerrie Kneteman & Joop Zotemelk are pussies! What does that tell ya'???
No, please. Just like user Occhamite showed, you really haven't the slightest idea what the meaning is of the numbers you puke around. Stop acting like you have a clue as to what you are talking about. You're not fooling me, you're not fooling Occhamite, you're not fooling anybody. Start searching for credentialed scientific researchers that state the Moon landings were impossible due to the items and the big numbers you throw around.
@Rob260259 Then what would you like to me to say? I can give you references and hard numbers to back up what I say. You only offer testimony from paid shills and doctored dosimeter reports. Every single cosmic phenomena is certian death unless your properly shielded which the apollo craft was not which is why you dump on any reference to hard scientific numbers regarding cosmic phenomena. Grow up and deal with the numbers or go away.
- I beg your pardon? So well respected scientists like Imhof, Bostrom, Lucero, Wright, Teague, Beall, Armstrong, Heckman, Lindstrom, Vette, Nakano, Paulinkas, Setlow and Blake are ALL in the conspiracy?
The data stream in the 60's coming from all 22 satellites was doctored or manipulated? You're truly a delusional and ignorant paranoid hoax believer.
"go away"
No, YOU will have to hit the road and get lost running.
- When computing the fraction of bremsstrahlung radiation produced by particles of known energy, how do you equate a dimensionless quantity to an energy?
- What is the main difference between CME driven Solar Proton Events and Impulsive flare events?
- Are Solar flares are isotropic events? yes or no?
- Are neutrinos secondary particles, yes or no?
- What is the difference between X-rays and protons from solar proton events?
1centimeter of lead OR 18g/cm² of water to attenuate gamma rad' by %50.
2.7g/cm² water =1.0g/cm² AL.
Apollo's 7-8g/cm² AL. density rating was equivalent to over 20g/cm² of water.
2g over halving thickness
The trajectory for Apollo11 flew thru' omnidirectional flux protons of 100MeV / 10³particles/cm²-sec. That was sufficiently attenuated by the hull of the CM of 8g/cm², anyone with any knowledge of radiation will not dispute that.
Rubbish. Dis-information is what this is. Readings from the GLAST Burst Monitor which monitors gamma radiation burst all day in the direction it's analyzing find that the amount of energy in gamma burst is equal to the output of our suns entire lifetime. These gamma burst are from millions of years ago and we are measuring them now. Some readings from GBM on any given day and time: 1e+10 MeV. 10 billion million electron volts of energy. 1 second of exposure to that and you die in 30 minutes.
Yeah, sure. A major NASA project debunks another major NASA achievement. The NSSTC has a 100% cooperation with the Max Plancke Institute in Germany. You know, the very same people that were responsible for the primary investigations of lunar soil collected by Apollo.
And here comes some anonymous YouTube Daddyo with his own 'science' and 'truth', talking about rubbish.
@Rob260259 Then answer me this question seeing as how you know so much. If the initial energy released in a solar flare is 10^27 ergs per second, how much of that will reach earth in ergs per second? How much of that will be radioactive? Just two simple question. Can you answer them? Hint: I already know the answer.
@Rob260259 I read your comment. I understand english perfectly. If you know so much then you should be able to answer a simple question. If the initial energy released in a solar flare is 10^27 ergs per second, how much of that will reach earth in ergs per second? How much of that will be radioactive? Having problems? Consult unitconversion. That should help.
@Rob260259 Numbers and data from satellites don't care what you or I or anybody think. Data has no political affiliation either. Numbers don't lie. People do lie and will do so willingly for money. I hope your not trying to deny the fact that people will do almost anything like lie, cheat, steal and murder for money. Therefore, I do not trust people with a vested interest and a bias. I trust numbers because they have no personal bias and no vested interest.
@Rob260259 By the way, have you checked out the data from the GLAST Burst Monitor, CERRES, SOLRAD, SWIFT and other radiation satellites that measure radiation in space. Is that data lying? What I see when I log into those satellites is a lot of radiation. The free downloadable program FV lets you do that. But you work for NASA, so you should know that. I told you people lie, numbers don't unless you manipulate them and your bound to get caught sooner or later fooling with numbers.
Again, you did not answer my question. Or do you suggest that ALL scientists at this Conference are liars?
You seem to know nothing much about radiation. You are the kind of hoaxhead that says "fake" because he does not understand things. In the first place, "ergs p/sec" is not energy, it is power. Do you know the difference between kilowatts and kilowatt-hours?
Daddy, does the name Blashkovsky ring a little bell?
Furthermore, there is no simple way to determine the amount of a flare's energy reaching a certain point on Earth or the entire planet in general. There are several factors of influence. What is the spread of the energy?
- Are you referring to the fact (yes, it is a FACT) that flares sometimes (SOMEtimes) cause the release of particles, so solar protons and electrons MAY be a part of that radiation?
- Flares & SPE's are distinct phenomena, they sometimes occur at the same time.
- There is no way to determine the amount of radiation of this type, occurring with a given SF. The data I found come from measurements at the time of an actual SF.
@Rob260259 You said you work for NASA. Then tell me that it is a fact that all the elements of the periodic table can be found in solar flares. If galactic cosmic rays are from stars that exploded millions of years ago and galactic cosmic rays contain all the elements on the periodic table, logic would dictate that all the elements of the periodic table can be found in our sun and in solar flares. Is that correct?
@Rob260259 This man is supposed to be believed over hard data from satellites? Satellites that measure solar flares, galactic cosmic rays and the solar wind. All of these are physical barriers to any manned mission past 350 miles away from this planet. The data from galactic cosmic ray mesurements imply that the sky is literally crisscrossed in such a way as to seem uniform if viewed in 3D. If you think you can fly through galactic cosmic rays, solar flares and the solar winds, your wrong.
@Daddyo930(2of2) points-up nicely the tremendous difficulty and computer power required to do what you DISHONESTLY claimed to have done. The word"space” doesn't even appear there! And I see that when RELEVANT data is referenced - Blashkovsky, FM-2 for instance – you bug right out. So I'll ask AGAIN: How is it that the Russians flew two circumlunar Zond missions, instrumented specifically to answer the question, and concluded that an ~8 day moon mission would expose the crew to ~1 rem?
@Daddyo930 Why don't you cut the crap. You don't have the foggiest idea what the meaning is of those numbers you throw around. Stop acting like you have a clue as to what you are talking about. You're not fooling anybody, and watching a jackass all the time gets tiresome. I read your article - the one you claim you used to calculate the required thickness of radiation shielding. It only treats a couple of simple cases - line and point sources for instance - and (cont'd)
@occhamite From Wikipedia: almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic rays are protons, about 9% are helium nuclei (alpha particles) and nearly 1% are electrons. The ratio of hydrogen to helium nuclei (28% helium by mass) is about the same as the primordial elemental abundance ratio of these elements (24% by mass He) in the universe. NASA knows that solar proton events are mission killers. GCR's are solar proton events in ray form. Go read up on cosmic rays.
@Daddyo930 (2of2) don't think you know the difference. And it is you who needs to read-up on cosmic rays. They are thought to be the result of stars going super nova, and not the result of mundane SPE's. NASA "knows" that SPE's are uncommon, and partially predictable. And that the risk for men on a SHORT TERM mission could therefore be made acceptable.
@Daddyo930 Excuse me, am I missing something here? What has this to do with my previous post? Is the fact that you can parrot a little bit of a Wiki article now proof that you know what you are talking about? I suppose it's a waste of time, but here goes: All you have cited here are some percentages; they tell nothing about the dose that would be received on a mission, only something of its composition. I (cont'd)
@occhamite Because you ramble on about nothing in particular. Do you have a problem with Wikipedia's facts? Here's some more from Wikipedia on Solar Proton Events: Significant proton radiation exposure can be experienced by astronauts who are outside of the protective shield of the Earth's magnetosphere, such as an astronaut in-transit to, or located on the Moon. Protons kill. So do electrons in large enough quanities. Protons are found in mostly in galactic cosmic rays so your totally busted.
@Rob260259 Galactic cosmic rays. From Wikipedia: They are one of the most important barriers standing in the way of plans for interplanetary travel by crewed spacecraft. Is Wikipedia wacked or what? From NASA: If you made a map of the sky with cosmic ray intensities, it would be completely uniform. All of the natural elements in the periodic table are present in cosmic rays, in roughly the same proportion as they occur in the solar system. Try reading what NASA has to say about GCR's first.
- I read this paper Daddy. In which is written: "For Lunar sortie missions, the duration is short enough that GCR creates no serious risks. SPE's do represent a threat, but because they mainly occur near Solar Maximum and because of the short duration of the missions, the probability of encountering a major SPE is about 0.2 % during Solar Maximum."
Now try to read the questions of Occhamite and try to answer them. And try cutting your crap. This is a serious business.
