On May 8, 11:57 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 8, 10:07 pm, BradGuth wrote:



On May 8, 10:52 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 8, 9:34 pm, Tim Little wrote:
[snip]

Both of these guys are very malicious idiots. Any science you bring to
the table that doesn't support their position will be rejected.

For example - note kooby's claim about year long exposures, and read
the definition of the rem.

GSO average dosage of 2e3 Sv/yr while shielded by 2 g/cm2 or 5/16"
aluminum is not bogus.

That's only 200,000 rad/yr, as nearly 23 rads or rem if you like per
hour.
. - Brad Guth

Great guthball, 23 rad/hour. How long were they in the Van Allen
belts?

Wait...since you claim they were never there, what's your point? Or
are you going with "well maybe they went to a L point..." like you
were talking about before? I dunno.

My dear out-of-context Eric, get a fresh grip on your private parts.

That 23 rad/hr is based upon the TRW and Raytheon Space Data Report of
what the innards of a GSO satellite has to deal with. It's the
average of what a 2 g/cm2 shielded component has to deal with, not the
passive low or the halo CME peak.

At best I would expect the Apollo secret lower dosage trek being worth
at least 10% of that amount, or 2.3 rad/hr as based upon their having
greater than 2 g/cm2.
.. - Brad Guth