Radiation

[bknight]

You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.

No,, that's not the general path Apollo traveled, where did you get this piece of misinformation?

[Abaddon]

Trololololol

[Abaddon]

See, tim, you have a big problem now. Your ventures into cyberspace have revealed that you lack any grasp of science or even reality. Eventually, you will move along to inflict unhappy ignorance someplace else, but the record of abject ignorance will remain for all to see. Right here.

We have already definitively established that you don't understand graphs, log scales, linear scales 3 frakkin' dimensions, radiation, and so forth.

Let's take those as a given. How about you come up with a new topic about which you know **** all and embarrass yourself all over again. Photogrammetry, for example, or link budgets, or fuel load, or...well, the list of stuff you don't understand is pretty long.

[Abaddon]

You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.

The Apollo TLI was not a straight line. Only an idiot would think that.

[Allan F]

No matter what YOU think, tim, there was a sheet of stainless steel in the CM's wall. Beneath the phenolic resin and the aluminium face plate. So the secondary radiation created by the very light nuclei would hit this steel and STOP. It could not reach the crew.

Your inability to research the construction of the CM is not an argument against the Apollo moon landings.

I have never questioned the construction of the Apollo..  I simply contend not a gram of material was added for the purpose of shielding and the structural material offered some protection from electrons, it offered none and even worse it increased overall exposure or would have if they had ventured beyond LEO.

Only correct part of that was, that there wasn't a specific material added to only shield the astronauts from radiation. All the material used was structural, and the radiation shielding properties of those were and are well understood. Do you know what this secondary radiation is?

[nomuse]

You have been lied to.  Here is the actual path through the VAB.  One must be aware the the center of the VAB is not aligned with the earths equatorial plane rather it is aligned with the magnetic equator which is offset 11.5 degrees.  This results in the lunar orbit being 17.15 degrees into the magnetic equatorial plane.  The only region of the VAB not encountered in a VAB transit is the 2*10^8 flux at the very heart.  It's path is through the 1*10^8 region (half as much).

You've been deceived by some HB, that is not the path as it is not a straight line but it is curved in 2-D as well as curved in 3-D pulling away from the VARB.  Bob's 2-D rendering is far more accurate than this.

Seriously. A straight line which plots through the center of the Earth? How would you get a course like that if you started in LEO? Get this man a copy of KSP, stat.

[nomuse]

No matter what YOU think, tim, there was a sheet of stainless steel in the CM's wall. Beneath the phenolic resin and the aluminium face plate. So the secondary radiation created by the very light nuclei would hit this steel and STOP. It could not reach the crew.

Your inability to research the construction of the CM is not an argument against the Apollo moon landings.

I have never questioned the construction of the Apollo..  I simply contend not a gram of material was added for the purpose of shielding and the structural material offered some protection from electrons, it offered none and even worse it increased overall exposure or would have if they had ventured beyond LEO.

Only correct part of that was, that there wasn't a specific material added to only shield the astronauts from radiation. All the material used was structural, and the radiation shielding properties of those were and are well understood. Do you know what this secondary radiation is?

Ive been casting my mind back, and I can't think of ANYTHING I've built that don't have some material, some part doing more than one thing. I just shipped out another kit in which material picked primarily for optical properties is being used for structural properties as well. On my desk is a wee 915mHz unit I'm using tonight which has no part labeled "antenna ground plane." How does it work? Hint...it's on a PCB.

Tim's created a sort of circular reasoning here. He assumes space is so terribly radioactive you need to add shielding to your spacecraft, which would presumably make it too heavy to fly, so of course they didn't add any, so of course it didn't fly. Sure, it is a problem of thinking of problem-solution (instead of an integrated engineering approach) but it comes out of a mental model of space being so hostile you have to do something "special" in order to survive.

[Abaddon]

You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.

Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.

[nomuse]

So...Tim has rejected the actual course flown. He has rejected the actual material properties of the spacecraft. He's continued to insist linear arithmetic is sufficient for working with flux/energy curves (hint; there are not equal numbers of particles in the higher end of the energy range!)

So, what? He's afraid if he only cheated in one place he might not win?

Oh, yes, and he's also demanded someone show him the calculations. But when shown those calculations in full show-your-work style, he rejected the work and the author without giving any justification.

[nomuse]

You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.

Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.

If your car gets stuck in the ice make sure to get pictures!

[Luke Pemberton]

He's continued to insist linear arithmetic is sufficient for working with flux/energy curves (hint; there are not equal numbers of particles in the higher end of the energy range!)

My bold, but you beat me to it. The diagram Tim shows is for integrated electron flux > 1MeV. So what is the electron flux for electrons with energies >2 MeV, >3MeV, >4MeV, >5Mev...

[Abaddon]

You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.

Seriously, tim. Apollo briefly traversed the edge of the outer belt during TLI and Orion EFT orbited within the inner belt during Earth orbit. And you are pretending to claim that there is no significant difference between Orion and Apollo. In that case, my commute to the office this morning is not significantly different from Shackleton's expedition.

If your car gets stuck in the ice make sure to get pictures!

Car? Why would I teleport a car?

[timfinch]

You have been lied to.  Here is the actual path through the VAB.  One must be aware the the center of the VAB is not aligned with the earths equatorial plane rather it is aligned with the magnetic equator which is offset 11.5 degrees.  This results in the lunar orbit being 17.15 degrees into the magnetic equatorial plane.  The only region of the VAB not encountered in a VAB transit is the 2*10^8 flux at the very heart.  It's path is through the 1*10^8 region (half as much).

You've been deceived by some HB, that is not the path as it is not a straight line but it is curved in 2-D as well as curved in 3-D pulling away from the VARB.  Bob's 2-D rendering is far more accurate than this.

What actually is the mechanism of this curve?  Is the lunar plane curved also?  Is it a parabolic curve.  Or are you simply stating that because the universe is curved then the TLI must also be curved?

[timfinch]

You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.

No,, that's not the general path Apollo traveled, where did you get this piece of misinformation?

The TLI  or Holtzmann maneuver places the craft in orbit around the earth on a plane with the moon.  After this orbit is established a rocket is fired to expand the orbit into an elliptical one that intersects the moon.  All lunar landings have used this approach.  The lunar plane is the TLI plane.

[gillianren]

Tim, your pomposity is embarrassing.  You go on about how you're going to completely school everyone, but when you're asked to do tiny amounts of work, you can't do it.  You frequently resort to claiming that everything you don't understand about Apollo is magic.  Your insistence that you are smarter than everyone and that everyone else is just stupid doesn't actually make you look smarter.  It makes you look obnoxious.  Especially because you still haven't answered how you're certain that the answer to your issues is "I have made a mistake."