@Rob260259 You read something from NASA specifically designed to reinforce your belief in the impossible. Galactic cosmic rays. There's no getting around them. Galactic cosmic rays are 90 percent protons and represent a stumbling block to any future space missions according to NASA. If NASA is now saying that galactic cosmic rays prevent them from "returning" to the moon, why should I believe they ever went? Galactic cosmic rays have been around for millions of years and are not going away.
@Rob260259 According to the Vision for Space Exploration, NASA plans to send astronauts back to the Moon by 2020 and, eventually, to set up an outpost. For people to live and work on the Moon safely, the radiation problem must be solved. That's a bold admission from NASA. How come they haven't sent people back since 1969? Funding? No. Radiation. Manned missions to the moon are impossible right now and they were back then. If that were not the case, NASA would have a moon base by now.
@Rob260259 Do you wanna talk about galactic cosmic rays or what? Your just avoiding the issue now. Because of galactic cosmic rays, there is radiation in space all the time and it's coming from every direction in space. Every element in the periodic table, incuding the radioactive ones, can be found in galactic cosmic rays. We measured a galactic cosmic ray particle at 50 joules in 1991. Average joule per GCR is around 5 to 10 joules.
@Rob260259 NASA avoids talking about GCR's and the manned moon missions in the same paper. They know what GCR's are and how dangerous they are. Every scientist will tell you that galactic cosmic rays are everywhere in space and come from every direction in space so there's no navigating around them. Most galactic cosmic rays have energies between 100 MeV. Then there are the ones that measure in the 50 joule range 1991. If we found a 50 joule then, there are bigger ones out there.
(2of2; Biomedical Results of Apollo) 0.6 millirads per hour 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 cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years.
@Daddyo930 wrote "NASA avoids talking about GCR's and the manned moon missions in the same paper" Heeee Hawwww... the jackass brays again!
"'Biomedical Results of Apollo", section II:
Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space[**] and (cont'd)
@Rob260259 No need to do that. You can quote the rest if you want. I want to concentrate on galactic cosmic rays which come at us every second of every day and from every direction in space. This is why we never put a man on the moon. If NASA has to come out and admit that they can't go to the moon now because of radiation, that's one hell of an admission and flies in the face of their assertion that they ever put a man on the moon. Robots, yes. People, hell no.
@Rob260259 Ever heard about E=mc2? That's the formula used to convert mass to energy and energy to mass. You can convert 10^27 ergs per second to rads. This is called unit conversion. Accepted scientific method for converting joules to rads, ergs to MeV's and so on. The number is incredibly huge when you convert 10^27 ergs per second to rads. That much energy won't halve or fall off significantly to the point where it won't be a threat to survival.
@Rob260259 National Space Society Blog: If you want to travel to the Moon or journey anywhere within the Solar System, Galactic Cosmic Radiation will require that the human crew is protected. Radiation may be the biggest hurdle to human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and could put a damper on a recently proposed mission to Mars orbit. NASA article on Galactic Cosmic Rays.
@Daddyo930 is a typical hoaxer.... even though they EVENTUALLY figure out that they have no answers, then they just refuse to perceive the questions..... but they MUST keep right on talking! The sound of their own voice is SO fascinating to them... that they talk nonsense doesn't even matter.
@Daddyo930 "ergs per second' is not even a unit of energy. You're an idiot. Ergs is energy. Ergs/sec. is POWER. Nobody who had any business commenting would make that mistake. You've obviously never cracked a physics book in your life. Too bad you can't see just how idiotic you look. Stop trying to put on airs of erudition. It only makes you look like a jackass.
@Rob260259 Because numbers don't lie, people do. The data from satellites that detect and measure galactic cosmic rays tell us that these rays are so numerous that we don't have enough satellites to detect and measure them all. NASA is not the only one using data from these satellites. Anyone attempting to manipulate the numbers from the satellite would be outed by universities and other professional organizations. One more time. Numbers don't lie, people do.
@Daddyo930 (2of2) ~8-day lunar mission was ~1 rem"? And the reason solar protons are insignificant to Apollo crew doses is that exposure to them was largely AVOIDED by launching at times of low solar activity, skirting theVAB's, and making mission durations SHORT. And if you want proper credit for your work, you should publish detailed information on the data and methods you used, and the computer models you created in doing your estimate of spacecraft radiation shield thickness. LOL
@Daddyo930 “Nothing in particular” ???? I think you'll find yourself alone in that assessment, or was that post meant for someone else? Or are you organically incapable of making an an on-topic remark? ONCE AGAIN: Vague statements like "significant proton exposure" or "protons kill" do not in any way make your case – that space is filled with lethal radiation – nor do they ANSWER THE QUESTION "how is it Blashkovsky et al found, using ZOND data, that the dose for an (cont'd)
Deadly radiation, hyper accelerated mini & micro meteors, heat from the Sun, 'Dust Houses' on the surface of the Moon & all sorts of phenomenon in the most hazardous environment yet known, all that was painstakingly investigated, tested and experimented with before the Apollo Moon missions were commenced. Learn it, live it, know it; NASA missions succeeded in landing on the Moon. There is a load of rocks collected and none of them are like anything on Earth. That is called 100% proof.
"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
A common claim of the moon landing conspiracy theorists is that Apollo was impossible because the Van Allen Radiation Belts (VARB) form an impenetrable barrier to human space flight beyond low Earth orbit. Aside from the fact that the man after which the VARB are named, Dr. James Van Allen, has specifically repudiated the claim, there are several things wrong with this theory. Apollo missions didn't fly straight through the teeth of the VARB, they mostly went around them.
The knowledge of deadly radiation, has vastly increased, since those reports, you use, came out. I know one say 2008, but it is using the theories of 1970.
You should look into some of the advances in research. Have you looked over the information at, CERN,(LHC) Large Hadron Collider?
What do you know about the Lunar Subsatellites, of Apollo 15 and 16?
Fun...? Well, it's like washing my car. Every Saturday it has to be done and I often ask myself why. But then, on Sunday afternoon I often enjoy the sunshine on my wheels. See what I mean?
Was it Jawa? I don't know. This 'Space Full Of Deadly Radiation' argument is brought up so often, I lost count. And Joe Average is going to think it's a fact. This paper here also states that radiation is a problem, yes, ofcourse. But for the LONG missions, like a Mars mission or a base on the Moon.
Most of the hoax crowd just don't (want to) understand that as long as a large SPE doesn't happen the two weeks voyage has an acceptable risk.
You see, all countries have been sharing the data of the environment of space since Dr.Van Allen helped launch Explorer.There's mucho satellites out there,sport, that have a lotta' money ridin' on them,it's very important to get the correct data of the environment of what you're working in,It's about the money!
That's why you have to be 100% correct in your findings,kid.
@deadlyradiation Liar?! You who said the astros' would 've been exposed to 500rem- 5Sv....Without any formula or equation to back it up???? LOLOL
When does the conceited arrogant inane narcissistic childish nonsense stop with?
There isn't enough superlatives to describe your ineptitude.
Sorry sport, it's just the way you try and elevate yourself to a superior position. You remind me of a manager at McDonald's that thinks he's cool when he allocates a kid to clean up the bathrooms.
@deadlyradiation Please show us how you came up with the figure of 5Sv exposure for the Apollo astronauts.
Tell us where NASA, you know the guys that launched that big thing...the most massive movable object ever built, missed the figures and numbers with the construction of their work where a kid like you 40 years later would uncover their mistakes.
.
Here's a question.
You think the Command Mod. weighing over 12,000lbs. couldn't have the proper shielding, even if the landings were faked?
Dang it Rob, wish you'd narrate your videos for us visual learners out here in Y-Tube land, but really you could flex that Dutch accent of yours and make this video really pop'!
I can't possibly read or answer all your comments (which are mostly just insults). I don't have the time.
I'm talking with Luke from this on, because he talks about the ISSUE. Expect your comments being ignored. I may pick up someone elses's comment, but it is highly unlikely.
Aurin, take a rest from this. I need to as well. Why don't we discuss this at ApolloHoax. Join up. I will talk to members and introduce you if you want. I'll ask them to take it easy and explain that you are open minded. PM me if you want, and talk about it.
Because I haven't seen anyone discrditing them. If you have some source that says their flare doses are invalid, I'd like to read it.
Furthermore, because most of these Cuccinotta gang NASA scientists conveniently don't discuss other than high energy protons. And I know the primary proton radiation can be stopped, and you still get (possibly even higher!) radiation dose from the secondary radiation.
Yes, NASA took a risk and played the numbers. They just noted that the chances of a major solar event were less than the chances of the Saturn exploding during launch.
It was not much of a risk in the long run. The missions were about 10 days long which is short enough to play those numbers. It is kind of crossing the highway during rush hour. There is a risk to get killed, but if you really want it and you are in a good shape, you can do it.
Everyone admits NASA took a risk. But I think we have an issue here worth looking at. Cucuinotta and some others have an approach that only giant SPEs would be a problem. They only count high energy protons of giant proton events as a threat.
