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.

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

BradGuth writes:

On May 8, 9:24 pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Question: I'm certainly not one of those who thinks the moon landings
were a hoax, but I do wonder about one thing. As I understand, the
moon's surface is about as dark as charcoal, and the space suits were
quite white. In the photos from the moon, the space suits do in fact
appear white, but the moon's surface in the same photos appears as a
light gray. It seems to me that there isn't enough contrast. If the
camera settings were such that the surface appeared light gray, the
space suits should be dazzlingly overexposed. Kind of like how the full
moon may appear bright when viewed from Earth, but how bright would it
appear if someone painted a large part of it with bright white paint.

Not only is the moon physically dark as coal, but also highly
saturated in solar UV.

Go figure how such unfiltered Kodak moments entirely failed to respond
to the unavoidable secondary/recoil flood of the bluish hue or black
light generated tint of weird color saturation.

I don't know much about photography (probably obvious from my original
note to someone who does), but even I know the answer to this one. It's
called an UV filter for the camera lens.

It's exactly as though xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated, isn't it.

Or the sun. I don't know of any way to tell that apart from the photos.

You can do your own hourly math on those to/from Van Allen belt dosage
amounts. There's roughly a 75,000 km trek each way, so that's 150,000
km worth of Van Allen badlands (not including whatever is outside or
being anywhere near that naked and thus reactive moon of ours).

What was their average speed? (1.5 km/s?)

Say twice that velocity while going to/from through the Van Allen
zones = 13+ hours.

Wikipedia states an object shielded with 3 mm of aluminum is exposed to
2,500 rem per year. That results in 0.285 rem per hour or 3.7 rem for
the trip. Thanks. Off to see what 3.7 rem does to you.

On May 8, 11:16 pm, Tim Little wrote:

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".

Following the link that claimed that below, we find the presumed orbit
for such a satellite is highly elliptical from 200 to 20,000 miles.
The shielding of this satellite is 1.0g/cm^2. The Apollo command
module only has shielding of 0.25g/cm^2.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/970228a.html

I would think these high energy particles would have damaged your
retina in just a few hours.

On May 9, 8:09 am, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
BradGuth writes:
On May 8, 9:24 pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Question: I'm certainly not one of those who thinks the moon landings
were a hoax, but I do wonder about one thing. As I understand, the
moon's surface is about as dark as charcoal, and the space suits were
quite white. In the photos from the moon, the space suits do in fact
appear white, but the moon's surface in the same photos appears as a
light gray. It seems to me that there isn't enough contrast. If the
camera settings were such that the surface appeared light gray, the
space suits should be dazzlingly overexposed. Kind of like how the full
moon may appear bright when viewed from Earth, but how bright would it
appear if someone painted a large part of it with bright white paint.
Not only is the moon physically dark as coal, but also highly
saturated in solar UV.
Go figure how such unfiltered Kodak moments entirely failed to respond
to the unavoidable secondary/recoil flood of the bluish hue or black
light generated tint of weird color saturation.

I don't know much about photography (probably obvious from my original
note to someone who does), but even I know the answer to this one. It's
called an UV filter for the camera lens.

They had no such UV filters other than incorporated within the basic
lens, of which has nothing to do with filtering out those secondary/
recoil photons created by such UV energy.

Kodak film is not like a CCD and of ts photoshop like image recording
process, whereas instead it takes a sharp spectrum cutoff filter and/
or narrow bandpass optical element in order to moderate or exclude the
unavoidable bluish/purple tint of the locally skewed hue saturation.


It's exactly as though xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated, isn't it.

Or the sun. I don't know of any way to tell that apart from the photos.

The raw sun is nothing remotely like a xenon arc lamp spectrum.

Obviously you know next to nothing about such matters, and yet you
also refuse to educate yourself. So what's the difference?


You can do your own hourly math on those to/from Van Allen belt dosage
amounts. There's roughly a 75,000 km trek each way, so that's 150,000
km worth of Van Allen badlands (not including whatever is outside or
being anywhere near that naked and thus reactive moon of ours).
What was their average speed? (1.5 km/s?)
Say twice that velocity while going to/from through the Van Allen
zones = 13+ hours.

Wikipedia states an object shielded with 3 mm of aluminum is exposed to
2,500 rem per year. That results in 0.285 rem per hour or 3.7 rem for
the trip. Thanks. Off to see what 3.7 rem does to you.

LEO rems are not quite the same thing as GSO/(Van Allen) rems.

You do realize that Dr. Van Allen was on record as 100% opposed to
human space travels as trekking through or even outside of the
protective magnetosphere, don't you?

Even extremely short term exposures have consequences to our frail
DNA, far greater than anything NASA/Apollo ever reported. So, why
don't you tell us why our DARPA (aka Semitic Third Reich) and of their
NASA puppets lied to us.
.. - Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 3:08 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 12:36 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Well, we are making progress. About a thousand
conspirators, you say.

They did pretty much everything except land upon and EVA walk upon our
physically dark and nasty moon.


Are you saying that US astronauts orbited the moon?

Martin Hogbin