Radiation

[Abaddon]

are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane?  If so, why and by how much?

That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.

Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.



Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.

Now if both orbits are on an identical plane and they enter the VAB at the same inclination will not their path mirror each other?

Three dimensions still escape you.

When viewed along that plane is not the entry point identical?

Nope. Because even in an imaginary 2 d verse they are rotating. Unless in your imaginary 2 d verse they are not. In which case, imagine a unicorn. Now the unicorn is real, yes?

remember the VAB encircles the earth

Lie.

and as long as the inclinations are identical then the regions of the VAB are identical.

Lie.

The center of the VAB is 360 degrees uniform.

Lie.

Put your finger in the center of a ring donut. According to you this is impossible.

[timfinch]

You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception.

And you go through some impressive gymnastics to avoid acknowledging that which is in front of you.

It goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on.

Not contested, here or anywhere else. However, that doesn't stop them being different things with different properties.

This being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths.

So is the one drawn from above. Reconcile that if you insist on staying in 2-dimensions.

If you cannot see that

No-one has failed to see that. The only thing being constested is the relevance when it comes to discussing the problems of space flight in the 3-dimensional space it took place in.

Care to address the pictures I put up?

So Jason, say the devil's name.  Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective.  Yes or no?

[Jason Thompson]

What has the location of the launch site have to do with the inclination of the orbit>  They could select any orbit they would like.  Cape canaveral is 28.4 degrees from what?  The equator?

And that, right there, is why no-one here is taking you seriously when you discuss orbital mechanics. If you don't understand the significance of latitude of launch site (or indeed apparently latitude full stop) when it comes to orbital inclination, why should we believe you know anything about transfers and TLI and apogee?

[Jason Thompson]

So Jason, say the devil's name.  Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective.  Yes or no?

I have already answered that question. I have also explained why the answer 'yes' doesn't actually make you right about any other aspect of it and its signficance, with pictures. Care to address them?

[jfb]

Step away from this thread for a week and abandon all hope of catching up.

I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page and read up on the instrument's description:

CRaTER consists of six silicon detectors in thin/thick pairs separated by sections of Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP). The Tissue Equivalent Plastic (such as A-150 manufactured by Standard Imaging) simulates soft body tissue (muscle) and has been used for both ground-based as well as space-based (i.e. Space Station) experiments.

The thin detectors (140 μm) are optimized for high energy deposits and the thick detectors (1000 μm) are optimized for low energy deposits, in particular, for protons. In nominal operating mode, an event is triggered when the energy deposit in any single detector rises above its threshold energy. A measurement is then made of the energy deposit in all six detectors. Directional information can be inferred for events that deposit energy into more than one detector (detection coincidences). Endcaps shield the detectors from protons with less than ~13MeV. Extra mass placed around the edges of the detectors provides additional shielding from some particles which may be able to penetrate through the sides of the instrument.

Go to the web page for a proper diagram of the instrument, but here's some quick-n-dirty ASCII art:


============ --- Deep Space (Zenith) Shield
|||||||||||| --- D1 (148 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D2 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (54 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D3 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D4 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (27 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D5 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D6 (1 mm)
============ --- Lunar Surface (Nadir) Shield


So, several things that are obvious right off the bat:

• This is why you have combined readings for D1 & D2, D3 & D4, D5 & D6.  Each pair is at the same depth of "tissue", each sensor of the pair is optimized for different energies.
• This is why you don't sum up readings from all 6 detectors, because each pair is measuring energies at different "tissue" depths.  D1 & D2 give the "skin" dose, D5 & D6 give the "deep tissue" dose.
• As per the description, an event is recorded when the energy deposited in a single detector rises above its threshold energy.  Raw events are measured in keV/μm. Obviously, during analysis, these measurements are fed into a mathematical model that spits results out in cGy/day.

One particularly amusing aspect of Tim's confusion (=coughtrollerycough=) is the idea that, because the measurements are reported in cGy/day, that you must sum all the measurements taken on the same day to get the proper cGy/day amount. 

cGy/day is a rate, not a total.  It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next.  It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph. 

[Luke Pemberton]

So Jason, say the devil's name.  Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective.  Yes or no?

Jason has provided a concrete model. Two different ellipses, one avoids the torus, one does not. That's possible in 3D orbital mechanics.

The 2D representation is a coplanar issue dependent on rotation. The 3D model shows the problem in all spatial dimensions. That is not difficult to understand. Two different ellipses, two different flight paths.

[Jason Thompson]

Jason has provided a concrete model.

Or, more accurately, a cardboard model that took me five minutes to knock up on the fly. Amazing what you can do when you actually grasp 3D geometry...