But this is not the whole truth! I'm sure NASA manned flights people hope it would be! The fact is, that radiation into shielding material causes dangerous secondary radiation! And some type of radiations penetrates all space craft shieldings!
Nice to see you mention NOAA. Because some of your friends have stated that NOAA is 'involved' too. (what a crap, btw).
From '69-'72 there were 3 Solar events that had biological significance, which would have alarmed the dosimeters of a crew. The '72 event (between A16 en A17) was huge. Had an Apollo flight been going during that, the crew would have got very sick. The other two events however, would have caused the astronauts to have radiation problems, yes.
Where do you base that from "69 to 72 there were 3 Solar events that had biological significance". Because I do disagree.
As my previous comment said, total 1485 solar flares occured during the missions and 8 major during moonwalks. As Keller, Shelton, Burrell and Downey flare radiation dose table shows, even mild solar flares would cause serious dose to an astronaut on the Moon.
Taking a few of these doses is certainly an issue! Their cumulative secondary radiation is an issue!
Is that time-zone working in your disadvantage again or what?
"I do disagree"
- Tell me why. Tell me your sources.
"1458"
- Those were *detectable* events Aurinko. Not major Solar flares, causing a serious threat to Apollo and its crew. The tables also show that no major flares occurred during the flights. Again: crossing a highway is very dangerous, but it can be done. In Holland 700 people die in traffic accidents every year. So driving a car is lethal using your logic.
@Rob260259 My sources...ah there are so many. But I already named the Keller, Shelton, Burrell and Downey flare radiation dose table
solar physics montana edu
Major solar flares can deliver from 100 to several thousand rems in a few hours or days for an astronaut inside a spacesuit. That would lead to radiation sickness, and in extreme cases, death. Space station construction workers caught off-guard during even minor flares would be grounded for several years after such an encounter.
I'm sure you have seen the female scientist in Jarrah's video explaining how secondary radiation can be more dangerous than primary radiation. Radiation onto a shielding causes new radiation which can penetrate deeper and cause harmful doses.
isso uh edu
Unfortunately, shielding effectiveness drops as shielding thickness increases. This decrease in shielding effectiveness is due to the production of secondary particles (including neutrons) in the shielding material by primary GCR particles.
@Rob260259 wrote "Tell me, why do you trust their data?"
Because I haven't seen anyone discrditing them. If you have some source that says their flare doses are invalid, I'd like to read it.
Furthermore, because most of these Cuccinotta gang NASA scientists conveniently don't discuss other than high energy protons. And I know the primary proton radiation can be stopped, and you still get (possibly even higher!) radiation dose from the secondary radiation.
@Aurinkohirvi Since everything else is a matter of interpretation, personal spin, or deliberate quote-mining, the real question is this: how many of those people, (Keller, Shelton, Burrell, Downey, or Cuccinotta), have ever even suggested that the Apollo missions were faked? Do you suppose that you and Jarrah are better at drawing conclusions from their data than they were?
@Astrobrant2 DId Keller, Shelton, Burrell, Downey study flares during Apollo missions? I dodn't know, but their dose radiation table does so high doses for a protection an astromnaut on the Moon would have. Wouldn't they believe their own work?
Cucinotta certainly would not cut himself a mortal wound. I read some Web article, that called him NASA radiation health chief. So apparently in very high position in NASA. And definately a radiation shilding guy.
Aurin, that table you quote shows one of the highest energy solar proton events in history. It also shows that solar proton events can be shielded for low energy low flux events. That's what the table is saying. It's not saying that all solar proton events are huge. The other low energy event that Jarrah describes is high flux. Which tells us that SPEs are all different. That's all you can say from that table. The H-alpha flares during Apollo? Which ones are even SPEs?
@lukequixotesanjose wrote: "hows one of the highest energy solar proton events in history."
I went to see Jarrah's video "MF: RA II" again.
Did some detective work. I found everyone of those flares mentioned in the K,S,B&D flare dose table also in the CFI major flares, list. One date has two different flares, though. And, don't know either if these are the same flares in the dose table and CFI, because there would be several flares per day, in case some of them was a minor one.
@lukequixotesanjose continued... So it IS possible that all these flares in their table are major flares. They do say "low energy" with two flares, but even major flares can have low energy particles. Above listed K,S,B&D flare, below CFI flare date and index 23 February 56 high energy 560223 >13 10 May 59 high flux, low energy 590510 14 22 August 58 Low energy 580822 15 12 November 60 601120 12 14 July 59 590714 16 590714 8 All flares with pretty sizeable importance (the index).
Oh, great! YT has a nasty tendency to pull comments like those into one line, without line breaks. Well, copy and paste it if you want to see it clearer.
I thought we both agreed that very large events would have left astronauts in the CM ill, while a large event for nauts on the moon could have killed them. You tell me that, I will agree with you 110%. But we need to establish if each flare in the CFI was an SPE. We have a deinftion now don't we. You looked it up. Once we work out if the CFI flares are SPEs, we need to find out how big they are. Would you agree with me.
I could find you more examples telling you the fact, that secondary radiation is a factor in radiation dose. Secondary radiation happens always when particles or electromagnetic radiation encounter material.
X-rays and gamma rays can penetrate any material. If you increase the shielding depth, there is a chance an em-photon will encounter a particle, causing irradiation. Neutrons and solar flare electrons are also hard or impossible to stop and cause secondary radiation.
Is ten million electron volts a high energy level? The reader isn't told. It sounds like a big number. Put a nine-volt battery on your tongue and you'll get an unpleasant but harmless jolt. You see sparks from a 12-volt battery when you jump-start a car. We take great pains to shield ourselves from the 110-volt current in our houses because we know it can kill us. So ten million electron volts must be an enormous amount of unquestionably fatal energy. Right?
@Rob260259 But you didn't mention that the sparks you get in your blankets on a cold night can be in the range of several thousands of electron volts. And we can put our hand on a million volt Van de Graaf generator without any harm at all, except for having a bad hair day.
Well, no. The "electron volt" (eV) is not equivalent to the common "volt" that measures household electricity. Instead it's the amount of energy picked up by a single electron as it passes through an electrical potential of one volt. We realize that's not a very helpful definition to the layman, but it takes the equivalent energy of about 620,000,000,000,000 million electron volts (MeV) per second to light up a 100-watt light bulb.
@Rob260259 wrote "The "electron volt" (eV) is not equivalent to the common "volt" that measures household electricity. "
Be serious, please.
The electons in solar flares may have several hundred MeV energy. This means you can't stop them with space craft radiation! 6MeV electron penetrates 11.5mm aluminion, and if CM protection is only 2g/cm, that equals to 7,4 mm aluminium.
The flux matters, yes. But what kind of flux you get from several flares per a spacewalk? Or hundred per a mission?
Stop lying. Effective protection of CM was much higher than that, and you know it.
Aluminum hull was NOT the only protection the astronauts had. There was also insulation layer, as well as hardware and instrumentation around the astronauts. It's hard to estimate how much more protection it was adding, but it was significant.
Also, they had their personal protection: their own bodies protecting blood forming organs. It's all relevant, so quit your bs.
A large number, but a small unit. The very large figure given for the light bulb is explained by knowing that each individual electron that participates in the operation of a light bulb has a fairly small energy level, but there are billions and billions of electrons involved. In radiation terms this is called a high "flux". In space the individual electrons can have very high energy levels, but there aren't as many of them. The flux is much smaller.
Auri, what would you prefer: to stand ten feet in front of a water jet with 1000 psi and a diameter of 1 mm, or in front of one at 100 psi and a diameter of 1 meter?
Hint: one would wet your shirt a little. The other would kill you. (I think).
- Those were *detectable* events Aurinko. Not major Solar flares, causing a serious threat to Apollo and its crew. The tables also show that no major flares occurred during the flights. Again: crossing a highway is very dangerous, but it can be done. In Holland 700 people die in traffic accidents every year. So driving a car is lethal using your logic.
@Aurinkohirvi Yeah? Pardon the expression but so fucking what??
Would you have a problem with me quoting from a commercial airline flight manual and using biased selection of portions of it in place of a motor vehicle driver's handbook?
Don't you even have a twinge of intellectual guilt in applying such sources to this discussion? If not, then you show us how an X-ray safety manual has ANYTHING to do with radiation hazards to astronauts.
I've exlpained the KSB and D table, it describes integrated protons fluxes for a range of flares to show how they differ. It says that high energy events can not be shielded very easily. Low energy events can be shielded, but if the flux is high, then the rem goes up. Which flares in the CFI are SPEs. Until you determine that, you cannot say that a dose of protons would be delivered that is any higher than background count.
Yeah, so far we don't know how low energy particles those "LOW ENERGY" flares in the dose table were.
But I disagree on one point. Namely to me even the flare showing the lowest dose, shows very high dose for under 1 g/cm2 protected astronauts (the guys on the Moon).
