BBCi/space forum is moderated by NASA or by their external NASA Borgs

Thanks ever so much to Jonathan Silverlight, for your terrific
feedback, as I'll certainly apply such logic in future corrections,
that's of your essentially correcting the likes of Wizard Jay Windley,
as pertaining to lunar mass offering "almost immeasurably small"
secondary radiation, thus obviously such would be providing a highly
preferable shield element to that of aluminum and, I'll even offer his
name (Jay Windley) as bonafide credit for such insight, unless that's
cutting too much of yourself out of the action.

Unfortunately, I've recently imposed another tit for tat that's most
likely as equally in error for regarding Earth L4/L5, in order to
further extrapolate what's at Venus L2 (VL2), so even though VL2 may
have a roasty/toasty 6^2 Sv/y (solar minimum) worth of primary
radiation to start off with, hells bells, it sounds like if we stop by
the moon for a little of that soil we ott to be able to long-term
tolerate that VL2 environment with hardly 0.1 meter of lunar soil,
after all that's 34.1 g/cm2, or more than 6 times as much as the
overall Apollo mission average and, even though I believe an upper
limit of 274 mrem/day is tolerable for a two year stint, especially if
you've got banked bone marrow as backup. The fact that this amount of
density may not cut it is somehow, by Lord Windley standards,
immaterial as long as we utilize cloned hybrid astronauts such as
those Apollo types.

Come to think of it; If in fact the likes of statements by Jay
Windley are the least bit correct in stipulating that such lunar mass
(3.41 g/cc) offers such immeasurable secondary radiation, then what
the hell have we been waiting for?

Lets get ourselves back onto the moon the very next time we ever
decide to go anywhere, sort of making it a lunar pit-stop, then simply
filling up the cavity or voids between the inner and outer hull with
clumping lunar soil, whereas even though the lunar soil is
considerably more dense than aluminum and in spite of what the laws of
physics have to say, at least according to our Wizard Windley, there's
hardly any measurable secondary radiation to be had.

This remarkable discovery alone had ott to be worth hundreds of
billions and, it'll only cause us to recall and republish millions of
textbooks and research references pertaining to radiation and
subsequent interactions with various densities of mass, thereby
greatly discrediting the merits of hydrogen as being of least X-Ray
generating by way of merely replacing that element with
clumping-moon-dust as becoming the ultimate solution for all future
missions, including benefitting ISS that's tried just about everything
in the book, spending hundreds of millions if not billions at
suppressing their secondary radiation, without all that much luck I
might say.

Talk about the ultimate gold mine of motherload discoveries; whereas
this absolutely bone dry yet clumping-moon-dust has got to be it, the
holy grail of nonreactive matter that's capable of not only shielding
our butts, whereas best of all is being that we don't even have to
create nor launch an once of it from Earth. In fact, having such a
cash of this nifty stuff situated on the moon is almost too good to be
true, as the lunar gravity is but 1/6th that of Earth and, situating
our spacecraft or some robotic lunar soil retriever down onto the
lunar surface ott to be a sure thing (only 10 mrem/day getting
ourselves there is another bonus, being that we now know, according to
Wizard Windley, how to avoid most of the Van Allen zone of death and,
since we've acquired better speed as well as improved radiation
shielding to start off with, plus the fact that we'll not require any
external EVAs, just a portable screw pump tossed onto the surface and
a filling hose) and, getting all that additional mass back off the
lunar surface should also be another snap, after all, we've come a
long ways in fly-by-wire rocketry, as well as in overall thrust
capability as well as reliability. Just looking at the CHALLENGER,
COLUMBIA, even the V-22 Osprey and any number of easier to accomplish
successful aerodynamic adventures and you can't hardly imagine
anything going wrong and, certainly not by the trusty words of our
very own wizard Jay Windley.

If I've gotten something wrong, please do help me out, feel free to
letting me know what's what, as I for one am in total awe of what the
likes of these pro-Apollo wizards have to say, as subsequently nearly
all of our future space travel concerns have been answered in spades.

OK,,, so I'm not entirely convinced, but then I'm still the village
idiot that's seeing all sorts of strange things on the surface of
Venus that supposedly aren't there.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
|
| Thanks ever so much to Jonathan Silverlight, for your
| terrific feedback, as I'll certainly apply such logic
| in future corrections, that's of your essentially correcting
| the likes of Wizard Jay Windley, as pertaining to lunar mass
| offering "almost immeasurably small" secondary radiation

Translation: I only pay attention to stuff that I already agree with.

