On May 8, 10:34 pm, Tim Little
wrote:
On 2008-05-09, Michael Moroney wrote:

If the camera settings were such that the surface appeared light
gray, the space suits should be dazzlingly overexposed.

From what I can see, the images were somewhat overexposed. On top of
that, I expect that the balance was shifted to more clearly show
details. That's normal procedure in virtually every type of
photography. What the picture shows is never exactly what the eye
sees. As well as that, neither cameras nor eyes respond linearly to
light levels.

Also, how much radiation did the astronauts get from the Van Allen
Belts. I do know they took a course that minimized exposure and
they weren't in them for long, but they're pretty intense.

I seem to recall a site indicating about 2 rem, which seems consistent
with the known particle fluxes at various energies and thickness of
material between the astronauts and space. Virtually all of it is
comparatively low energy charged particle radiation, and that doesn't
penetrate well.

- Tim

Remember that each camera had its polarized optical element, of which
should have made the lunar surface look darker, not lighter, and most
certainly not as though xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated.

Your subjective science on radiation is noted. Got anything
objective, such as from the moon's L1?
.. - Brad Guth

On May 8, 10:34 pm, Tim Little wrote:

I seem to recall a site indicating about 2 rem, which seems consistent
with the known particle fluxes at various energies and thickness of
material between the astronauts and space.

No, it does not. 2 REM is unrealistically low.

Virtually all of it is
comparatively low energy charged particle radiation, and that doesn't
penetrate well.

Particles in Van Allen Belts have very high energy. shrug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_Belts

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.

On May 8, 10:43 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 8, 10:34 pm, Tim Little wrote:

I seem to recall a site indicating about 2 rem, which seems consistent
with the known particle fluxes at various energies and thickness of
material between the astronauts and space.

No, it does not. 2 REM is unrealistically low.

Virtually all of it is
comparatively low energy charged particle radiation, and that doesn't
penetrate well.

Particles in Van Allen Belts have very high energy. shrug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_Belts

The to/from trek through a combined 150,000 km worth of Van Allen
badlands took a good 13 hours, though perhaps only 10 hours worth was
sufficiently nasty enough to count those multiple rads per hour.

Only a polar exit/return trajectory could have minimized their Van
Allen dosage, and supposedly they didn't have that option.
.. - Brad Guth

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

On 2008-05-09, Koobee Wublee wrote:
No, it does not. 2 REM is unrealistically low.

Quoting from exactly the same page you linked as a reference in your
post:

"An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium will receive about
2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year".

Or in other words, about 6 rem per day.


Virtually all of it is comparatively low energy charged particle
radiation, and that doesn't penetrate well.

Particles in Van Allen Belts have very high energy. shrug

Not by the standards of cosmic rays or energetic solar flares, which
are the main other sources of radiation and penetrate further.


- Tim

On May 9, 8:52*am, 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.

************************************************** *******

That's a recurrent feature in these cranky posts: one begins shouting
nonsenses that make it clear he's very dumb (Shoenfeld).

Then enters the game "the scientific one", who is as cranky as the
first one but plays the "wise guy" (bradguth). This time the nonsenses
acquire an antisemitic (or antinegro, or antimexican or antisomething)
tone, with lots of minion/brown-nose(??) stuff.

Some time latter a new crank appears (Koobee) and begins a two-voices
counterpoint with one of the first two cranks, and sometimes even with
both.

It is very expected each time....and this occurs once every 4-5
months, aprox.
It could even be that all 3-4 cranks are one and the same...
Enjoy it, if you can.

Regards
Tonio

On May 8, 11:16 pm, Tim Little
wrote:
On 2008-05-09, Koobee Wublee wrote:

No, it does not. 2 REM is unrealistically low.

Quoting from exactly the same page you linked as a reference in your
post:

"An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium will receive about
2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year".

Or in other words, about 6 rem per day.

Virtually all of it is comparatively low energy charged particle
radiation, and that doesn't penetrate well.

Particles in Van Allen Belts have very high energy. shrug

Not by the standards of cosmic rays or energetic solar flares, which
are the main other sources of radiation and penetrate further.

- Tim

LEO dosage is not the same as GSO dosage. Why do you think ISS has to
avoid the SAA contour?
.. - Brad Guth
.. - Brad Guth

I can't tell you about the Apollo photos.
Not much time was spent in the Van Allen Belts.

Quoting LSDA.JSC.Nasa.GOV:
“ In comparison with the doses actually received,

the maximum operational dose ( M.O.D. ) limit
for each of the Apollo missions was set at 400 rads
( X-ray equivalent ) to skin and 50 rads to the blood-forming organs.

Radiation doses measured during Apollo
were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem
set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

for workers who use radioactive materials
in factories and institutions across the United States. Thus,
radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. �.
-- http://LSDA.JSC.Nasa.GOV/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

Nasa's “ .6 millirads per hour on the surface of the moon � number
refers only to the energy of cosmic-rays;
not energetic neutrons, not gamma-rays, etc.

Luna 9 back in 1966, was the first spacecraft ever to visit the moon.
Luna 9 used a SBM-10 to measured a dose of
“ 30 millirads per day on the surface of the moon �,

including all forms of radiation, not just the energetic particles
known as “ cosmic-rays �.

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.