Alright, there is a point finding if them flare dose table flares are also SPEs.
And ...taking a break now. This has been intence. More like chatting.
@Aurinkohirvi "Until you do, you can keep your opinion."
Yes, but I choose not to. LOL. The radiation dose table is not real simple, at least not the one I saw. And if there was any indication in it that Apollo would have been impossible, don't you think that some *actual* expert would have picked up on it instead of some unqualified pedestrians? Don't you think K,S,B, &D might have asked some questions?
That was actually my point, if the K,S,B&D dose table would not have been valid, then there probably would be opinions correcting it.
To me it was real simple. Shielding on one axis, dosage on other. Just draw your finger vertical from protection to flare curve, and then horizontal and you get the dose.
But if the flares were all over 10MeV 10 pfu, then they wouldn't exactly be mild ones. There's an issue what sort of flares them Apollo mission flares were.
@Aurinkohirvi Auri, you strike me as a relatively mature and intelligent person. Surely, by now, you must not be comfortable with this hoax nonsense. You've been doing this long enough to see that there is no merit to it. Come on over, man. Be on the right side of this argument. Those people did a great thing and they deserve
Before you even dream of going to Mars, first think about going the the Moon, which you are far from being capable of. Then before Mars, first send up real robots, instead of faked one.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen
How about providing some evidence against the Moon landings? How about keeping your mouth shut? Don't say "fake" if you don't understand things. It's a bit childish.
Rob260259 1 month ago
@Rob260259
The proofs are out there for those free to wonder, in stead of the childish people who cannot or don't want, to see the fake, because it's to big to cromprehend.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen
Why do you suppose there isn't a REAL expert or credentialed person anywhere in the world who would agree with your hoax theories? When was the last time you saw amateur, semi-educated, wannabe conspiracy theorists overthrow the entire planet's academic, journalistic, and technological consensus?
You don't know shit, do you?
Rob260259 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen
So you have no evidence...
Thought so.
Rob260259 1 month ago
Yet another interesting and informative video. I won't pretend I understand the science behind this presentation but I get the gist of it and believe it to be an honest effort by the uploader which is 100 % more than I can say about most of the hoax videos.
As for radiation dosage on a Mars mission ... all hypothetical I'm afraid, the economic opportunity has passed for a manned mission and robotics are the future of deep space exploration.
TheSpiritof1969 3 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Thanks. I agree with your hypothesis.... I'm afraid unmanned probes will do the work the next decades. Travel into space was extremely expensive in the 60s, and remains so. The US Moon landings were as much achievement of a political goal during the cold war as anything else.
Rob260259 3 months ago
lets face it people conspirationist nutjob like the stuff, they seem to forgot that radiation is well understood, it is something that we have number on and clear fact
the russian Valeri Polyakov spend 437 days in space the longest,
and yet they claims a 8 days strip in space is impossible, that the astronaut of apolo 11 woulve been fried!! funny,
lapmarty 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The U.S. Marine landings on Iwo Jima were Faked:
1. Grainy footage
2. No man can survive that many Japanese snipers
3. I wasn't there; it must be fake!
charliegoodboy 4 months ago
Anything can pass through the Van Allen Radiation belts with minimum hazard if you do as NASA did and plot a course to minimise time spent in the higher areas of radiation. Did you know there is a large gap between the two belts known as the safe zone that can be utilised in travelling to minimise exposure. In a nut shell the total radiation absorbed by a Apollo crew was Apollo 14 with a total of 2.85 rem which is about 1/140 the lethal dose. Hardly deadly.
Rob260259 5 months ago
@Rob260259 Yes. 10^27 ergs per second can be converted to rads or any other unit of energy. This is possible because of Einstein's E=mc2 theory. If you knew how many rads that converts to, you wouldn't laugh. It makes any idea of manned missions past 300 miles impossible. Take the energy from solar flares that happen twice a week, galactic cosmic rays that happen every second of every day then take the solar winds and calculate how much radiation is in space. You get a huge number.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 what you dont understand is that major flare are not every 2 weeks, and space is a large space,
teh astronaut dont get the total energy you go by, there wear dosimeter, and we know exactly how many rads they took in,
from the russian, and from all teh apollo and other space mission, plus the probes, and satelitte, and other unmmaned stuff we have send,
you can get those number, and see for yourself that your claim is just bad astronomy and bad maths
lapmarty 4 months ago
@lapmarty The sun averages about 100 solar flares a month . Some of them are major solar flares, about 1 or 2 a week. Do you even have a clue as to what you are talking about? That info is from NASA.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930
Please daddy, don't bother us with your nonsense You sit here at YouTube playing the big figures man. Most of the people you slander and libel would only have to take a look at your 'science' and would laugh themselves silly. Your stupidities have been met with your ass being handed to you on a plate and you even don't realize that.
Rob260259 4 months ago
@Rob260259 doodyo thinks the ionosphere blocks gamma rays, thinks all H-alpha' are SPE's, thinks he knows the Carrington heliographic, thinks Gamma ray Bursts or supernovae are NOT subject to the inverse² law and thinks Jan Raas, Gerrie Kneteman & Joop Zotemelk are pussies! What does that tell ya'???
At least this guy has imagination.
TC.
Tweekerhead 4 months ago
@Tweekerhead
Hahahahaa!
Rob260259 4 months ago
@Daddyo930
"That info is from NASA"
- You're like a broken record Daddy... here is mine: If you do not trust NASA data, how can you use that data as evidence against NASA?
Rob260259 4 months ago
@Rob260259 Not only from NASA, but from every scientific institute out there. Would you like more references?
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930
No, please. Just like user Occhamite showed, you really haven't the slightest idea what the meaning is of the numbers you puke around. Stop acting like you have a clue as to what you are talking about. You're not fooling me, you're not fooling Occhamite, you're not fooling anybody. Start searching for credentialed scientific researchers that state the Moon landings were impossible due to the items and the big numbers you throw around.
Rob260259 4 months ago
@Rob260259 Then what would you like to me to say? I can give you references and hard numbers to back up what I say. You only offer testimony from paid shills and doctored dosimeter reports. Every single cosmic phenomena is certian death unless your properly shielded which the apollo craft was not which is why you dump on any reference to hard scientific numbers regarding cosmic phenomena. Grow up and deal with the numbers or go away.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930
"testimony from paid shills"
- I beg your pardon? So well respected scientists like Imhof, Bostrom, Lucero, Wright, Teague, Beall, Armstrong, Heckman, Lindstrom, Vette, Nakano, Paulinkas, Setlow and Blake are ALL in the conspiracy?
The data stream in the 60's coming from all 22 satellites was doctored or manipulated? You're truly a delusional and ignorant paranoid hoax believer.
"go away"
No, YOU will have to hit the road and get lost running.
Rob260259 4 months ago
@Daddyo930
- When computing the fraction of bremsstrahlung radiation produced by particles of known energy, how do you equate a dimensionless quantity to an energy?
- What is the main difference between CME driven Solar Proton Events and Impulsive flare events?
- Are Solar flares are isotropic events? yes or no?
- Are neutrinos secondary particles, yes or no?
- What is the difference between X-rays and protons from solar proton events?
Read the papers and search for the answers.
Bye.
Rob260259 4 months ago
@Rob260259 SEEEEYAAAAA! Good riddance. Complete waste of time and effort, not to mention skin.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930
That's a very 'unique' way of saying that you have no answers. Bye.
Rob260259 4 months ago
@Rob260259 Good.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 Hey Spammer...
1centimeter of lead OR 18g/cm² of water to attenuate gamma rad' by %50.
2.7g/cm² water =1.0g/cm² AL.
Apollo's 7-8g/cm² AL. density rating was equivalent to over 20g/cm² of water.
2g over halving thickness
The trajectory for Apollo11 flew thru' omnidirectional flux protons of 100MeV / 10³particles/cm²-sec. That was sufficiently attenuated by the hull of the CM of 8g/cm², anyone with any knowledge of radiation will not dispute that.
Sorry spammer, just helping.
Tweekerhead 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930
'I can give you references and hard numbers to back up what I say.'
Then by ALL means DO! I am willing to uncover your techno-babble of ignorance.
Monkeyboysdontknow 4 months ago
Rubbish. Dis-information is what this is. Readings from the GLAST Burst Monitor which monitors gamma radiation burst all day in the direction it's analyzing find that the amount of energy in gamma burst is equal to the output of our suns entire lifetime. These gamma burst are from millions of years ago and we are measuring them now. Some readings from GBM on any given day and time: 1e+10 MeV. 10 billion million electron volts of energy. 1 second of exposure to that and you die in 30 minutes.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
Yeah, sure. A major NASA project debunks another major NASA achievement. The NSSTC has a 100% cooperation with the Max Plancke Institute in Germany. You know, the very same people that were responsible for the primary investigations of lunar soil collected by Apollo.
