|
 Author | Topic: Radiation for turbonium (Read 10,074 times) |
sts60
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Animals/Dogs/space_dog.gif)
Joined: Jun 2005
Gender: Male 
Posts: 1,759
|  | Radiation for turbonium
« Thread Started on Apr 12, 2006, 4:53pm » | |
In the "Mockumentary" thread, turbonium answered my statement
...it behooves you to state exactly what must change to make it possible in the future.
with
The ability to effectively counter radiation hazards, for one...
I think this decouples neatly enough from the secrecy, manpower, knowledge, and coercion discussions in the "Heroes" thread and warrants a separate thread to discuss turbonium's idea that radiation could not be "effectively counter[ed]" during Apollo.
So I'd like to invite turbonium to use this thread to state exactly what radiation hazards he believes to have been insurmountable during Apollo, and why he feels the technology and techniques of the time were inadequate to the task.
| |
|
sts60
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,759
| | Re: Radiation for turbonium
« Reply #1 on Apr 12, 2006, 5:01pm » | |
Coincidentally, I happen to be flipping through a nice little (275 pages) booklet titled Symposium on Space Radiation Environment and Shielding Codes, Boeing document D2-90684-1, issued May 1965. It's the content from a symposium of the same name held 6-7 April of that year in Seattle.
From the introduction-
Quote:Since the period of 1956 through 1958, during which the Van Allen belts of solar-particle events were discovered, The Boeing Company, the Air Force, and NASA have spent about a half million dollars to develop the computer programs that are the subject of this symposium...
The Boeing Company started the systematic treatment of the space radiation hazards shortly after they were discovered during the International Geophysical Year. Guided by the theoretical work of such groups as Van Allen's, Anderson's, and Webber's, and in conjunction with company-sponsored shielding studies from ANP and other programs, the company was able to develop fairly sophisticated space radiation environment and shielding codes. These programs were helpful in such studies as X-20 and were available for analysis of the radiation hazard to Apollo under NASA contract early in 1963... |
|
| |
|
scooter
member is offline
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 989
| | Re: Radiation for turbonium
« Reply #2 on Apr 12, 2006, 6:33pm » | |
There is a lot of information flying around that goes into the radiation hazards that the planned Lunar return missions will face. Before one starts applying these hazards as reasons the Apollo missions weren't possible, remember that the longest Apollo surface stay was around three days, while the future missions are looking at weeks to months on the surface. The very short durations of the Apollo stays (and overall mission duration) were significant in reducing their radiation exposures/risks. The planning is no doubt intense for the longer missions.
Just so we don't start mixing apples and oranges here.
| |
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-5/714886/tn_groucho.jpg)
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
![[homepage]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
Joined: Aug 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,045
Location: Brazil
| | Re: Radiation for turbonium
« Reply #3 on Apr 12, 2006, 10:34pm » | |
How many time has the radiation red herring been discussed here? Hasn't it come up every time a new HB shows up and starts a new "look at me" thread where he repeats the same tired old claims as all his predecesors.
If Turbonium is still bringing it up he hasn't been paying attention. No reply is warrented unless he can come up with something new.
|
"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt"
Bertrand Russell
To paraphrase Mark Twain "The CTists' claims are both convincing and true, unfortunately what's convincing is not true, and what's true is not convincing"
http://lies-of-the-truth-movement.blogspot.com/ |
|
sts60
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,759
| | Re: Radiation for turbonium
« Reply #4 on Apr 13, 2006, 8:27am » | |
Now, let's hear what he has to say. After all, that's what the board is for. Besides, I always learn something from such threads.
I do agree that turbonium would be well served by searching the forum for some of the expositions on Van Allen belts, solar storm mitigation, lunar gamma rays, etc, before posting to see which issues have already been addressed. He might also want to take a look at the Apollo Experience Report: Protection Against Radiation, as well as the section of Biomedical Results from Apollo on Radiation Protection and Instrumentation.
| |
|
sts60
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,759
| | Re: Radiation for turbonium
« Reply #5 on Apr 13, 2006, 8:39am » | |
IIRC, I think one of turbonium's objections is the inability to predict a specific solar particle event, at least at the time of Apollo. Jay has written at some length on the mitigation of this hazard, which takes the form of statistical prediction, shielding, and mission procedures. The greatest vulnerability was during a lunar EVA; but even in a worst-case scenario, the astronauts on the surface would have had time to abort operations, lift off and rendezvous with the SM/CM stack, and hunker down to avoid the most dangerous period. So it was the combination of hardware, procedures, and timing that reduced this risk to an acceptable level.