As Jonathan noted, and as I agreed, his "correction" was a mere nitpick.
Secondary radiation from the moon is, of course, detectable for imaging and
remote sensing purpose. But it has almost no effect on the human
physiology.

A good analogy might be starlight. It's certainly detectable both by the
naked eye and with our instruments. But you don't put on sunblock to go out
and bask in a starlit night. Nor would your dermatologist be able to detect
any "radiation damage" from starlight.

| I'll even offer his name (Jay Windley) as bonafide credit for
| such insight, unless that's cutting too much of yourself out
| of the action.

Keep my name out of *anything* you write. You've been putting words in my
mouth for days now. I wouldn't trust you to represent my statements
correctly even if you were asked at gunpoint to do it.

| ... at least according to our Wizard Windley, there's
| hardly any measurable secondary radiation to be had.

I never suggested using lunar material as some sort of radiation shielding
because of its supposed lack of secondary emissions. In fact, I quite
clearly stated that the lack of any significant secondary effect was due to
the relative lack of a *primary* effect. The nature of the substance is
largely irrelevant in that case. You take TRW's figures for a very specific
part of the cislunar environment and try to apply it everywhere. That gives
you horribly inflated ideas of ambient radiation, and therefore horribly
wrong guesses about secondary effects.

I went on further to say that during a solar particle event there would
indeed be a great deal of secondary radiation emitted from the lunar surface
material, but it wouldn't be much of a concern because you'd be more worried
about the *primary* radiation which would have a much more deleterious
effect.

| Talk about the ultimate gold mine of motherload discoveries;
| whereas this absolutely bone dry yet clumping-moon-dust has
| got to be it, the holy grail of nonreactive matter ...

I made no such claim. I clearly stated why the secondary emissions from the
lunar surface were not biologically significant. It has nothing to do with
the supposed miraculous properties of the material itself. It has, as
usual, to do entirely with your lack of understanding of the lunar
environment and how much primary radiation we're working with.

| ...according to Wizard Windley

Make up your mind. Am I a "Borg" or a "Wizard"? And do you have any
arguments that *don't* involve name-calling?

| If I've gotten something wrong, please do help me out

Well, to start with you've gotten almost all my statements wrong. Start by
listening to what I say and not merely pretending I said something that
supports your opinion.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

In message , Jay Windley
writes

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
. com...
|
| Thanks ever so much to Jonathan Silverlight, for your
| terrific feedback, as I'll certainly apply such logic
| in future corrections, that's of your essentially correcting
| the likes of Wizard Jay Windley, as pertaining to lunar mass
| offering "almost immeasurably small" secondary radiation

Translation: I only pay attention to stuff that I already agree with.

As Jonathan noted, and as I agreed, his "correction" was a mere nitpick.
Secondary radiation from the moon is, of course, detectable for imaging and
remote sensing purpose. But it has almost no effect on the human
physiology.

A good analogy might be starlight. It's certainly detectable both by the
naked eye and with our instruments. But you don't put on sunblock to go out
and bask in a starlit night. Nor would your dermatologist be able to detect
any "radiation damage" from starlight.

| I'll even offer his name (Jay Windley) as bonafide credit for
| such insight, unless that's cutting too much of yourself out
| of the action.

Keep my name out of *anything* you write. You've been putting words in my
mouth for days now. I wouldn't trust you to represent my statements
correctly even if you were asked at gunpoint to do it.

And keep my name out too :-) I wasn't supporting you, Brad, in any way.
But I like Jay Windley's starlight analogy and only wish I'd thought of
using it.
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message
...
|
| And keep my name out too :-) I wasn't supporting you, Brad, in any way.
| But I like Jay Windley's starlight analogy and only wish I'd thought of
| using it.

Not half as much as I wish I'd said it that way in the first place. I keep
forgetting that there are astronomers out there for whom "detectable" and
"measurable" describe noticing practically individual photons. I'm thinking
in the engineer's mode, which is about dosimeters and plutonium, both of
which have figured into my job in the past year. Barring a solar event, a
couple of hours on the lunar surface wearing my dosimeter will rack up a
measurable amount of *primary* radiation, but next to nothing from x-rays
emitted as secondary radiation from the dirt.

Alas, it is too late. Brad has liberally sprinkled his web page with his
typically cutesy references to my name, attaching it to things I never said
and to ideas I don't espouse.

The bottom line is that for things like aluminum spacecraft skins and
naturally occurring rocks, the only time you'll need to pay attention to
secondary radiation is when the primary radiation is strong enough that you
had darn well better pay attention to *it* instead.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org