And here comes some anonymous YouTube Daddyo with his own 'science' and 'truth', talking about rubbish.
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 Then answer me this question seeing as how you know so much. If the initial energy released in a solar flare is 10^27 ergs per second, how much of that will reach earth in ergs per second? How much of that will be radioactive? Just two simple question. Can you answer them? Hint: I already know the answer.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
You can read, can you? Try reading my comment.
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 I read your comment. I understand english perfectly. If you know so much then you should be able to answer a simple question. If the initial energy released in a solar flare is 10^27 ergs per second, how much of that will reach earth in ergs per second? How much of that will be radioactive? Having problems? Consult unitconversion. That should help.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
Once again: do you really and seriously think that a major NASA project debunks another major NASA achievement?
I started a few years ago at h t t p : / / hesperia . gsfc . nasa . gov/hessi/
See that abbreviation? NASA...?
Rob260259 6 months ago 7
@Rob260259 Numbers and data from satellites don't care what you or I or anybody think. Data has no political affiliation either. Numbers don't lie. People do lie and will do so willingly for money. I hope your not trying to deny the fact that people will do almost anything like lie, cheat, steal and murder for money. Therefore, I do not trust people with a vested interest and a bias. I trust numbers because they have no personal bias and no vested interest.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
By the way; have you studied the papers from the 29th int.Cosmic Ray Conference in Pune?
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 By the way, have you checked out the data from the GLAST Burst Monitor, CERRES, SOLRAD, SWIFT and other radiation satellites that measure radiation in space. Is that data lying? What I see when I log into those satellites is a lot of radiation. The free downloadable program FV lets you do that. But you work for NASA, so you should know that. I told you people lie, numbers don't unless you manipulate them and your bound to get caught sooner or later fooling with numbers.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
Again, you did not answer my question. Or do you suggest that ALL scientists at this Conference are liars?
You seem to know nothing much about radiation. You are the kind of hoaxhead that says "fake" because he does not understand things. In the first place, "ergs p/sec" is not energy, it is power. Do you know the difference between kilowatts and kilowatt-hours?
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
"Is that data lying?"
-Who verified and checked the data and who wrote it on the website? Aaawh! Don't trust anybody!
LOL
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
"But you work for NASA"
- Aah. That good old distrusting conspiracy paranoia again...
I wish I could work for NASA. I wouldn't be around here to comment some conspiracy theorists.
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
Daddy, does the name Blashkovsky ring a little bell?
Furthermore, there is no simple way to determine the amount of a flare's energy reaching a certain point on Earth or the entire planet in general. There are several factors of influence. What is the spread of the energy?
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
"Radiation"
- Are you referring to the fact (yes, it is a FACT) that flares sometimes (SOMEtimes) cause the release of particles, so solar protons and electrons MAY be a part of that radiation?
- Flares & SPE's are distinct phenomena, they sometimes occur at the same time.
- There is no way to determine the amount of radiation of this type, occurring with a given SF. The data I found come from measurements at the time of an actual SF.
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 You said you work for NASA. Then tell me that it is a fact that all the elements of the periodic table can be found in solar flares. If galactic cosmic rays are from stars that exploded millions of years ago and galactic cosmic rays contain all the elements on the periodic table, logic would dictate that all the elements of the periodic table can be found in our sun and in solar flares. Is that correct?
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
"You said you work for NASA"
LOL
Where and when did I say that...?? And does the name Blashkovsky ring a little bell?
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 Wrong person. You obviously don't work for NASA because you know nothing about solar flares, galactic cosmic rays or the solar winds.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
"Wrong person"
- Yeah. Not your only mistake. Mentioning Blashkovsky evidently was too much for you.
Bye.
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 Whatever. Take your marbles and hit the bricks.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
Grrrrr.... Blashkovsky!
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 This man is supposed to be believed over hard data from satellites? Satellites that measure solar flares, galactic cosmic rays and the solar wind. All of these are physical barriers to any manned mission past 350 miles away from this planet. The data from galactic cosmic ray mesurements imply that the sky is literally crisscrossed in such a way as to seem uniform if viewed in 3D. If you think you can fly through galactic cosmic rays, solar flares and the solar winds, your wrong.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
You have a lot to learn Daddy. And some comments to read, which I'm not going to repeat.
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Daddyo930(2of2) points-up nicely the tremendous difficulty and computer power required to do what you DISHONESTLY claimed to have done. The word"space” doesn't even appear there! And I see that when RELEVANT data is referenced - Blashkovsky, FM-2 for instance – you bug right out. So I'll ask AGAIN: How is it that the Russians flew two circumlunar Zond missions, instrumented specifically to answer the question, and concluded that an ~8 day moon mission would expose the crew to ~1 rem?
occhamite 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 Why don't you cut the crap. You don't have the foggiest idea what the meaning is of those numbers you throw around. Stop acting like you have a clue as to what you are talking about. You're not fooling anybody, and watching a jackass all the time gets tiresome. I read your article - the one you claim you used to calculate the required thickness of radiation shielding. It only treats a couple of simple cases - line and point sources for instance - and (cont'd)
occhamite 6 months ago
@occhamite From Wikipedia: almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic rays are protons, about 9% are helium nuclei (alpha particles) and nearly 1% are electrons. The ratio of hydrogen to helium nuclei (28% helium by mass) is about the same as the primordial elemental abundance ratio of these elements (24% by mass He) in the universe. NASA knows that solar proton events are mission killers. GCR's are solar proton events in ray form. Go read up on cosmic rays.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 (2of2) don't think you know the difference. And it is you who needs to read-up on cosmic rays. They are thought to be the result of stars going super nova, and not the result of mundane SPE's. NASA "knows" that SPE's are uncommon, and partially predictable. And that the risk for men on a SHORT TERM mission could therefore be made acceptable.
occhamite 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 Excuse me, am I missing something here? What has this to do with my previous post? Is the fact that you can parrot a little bit of a Wiki article now proof that you know what you are talking about? I suppose it's a waste of time, but here goes: All you have cited here are some percentages; they tell nothing about the dose that would be received on a mission, only something of its composition. I (cont'd)
occhamite 6 months ago
@occhamite Because you ramble on about nothing in particular. Do you have a problem with Wikipedia's facts? Here's some more from Wikipedia on Solar Proton Events: Significant proton radiation exposure can be experienced by astronauts who are outside of the protective shield of the Earth's magnetosphere, such as an astronaut in-transit to, or located on the Moon. Protons kill. So do electrons in large enough quanities. Protons are found in mostly in galactic cosmic rays so your totally busted.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
Please Daddy, why do you constantly have to prove that you don't read comments? Is it because you like your 'truth' and your own 'science' better?
Here is another Wiki: 9 mm bullets kill. So do bullets of the 5.56 mm caliber.
Nevertheless; the bullets here in my Walther never killed anyone... how come...
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
w w w . xmission . com/~jwindley/envradintro . html
w w w . xmission . com/~jwindley/envsun . html
Start educating yourself.
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 Galactic cosmic rays. From Wikipedia: They are one of the most important barriers standing in the way of plans for interplanetary travel by crewed spacecraft. Is Wikipedia wacked or what? From NASA: If you made a map of the sky with cosmic ray intensities, it would be completely uniform. All of the natural elements in the periodic table are present in cosmic rays, in roughly the same proportion as they occur in the solar system. Try reading what NASA has to say about GCR's first.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
"Try reading"
- I read this paper Daddy. In which is written: "For Lunar sortie missions, the duration is short enough that GCR creates no serious risks. SPE's do represent a threat, but because they mainly occur near Solar Maximum and because of the short duration of the missions, the probability of encountering a major SPE is about 0.2 % during Solar Maximum."
Now try to read the questions of Occhamite and try to answer them. And try cutting your crap. This is a serious business.
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 You read something from NASA specifically designed to reinforce your belief in the impossible. Galactic cosmic rays. There's no getting around them. Galactic cosmic rays are 90 percent protons and represent a stumbling block to any future space missions according to NASA. If NASA is now saying that galactic cosmic rays prevent them from "returning" to the moon, why should I believe they ever went? Galactic cosmic rays have been around for millions of years and are not going away.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
"if NASA is now saying that galactic cosmic rays prevent them from "returning" to the moon"
-Do they? Source please?
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 According to the Vision for Space Exploration, NASA plans to send astronauts back to the Moon by 2020 and, eventually, to set up an outpost. For people to live and work on the Moon safely, the radiation problem must be solved. That's a bold admission from NASA. How come they haven't sent people back since 1969? Funding? No. Radiation. Manned missions to the moon are impossible right now and they were back then. If that were not the case, NASA would have a moon base by now.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
"Funding?"
- Yes.
"Radiation?"
- How long?