[Mag40]

You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception.  It goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on.  They all appear to be a straight line.  The only question that remained to be answered is are they on the same plane.  You all agree that they are.  This being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths.  This is a truism.  If you cannot see that then you are spatially challenged and any further discussion is pointless as you lack the ability to evaluate the information from the proper perspective.

Obfuscation of the very worst kind.

You have been shown quite clearly how the paths differ. You have been given diagrams from me, simple pictures from Jason and numerous times had the excruciatingly simple detail of the ellipse explained to you. You are wrong and are too much of a big baby to admit it. This thread is the archetypal example of what is wrong with HBs.

They are always wrong, are always afraid to admit it and will do everything they can to divert from their embarrassing and laughable mistakes. The only difference that you exhibit is an alarming persistence of all 3 of those.

I said this before. Arrogance only works if you know what you are talking about. No matter what you keep telling yourself, you don't.

[Luke Pemberton]

I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page and read up on the instrument's description

No they have not, and this is a great explanation. Thanks.

cGy/day is a rate, not a total.  It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next.  It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph.

Great analogy. That really make sense why we don't add rates, and links in nicely with the detector ensemble.

[Luke Pemberton]

Or, more accurately, a cardboard model that took me five minutes to knock up on the fly. Amazing what you can do when you actually grasp 3D geometry...

That made me laugh. Yes, cardboard, but from the abstract to the concrete. I admire your effort, it really does illustrate the problem and is irrefutable... oh wait!

[timfinch]

So Jason, say the devil's name.  Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective.  Yes or no?

Jason has provided a concrete model. Two different ellipses, one avoids the torus, one does not. That's possible in 3D orbital mechanics.

The 2D representation is a coplanar issue dependent on rotation. The 3D model shows the problem in all spatial dimensions. That is not difficult to understand. Two different ellipses, two different flight paths.

There are truths and there are not so true truths and generally perspective is to blame.  If we all assume a 2d perspective as viewed from the side, is not the illustration I provide correct?  We can move beyond this as soon as we acknowledge it is a correct two demensional perspective of the flight paths of the Orion EFT and the Apollo mission.  Can we do that?  There has been no claims on my part that it is the complete picture.  My only claim is that it is technically correct from that perspective..  Break me off some crumbs.  Let's move beyond this.

[Jason Thompson]

If we all assume a 2d perspective as viewed from the side is not the illustration I provide correct.  We can move beyond this as soon as we acknowledge it is a correct two dnsional perspective of the flight paths of the Orion EFT and the Apollo mission.  Can we do that?

Tim, everyone here, literally, has done that. You are the one who will not move on.

There has been no claims on my part that it is the complete picture.

Then deal with the complete picture.

[Luke Pemberton]

There are truths and there are not so true truths and generally perspective is to blame.  If we all assume a 2d perspective as viewed from the side is not the illustration I provide correct.  We can move beyond this as soon as we acknowledge it is a correct two dnsional perspective of the flight paths of the Orion EFT and the Apollo mission.  Can we do that?  There has been no claims on my part that it is the complete picture.  My only claim is that it is technically correct from that perspective..  Break me off some crumbs.  Let's move beyond this.

Except Apollo was in 3D, and the ellipses for Orion and Apollo, while they are drawn in 2D, take the craft through different 3D space; one through the central VAB and one around it and skirting the outer VAB. So no, we won't move beyond it, we'll add it to your list of errors.

[timfinch]

If we all assume a 2d perspective as viewed from the side is not the illustration I provide correct.  We can move beyond this as soon as we acknowledge it is a correct two dnsional perspective of the flight paths of the Orion EFT and the Apollo mission.  Can we do that?

Tim, everyone here, literally, has done that. You are the one who will not move on.

There has been no claims on my part that it is the complete picture.

Then deal with the complete picture.

I was hoping for a concession speech but I won't belabor the point.  But let's move on.  If we change the perspective to a view looking down on the orbital plane is there a portion of the VAB that is skirted by the apollo craft?

[Jason Thompson]

I was hoping for a concession speech but I won't belabor the point.  But let's move on.  If we change the perspective to a view looking down on the orbital plane is there a portion of the VAB that is skirted by the apollo craft?

There is nothing to concede because literally no-one challenged the similar inclinations, only the significance of that similarity. How about you deal with the actual 3D model that has been presented and stop trying to reduce 3D spaceflight to a 2D issue. You have ignored the spatial and temporal realities of the two spacecraft orbital paths. Let's have the same from you that you demand from us: do you acknowldge that in 3D it is possible for two orbits on the same plane to interact differently with a torus on another plane?