| |
|
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Earth
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://members.upc.nl/a.romer1/Pix/sch_80x80.gif)
Snarling Rabid Green-Communist Big-Government Tree-Hugger Euroweasel™
Joined: Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Nederland - Sol III
| | Re: SM/CM stack
« Reply #6 on Apr 13, 2006, 9:17am » | |
Am I correct in my understanding that the orbit of the
stack could have been altered to one in which the
ship would spend more time 'behind' the Moon then
'in front' of it?
|
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. - Don Marquis |
|
sts60
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,759
| | Re: Radiation for turbonium
« Reply #7 on Apr 13, 2006, 9:57am » | |
I suppose you could tweak the orbit a little bit to create a distinct apolune (sp?) on the far side, but the real defense would have been to get everybody aboard and orient the stack so that the SM engine bell was facing the Sun. Easy to do and providing quite substantial protection (the entire SM plus the rear of the CM).
| |
|
Count Zero
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://tinypic.com/6yejk3.jpg)
Joined: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,026
Location: Dallas, Texas
| | Re: Radiation for turbonium
« Reply #8 on Apr 13, 2006, 5:44pm » | |
Quote:| So I'd like to invite turbonium to use this thread to state exactly what radiation hazards he believes to have been insurmountable during Apollo, and why he feels the technology and techniques of the time were inadequate to the task. |
|
While he's at it, perhaps he could enlighten us on which nations have measured Van Allen Belt and/or cislunar radiation, and how was the data collected.
|
"What makes one step a giant leap is all the steps before." |
|
nomuse
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,403
| | Re: Radiation for turbonium
« Reply #9 on Apr 13, 2006, 8:53pm » | |
Hrm. Thinking a little about the usual HB disclaimer, when presented with the data that spacecraft enter the Van Allen belts frequently (and also contain fragile electronics). Their response is two-fold; that the spacecraft only go into the "safe" part (aka not the deadly part Apollo traversed) and that radiation is much more deadly -- perhaps in stealthy ways -- to biologicals.
I do believe this fails to shift the onus. If the claim is that just beyond where spacecraft operate today the conditions are deadly, then either all the people who are currently putting spacecraft up are lying, or ignorant. In the former, they must have a complete model of the radiation environment in order to make a functional spacecraft. They can't simply know only the region of the SAA and have no understanding of the rest of the belts. So we are left with space scientists from around the world continuing to lie and distort information that has a direct bearing on the survival of missions and human astronauts today, on behalf of a decades-old hoax.
In the latter case, assuming there is complete ignorance about the actual nature of the Van Allen belts....why then was Apollo hoaxed? If they didn't know it was impossible, they would have attempted the missions anyhow.
The same basic argument goes to electronics being more robust than biologicals. If our understanding of radiation was so poor, we wouldn't be able to make electronics that survived out there! And if there was a big secret about the hostility of the VARB, methinks we might have lost a few interplanetary probes to it.
| |
|
turbonium
Saturn
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,488
| | Re: Radiation for turbonium
« Reply #10 on Apr 22, 2006, 1:40am » | |
D'oh! A thread for turbonium and I was unaware of it until now, when another member asked me why I had not yet responded! So, I will peruse the above posts and reply soon......
| |
|
sts60
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,759
| | Re: Radiation for turbonium
« Reply #11 on Apr 22, 2006, 8:23am » | |
<bump>
| |
|
turbonium
Saturn
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,488
| | Re: Radiation for turbonium
« Reply #12 on May 3, 2006, 2:20am » | |
<double bump>
Sorry for the delay. I'm not avoiding it, and am working on the topic off the forum as time allows.
All here have been very patient and not made an issue of my lack of response to date - for which I thank you all.
The issue is quite substantial to properly discuss and debate, and my intention is to avoid simply rehashing old arguments previously posted on this forum.
I should have some material posted soon that I haven't seen discussed before. Thanks again for allowing me time to respond.
| |
|
bazbear
Earth
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://www.zingerbug.com/Backgrounds/background_images/big_blue_marble_earth.jpg)
Joined: Sept 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 215
| | Re: Radiation for turbonium
« Reply #13 on May 3, 2006, 2:33am » | |
Quote:
The issue is quite substantial to properly discuss and debate, and my intention is to avoid simply rehashing old arguments previously posted on this forum. |
|
Yes, all those pesky facts and all these people who understand the science behind them; I guess you would have to conjure up some new material.
Quote:| I should have some material posted soon that I haven't seen discussed before. Thanks again for allowing me time to respond. |
|
We'll be patiently waiting 
|
~Baz |
|
Ranb
Venus
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Washington
| | Re: Radiation for turbonium
« Reply #14 on May 3, 2006, 4:37am » | |
Has anyone ever measured a radiation level in space (other than during solar flares) between the Earth and the moon that was lethal?
| |
|
|
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Login]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Logged