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 Do you wanna talk about galactic cosmic rays or what? Your just avoiding the issue now. Because of galactic cosmic rays, there is radiation in space all the time and it's coming from every direction in space. Every element in the periodic table, incuding the radioactive ones, can be found in galactic cosmic rays. We measured a galactic cosmic ray particle at 50 joules in 1991. Average joule per GCR is around 5 to 10 joules.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
The source Daddy, I want to know the source where NASA says GCR prevent them from returning to the Moon.
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 NASA avoids talking about GCR's and the manned moon missions in the same paper. They know what GCR's are and how dangerous they are. Every scientist will tell you that galactic cosmic rays are everywhere in space and come from every direction in space so there's no navigating around them. Most galactic cosmic rays have energies between 100 MeV. Then there are the ones that measure in the 50 joule range 1991. If we found a 50 joule then, there are bigger ones out there.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
Evidently you did *not* read the paper. And you fail to answer my simple question. In your own words: Take your marbles and hit the bricks.
Rob260259 6 months ago
(2of2; Biomedical Results of Apollo) 0.6 millirads per hour 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 cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years.
occhamite 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 wrote "NASA avoids talking about GCR's and the manned moon missions in the same paper" Heeee Hawwww... the jackass brays again!
"'Biomedical Results of Apollo", section II:
Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space[**] and (cont'd)
occhamite 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
"For people to live and work on the Moon safely, the radiation problem must be solved"
-Spot on Daddy. That is what the paper says. Now go on reading and echo that here please.
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 No need to do that. You can quote the rest if you want. I want to concentrate on galactic cosmic rays which come at us every second of every day and from every direction in space. This is why we never put a man on the moon. If NASA has to come out and admit that they can't go to the moon now because of radiation, that's one hell of an admission and flies in the face of their assertion that they ever put a man on the moon. Robots, yes. People, hell no.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
"Joule"
- Are you starting that crap about ergs p/sec again? That is not energy, it is power.
And please answer my question.
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 Ever heard about E=mc2? That's the formula used to convert mass to energy and energy to mass. You can convert 10^27 ergs per second to rads. This is called unit conversion. Accepted scientific method for converting joules to rads, ergs to MeV's and so on. The number is incredibly huge when you convert 10^27 ergs per second to rads. That much energy won't halve or fall off significantly to the point where it won't be a threat to survival.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
For the last time Daddy: Where does NASA says that GCR prevents them from returning to the Moon?
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 National Space Society Blog: If you want to travel to the Moon or journey anywhere within the Solar System, Galactic Cosmic Radiation will require that the human crew is protected. Radiation may be the biggest hurdle to human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and could put a damper on a recently proposed mission to Mars orbit. NASA article on Galactic Cosmic Rays.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
"NASA article on Galactic Cosmic Rays."
- again: If you do not trust NASA data, how can you use that data as evidence against NASA?
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 is a typical hoaxer.... even though they EVENTUALLY figure out that they have no answers, then they just refuse to perceive the questions..... but they MUST keep right on talking! The sound of their own voice is SO fascinating to them... that they talk nonsense doesn't even matter.
occhamite 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 "ergs per second' is not even a unit of energy. You're an idiot. Ergs is energy. Ergs/sec. is POWER. Nobody who had any business commenting would make that mistake. You've obviously never cracked a physics book in your life. Too bad you can't see just how idiotic you look. Stop trying to put on airs of erudition. It only makes you look like a jackass.
occhamite 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
Here's a thought Daddy, for you and most of the other hoax heads:
If you do not trust NASA data, how can you use that data as evidence against NASA?
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 Because numbers don't lie, people do. The data from satellites that detect and measure galactic cosmic rays tell us that these rays are so numerous that we don't have enough satellites to detect and measure them all. NASA is not the only one using data from these satellites. Anyone attempting to manipulate the numbers from the satellite would be outed by universities and other professional organizations. One more time. Numbers don't lie, people do.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
"One more time"
Ok, one more time:
"if NASA is now saying that galactic cosmic rays prevent them from "returning" to the moon"
- Source please?
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
"Radiation?"
- again Daddy; what duration of radiation?
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 (2of2) ~8-day lunar mission was ~1 rem"? And the reason solar protons are insignificant to Apollo crew doses is that exposure to them was largely AVOIDED by launching at times of low solar activity, skirting theVAB's, and making mission durations SHORT. And if you want proper credit for your work, you should publish detailed information on the data and methods you used, and the computer models you created in doing your estimate of spacecraft radiation shield thickness. LOL
occhamite 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 “Nothing in particular” ???? I think you'll find yourself alone in that assessment, or was that post meant for someone else? Or are you organically incapable of making an an on-topic remark? ONCE AGAIN: Vague statements like "significant proton exposure" or "protons kill" do not in any way make your case – that space is filled with lethal radiation – nor do they ANSWER THE QUESTION "how is it Blashkovsky et al found, using ZOND data, that the dose for an (cont'd)
occhamite 6 months ago
Deadly radiation, hyper accelerated mini & micro meteors, heat from the Sun, 'Dust Houses' on the surface of the Moon & all sorts of phenomenon in the most hazardous environment yet known, all that was painstakingly investigated, tested and experimented with before the Apollo Moon missions were commenced. Learn it, live it, know it; NASA missions succeeded in landing on the Moon. There is a load of rocks collected and none of them are like anything on Earth. That is called 100% proof.
Rob260259 8 months ago
@Rob260259 no it called metrolites...
hughezee 7 months ago
Van Allen Belts
watch?v=JLk7L3BPVlQ
McShill 8 months ago
@McShill
"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
-- Dr. James Van Allen
Rob260259 8 months ago 14
@McShill
A common claim of the moon landing conspiracy theorists is that Apollo was impossible because the Van Allen Radiation Belts (VARB) form an impenetrable barrier to human space flight beyond low Earth orbit. Aside from the fact that the man after which the VARB are named, Dr. James Van Allen, has specifically repudiated the claim, there are several things wrong with this theory. Apollo missions didn't fly straight through the teeth of the VARB, they mostly went around them.
Rob260259 8 months ago 22
@Rob260259 they went round them ..har har ..yeah this is getting a bit silly now
hughezee 7 months ago
@hughezee
Thank you for your valuable and truly convincing contribution.
Rob260259 7 months ago
@Rob260259 a british jury would say your landing was faked ..
ok why havent you dont it again???
is it just for white people?
hughezee 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi, watch my video.
watch?v=803Oa0CpJ4s
Radiation. Is Human Space Exploration Possible with Todays Shielding Technology
superpowersunit 9 months ago
excellent work ...music also !
jStevieO 10 months ago
@jStevieO
Thanks.
By the way; I've been in Assen many times. Visiting the Dutch TT several times. Watched Wil Hartog winning the 500cc in 1977. It was just awesome..!
Rob260259 10 months ago
The knowledge of deadly radiation, has vastly increased, since those reports, you use, came out. I know one say 2008, but it is using the theories of 1970.
You should look into some of the advances in research. Have you looked over the information at, CERN,(LHC) Large Hadron Collider?
What do you know about the Lunar Subsatellites, of Apollo 15 and 16?
deadlyradiation 11 months ago
@deadlyradiation
Have you read the paper? It was accepted in August 2006. Have you read the description for the video?
Rob260259 11 months ago
@deadlyradiation When you guys like this...that the CM was rated at 7-8g/cm², they think you're saying the CM was 7-8 cm thick in construction.
I think even if you explain it to them that 7-8g/cm² doesn't mean it was 8cm thick, it means there was 7-8 grams of aluminum per squared centimeter.
So who was it that said the CM was rated at 2g/cm²? Was it Jaraw?
Man Rob, these guys love to make stuff up, they are a real special bread.
Fun to rub the truth in their face, all the time.
Tweekerhead 8 months ago
@Tweekerhead
Fun...? Well, it's like washing my car. Every Saturday it has to be done and I often ask myself why. But then, on Sunday afternoon I often enjoy the sunshine on my wheels. See what I mean?
Rob260259 8 months ago
@Tweekerhead
Was it Jawa? I don't know. This 'Space Full Of Deadly Radiation' argument is brought up so often, I lost count. And Joe Average is going to think it's a fact. This paper here also states that radiation is a problem, yes, ofcourse. But for the LONG missions, like a Mars mission or a base on the Moon.
Most of the hoax crowd just don't (want to) understand that as long as a large SPE doesn't happen the two weeks voyage has an acceptable risk.
Rob260259 8 months ago
@Tweekerhead What's the link for the" 7-8g/cm²", kid?
deadlyradiation 8 months ago
@deadlyradiation I told you before, kid, NASA.
The same place that you inadvertently get yours.
You see, all countries have been sharing the data of the environment of space since Dr.Van Allen helped launch Explorer.There's mucho satellites out there,sport, that have a lotta' money ridin' on them,it's very important to get the correct data of the environment of what you're working in,It's about the money!
That's why you have to be 100% correct in your findings,kid.
No blockin me here... kid.
Tweekerhead 8 months ago
@Tweekerhead That's not a link, give the link saying " 7-8g/cm²", stop the wheel spinning, liar.
deadlyradiation 8 months ago
@deadlyradiation Liar?! You who said the astros' would 've been exposed to 500rem- 5Sv....Without any formula or equation to back it up???? LOLOL
When does the conceited arrogant inane narcissistic childish nonsense stop with?
There isn't enough superlatives to describe your ineptitude.
Sorry sport, it's just the way you try and elevate yourself to a superior position. You remind me of a manager at McDonald's that thinks he's cool when he allocates a kid to clean up the bathrooms.
Tweekerhead 8 months ago
@deadlyradiation Please show us how you came up with the figure of 5Sv exposure for the Apollo astronauts.
Tell us where NASA, you know the guys that launched that big thing...the most massive movable object ever built, missed the figures and numbers with the construction of their work where a kid like you 40 years later would uncover their mistakes.
.
Here's a question.
You think the Command Mod. weighing over 12,000lbs. couldn't have the proper shielding, even if the landings were faked?
Tweekerhead 8 months ago
Dang it Rob, wish you'd narrate your videos for us visual learners out here in Y-Tube land, but really you could flex that Dutch accent of yours and make this video really pop'!
Cheers!
Tweekerhead 11 months ago
@Tweekerhead
Ghehe... my voice instead of my music...? Naah.. However... I may try it in the near future.
Rob260259 11 months ago
THIS IS TO ALL YOU GUYS POSTING HERE.
I can't possibly read or answer all your comments (which are mostly just insults). I don't have the time.
I'm talking with Luke from this on, because he talks about the ISSUE. Expect your comments being ignored. I may pick up someone elses's comment, but it is highly unlikely.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi
Aurin, take a rest from this. I need to as well. Why don't we discuss this at ApolloHoax. Join up. I will talk to members and introduce you if you want. I'll ask them to take it easy and explain that you are open minded. PM me if you want, and talk about it.
lukequixotesanjose 11 months ago
@lukequixotesanjose
"Aurin, take a rest from this".. "discuss this at ApolloHoax".. "PM me if you want"
I did the same proposal some days ago. He said he would 'take a look'.
I think you can imagine my curiosity. Did Aurinko do it?
I'm pessimistic. Again...:-)
Rob260259 11 months ago
@Rob260259
Because I haven't seen anyone discrditing them. If you have some source that says their flare doses are invalid, I'd like to read it.
Furthermore, because most of these Cuccinotta gang NASA scientists conveniently don't discuss other than high energy protons. And I know the primary proton radiation can be stopped, and you still get (possibly even higher!) radiation dose from the secondary radiation.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
@Rob260259
That's a simple question which cannot be misunderstood. Read the answer from previous comment.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
Hoaxers always clutch at the most convenient scenarios, and in case of radiation it means, of course, the most scary ones.
Their formula is like:
the most dangerous x the longest x Rene's pi = DEATH TO ASTRONAUTS!
They will probably never get or accept what real science is about, and what accepting the risk means.
Very nice video, Rob.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@BlisterHiker
That's not right.
In Jarrah's "MoonFaker: Radioacticve Anomaly II" the angle was:
Even minor solar flares x Astronauts on the Moon = serious radiation poisoning.
and
van Allen Belts x Apollo flights inclination = serious radiation poisoning
And mind you, according to NOAA there was:
- total 1485 flares during the Apollo missions,
- during the moonwalks there were 8 major solar flares,
- during the missions (not counted launch and return to Earth days) 20 major solar flares.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi
Yes, NASA took a risk and played the numbers. They just noted that the chances of a major solar event were less than the chances of the Saturn exploding during launch.
It was not much of a risk in the long run. The missions were about 10 days long which is short enough to play those numbers. It is kind of crossing the highway during rush hour. There is a risk to get killed, but if you really want it and you are in a good shape, you can do it.
Rob260259 11 months ago
@Rob260259
Everyone admits NASA took a risk. But I think we have an issue here worth looking at. Cucuinotta and some others have an approach that only giant SPEs would be a problem. They only count high energy protons of giant proton events as a threat.
But this is not the whole truth! I'm sure NASA manned flights people hope it would be! The fact is, that radiation into shielding material causes dangerous secondary radiation! And some type of radiations penetrates all space craft shieldings!
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi
Nice to see you mention NOAA. Because some of your friends have stated that NOAA is 'involved' too. (what a crap, btw).
From '69-'72 there were 3 Solar events that had biological significance, which would have alarmed the dosimeters of a crew. The '72 event (between A16 en A17) was huge. Had an Apollo flight been going during that, the crew would have got very sick. The other two events however, would have caused the astronauts to have radiation problems, yes.
Rob260259 11 months ago
@Rob260259
Where do you base that from "69 to 72 there were 3 Solar events that had biological significance". Because I do disagree.
As my previous comment said, total 1485 solar flares occured during the missions and 8 major during moonwalks. As Keller, Shelton, Burrell and Downey flare radiation dose table shows, even mild solar flares would cause serious dose to an astronaut on the Moon.
Taking a few of these doses is certainly an issue! Their cumulative secondary radiation is an issue!
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi
Is that time-zone working in your disadvantage again or what?
"I do disagree"
- Tell me why. Tell me your sources.
"1458"
- Those were *detectable* events Aurinko. Not major Solar flares, causing a serious threat to Apollo and its crew. The tables also show that no major flares occurred during the flights. Again: crossing a highway is very dangerous, but it can be done. In Holland 700 people die in traffic accidents every year. So driving a car is lethal using your logic.
Rob260259 11 months ago
@Rob260259 My sources...ah there are so many. But I already named the Keller, Shelton, Burrell and Downey flare radiation dose table
solar physics montana edu
Major solar flares can deliver from 100 to several thousand rems in a few hours or days for an astronaut inside a spacesuit. That would lead to radiation sickness, and in extreme cases, death. Space station construction workers caught off-guard during even minor flares would be grounded for several years after such an encounter.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
I'm sure you have seen the female scientist in Jarrah's video explaining how secondary radiation can be more dangerous than primary radiation. Radiation onto a shielding causes new radiation which can penetrate deeper and cause harmful doses.
isso uh edu
Unfortunately, shielding effectiveness drops as shielding thickness increases. This decrease in shielding effectiveness is due to the production of secondary particles (including neutrons) in the shielding material by primary GCR particles.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi
"I already named the Keller, Shelton, Burrell and Downey flare radiation dose table"
Tell me, why do you trust their data?
Rob260259 11 months ago
@Rob260259 wrote "Tell me, why do you trust their data?"
Because I haven't seen anyone discrditing them. If you have some source that says their flare doses are invalid, I'd like to read it.
Furthermore, because most of these Cuccinotta gang NASA scientists conveniently don't discuss other than high energy protons. And I know the primary proton radiation can be stopped, and you still get (possibly even higher!) radiation dose from the secondary radiation.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi Since everything else is a matter of interpretation, personal spin, or deliberate quote-mining, the real question is this: how many of those people, (Keller, Shelton, Burrell, Downey, or Cuccinotta), have ever even suggested that the Apollo missions were faked? Do you suppose that you and Jarrah are better at drawing conclusions from their data than they were?
Astrobrant2 11 months ago
@Astrobrant2 DId Keller, Shelton, Burrell, Downey study flares during Apollo missions? I dodn't know, but their dose radiation table does so high doses for a protection an astromnaut on the Moon would have. Wouldn't they believe their own work?
Cucinotta certainly would not cut himself a mortal wound. I read some Web article, that called him NASA radiation health chief. So apparently in very high position in NASA. And definately a radiation shilding guy.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
*...their radiation table does sSHOW high doses...
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi
"their radiation table does sSHOW high doses..."
I've said this often; the Walther P5 9mm in my house is very very dangerous. So in your logic everybody in my house is killed by it.
Rob260259 11 months ago
"DId Keller, Shelton, Burrell, Downey study flares during Apollo missions? I dodn't know..."
@Aurin
Bravo... You're getting better by the minute.
I showed you quote from one scientist who did that during Apollo, but it didn't convince you either. Why? Because you know the truF already.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi
Aurin, that table you quote shows one of the highest energy solar proton events in history. It also shows that solar proton events can be shielded for low energy low flux events. That's what the table is saying. It's not saying that all solar proton events are huge. The other low energy event that Jarrah describes is high flux. Which tells us that SPEs are all different. That's all you can say from that table. The H-alpha flares during Apollo? Which ones are even SPEs?
lukequixotesanjose 11 months ago
@lukequixotesanjose wrote: "hows one of the highest energy solar proton events in history."
I went to see Jarrah's video "MF: RA II" again.
Did some detective work. I found everyone of those flares mentioned in the K,S,B&D flare dose table also in the CFI major flares, list. One date has two different flares, though. And, don't know either if these are the same flares in the dose table and CFI, because there would be several flares per day, in case some of them was a minor one.
continues...
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
Oh, great! YT has a nasty tendency to pull comments like those into one line, without line breaks. Well, copy and paste it if you want to see it clearer.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi
I thought we both agreed that very large events would have left astronauts in the CM ill, while a large event for nauts on the moon could have killed them. You tell me that, I will agree with you 110%. But we need to establish if each flare in the CFI was an SPE. We have a deinftion now don't we. You looked it up. Once we work out if the CFI flares are SPEs, we need to find out how big they are. Would you agree with me.
lukequixotesanjose 11 months ago
@lukequixotesanjose wrote "But we need to establish if each flare in the CFI was an SPE"
Well, that's a huge job. I already tried to look them A12 moonwalk major flares, but after hiours of searching came with empty handed.
What would be the importance of finding if all the CFI flares would be SPE?
BTW, I have doubts that they would be. Being a high proton energy flare isn't the only definition of major flare, and was not the CFI definiton.
Yeah, we agree on the giant flares, CM and moonwalk.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
@Rob260259
ndt-ed org
Em-radiation proceeds through matter until there is a chance of interaction
with a particle. If the particle is an electron, it may receive enough energy to be ionized,
whereupon it causes further ionization by direct interactions with other electrons. As a result,
indirectly ionizing radiation... can cause the liberation of directly ionizing particles (electrons) deep inside a medium.
gamma ray has a definite probability of passing through any medium of any depth.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO X-RAY SAFETY MANUAL
High and low energy photons are sometimes referred to as hard and soft X-rays, respectively.
Hard X-rays are more penetrating and not absorbed near surfaces like soft X-rays. Hard X-rays
are more desirable for such work as radiography because of their penetrating properties.
en wikipedia org
X-rays can penetrate solid objects almost indefinately.
Recommended lead shilding for 900KeV X-ray is 5.1cm
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
NASA - Radioactive Moon
Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary
particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA,
boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
@Rob260259
I could find you more examples telling you the fact, that secondary radiation is a factor in radiation dose. Secondary radiation happens always when particles or electromagnetic radiation encounter material.
X-rays and gamma rays can penetrate any material. If you increase the shielding depth, there is a chance an em-photon will encounter a particle, causing irradiation. Neutrons and solar flare electrons are also hard or impossible to stop and cause secondary radiation.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi The same can be said of watching (CRT) television, getting dental x-rays, or using a microwave oven.
Or maybe you're suggesting that NASA is easing us toward a confession that they never went to the moon. Ya suppose?
Astrobrant2 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi
Is ten million electron volts a high energy level? The reader isn't told. It sounds like a big number. Put a nine-volt battery on your tongue and you'll get an unpleasant but harmless jolt. You see sparks from a 12-volt battery when you jump-start a car. We take great pains to shield ourselves from the 110-volt current in our houses because we know it can kill us. So ten million electron volts must be an enormous amount of unquestionably fatal energy. Right?
Rob260259 11 months ago
@Rob260259 But you didn't mention that the sparks you get in your blankets on a cold night can be in the range of several thousands of electron volts. And we can put our hand on a million volt Van de Graaf generator without any harm at all, except for having a bad hair day.
Oh, I'm sorry. Am I spoiling your punch-line?
[snerk]
Astrobrant2 11 months ago
@Astrobrant2
No, you don't. (I think the ancestors of VanDe Graaff werd Dutch..!).
@aurinkohirvi
Do you remember my little example of crossing a busy highway?
Rob260259 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi
Well, no. The "electron volt" (eV) is not equivalent to the common "volt" that measures household electricity. Instead it's the amount of energy picked up by a single electron as it passes through an electrical potential of one volt. We realize that's not a very helpful definition to the layman, but it takes the equivalent energy of about 620,000,000,000,000 million electron volts (MeV) per second to light up a 100-watt light bulb.
Rob260259 11 months ago
@Rob260259 wrote "The "electron volt" (eV) is not equivalent to the common "volt" that measures household electricity. "
Be serious, please.
The electons in solar flares may have several hundred MeV energy. This means you can't stop them with space craft radiation! 6MeV electron penetrates 11.5mm aluminion, and if CM protection is only 2g/cm, that equals to 7,4 mm aluminium.
The flux matters, yes. But what kind of flux you get from several flares per a spacewalk? Or hundred per a mission?
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
* ...and if CM protection is only 2g/cm2...
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
"CM protection is only 2g/cm2"
@Aurin
Stop lying. Effective protection of CM was much higher than that, and you know it.
Aluminum hull was NOT the only protection the astronauts had. There was also insulation layer, as well as hardware and instrumentation around the astronauts. It's hard to estimate how much more protection it was adding, but it was significant.
Also, they had their personal protection: their own bodies protecting blood forming organs. It's all relevant, so quit your bs.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi "The flux matters, yes. But what kind of flux you get from several flares per a spacewalk? Or hundred per a mission?"
Now that IS a very relevant question. Do you know the answer? (I don't).
Astrobrant2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Astrobrant2 write: "Now that IS a very relevant question."
No, I don't have the answer. I didn't come here to give definite answers! It's a question which I think is legimate and would be nice to find out.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
@Rob260259 "620,000,000,000,000 million electron volts (MeV) per second to light up a 100-watt light bulb."
Oh, THAT punch-line. I like yours better. I wonder if auri knows what a Coulomb is.
Astrobrant2 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi
A large number, but a small unit. The very large figure given for the light bulb is explained by knowing that each individual electron that participates in the operation of a light bulb has a fairly small energy level, but there are billions and billions of electrons involved. In radiation terms this is called a high "flux". In space the individual electrons can have very high energy levels, but there aren't as many of them. The flux is much smaller.
Rob260259 11 months ago
@Rob260259 If I may interject one more time:
Auri, what would you prefer: to stand ten feet in front of a water jet with 1000 psi and a diameter of 1 mm, or in front of one at 100 psi and a diameter of 1 meter?
Hint: one would wet your shirt a little. The other would kill you. (I think).
Astrobrant2 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi
" 1458"
- Those were *detectable* events Aurinko. Not major Solar flares, causing a serious threat to Apollo and its crew. The tables also show that no major flares occurred during the flights. Again: crossing a highway is very dangerous, but it can be done. In Holland 700 people die in traffic accidents every year. So driving a car is lethal using your logic.
Rob260259 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi Yeah? Pardon the expression but so fucking what??
Would you have a problem with me quoting from a commercial airline flight manual and using biased selection of portions of it in place of a motor vehicle driver's handbook?
Don't you even have a twinge of intellectual guilt in applying such sources to this discussion? If not, then you show us how an X-ray safety manual has ANYTHING to do with radiation hazards to astronauts.
Astrobrant2 11 months ago
@Astrobrant2
Yup, we got another "wrongsky" here, but this one does not quote an article from 3w*reuters in half of his comments...
Cucinotta didn't study solar flares during Apollo... What an argument!
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@Astrobrant2
The radiation dose table K,S,B&D show is real simple, and it gives DOSES. There's no interpretation there.
Do you have some papers or professional opinions their work is invalid? Until you do, you can keep your opinion.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi
I've exlpained the KSB and D table, it describes integrated protons fluxes for a range of flares to show how they differ. It says that high energy events can not be shielded very easily. Low energy events can be shielded, but if the flux is high, then the rem goes up. Which flares in the CFI are SPEs. Until you determine that, you cannot say that a dose of protons would be delivered that is any higher than background count.
lukequixotesanjose 11 months ago
@lukequixotesanjose "Low energy events can be shielded"
Yeah, so far we don't know how low energy particles those "LOW ENERGY" flares in the dose table were.
But I disagree on one point. Namely to me even the flare showing the lowest dose, shows very high dose for under 1 g/cm2 protected astronauts (the guys on the Moon).
Alright, there is a point finding if them flare dose table flares are also SPEs.
And ...taking a break now. This has been intence. More like chatting.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi "Until you do, you can keep your opinion."
Yes, but I choose not to. LOL. The radiation dose table is not real simple, at least not the one I saw. And if there was any indication in it that Apollo would have been impossible, don't you think that some *actual* expert would have picked up on it instead of some unqualified pedestrians? Don't you think K,S,B, &D might have asked some questions?
Astrobrant2 11 months ago
@Astrobrant2
That was actually my point, if the K,S,B&D dose table would not have been valid, then there probably would be opinions correcting it.
To me it was real simple. Shielding on one axis, dosage on other. Just draw your finger vertical from protection to flare curve, and then horizontal and you get the dose.
But if the flares were all over 10MeV 10 pfu, then they wouldn't exactly be mild ones. There's an issue what sort of flares them Apollo mission flares were.
Aurinkohirvi 11 months ago
@Aurinkohirvi Auri, you strike me as a relatively mature and intelligent person. Surely, by now, you must not be comfortable with this hoax nonsense. You've been doing this long enough to see that there is no merit to it. Come on over, man. Be on the right side of this argument. Those people did a great thing and they deserve