Radiation

[Abaddon]

Why do you think it was chosen as the optimum site when a a norther location closer to the poles would have have allowed the VAB to be bypassed?  What was the logic?

You can launch into a polar orbit from anywhere.  At a location closer to the equator, you can also launch into orbits with a lower inclination.

Tim doesn't do orbits or even 3 dimensions.

[Jason Thompson]

I laugh at the claim that if you can't explain it simply you don't know it well enough. Cutting out some bits of card and sticking them together constitutes a pretty simple explanation of the problem, wouldn't you say?

The problem with any explanation is not how simpe the explainer makes it, it's how well the questioner understands it. That latter part if the problem. I literally cannot make the 'two coplanar ellipses with different eccentricities intersect a non-coplanar torus in different ways' any simpler. This leads me to conclude either Tim does not understand or else he knws damn well he is wrong and is just getting his kicks, thinking we're jumping through hoops and getting all flustered. As I said, it took me all of five minutes to create that cardboard model because I already understood the geometry. Hardly putting myself out or performing mental gymnastics.

[Luke Pemberton]

I laugh at the claim that if you can't explain it simply you don't know it well enough. Cutting out some bits of card and sticking them together constitutes a pretty simple explanation of the problem, wouldn't you say?

I thought it was a wonderful concrete model using cardboard.

I've worked in educational outreach and explained eclipses, day and night and the seasons to young children. I've always used 3D models, so on your part it was text book. Seriously, it was brilliant, and solidified the orbit and VAB problem in my mind that little bit more.

The problem with any explanation is not how simple the explainer makes it, it's how well the questioner understands it.

In fairness it's a bit of both. Having said this, the explanations have been differentiated through words, diagrams, videos and your model. The contributors here could have done no more. It's down to Tim now.

This leads me to conclude either Tim does not understand or else he knows damn well he is wrong and is just getting his kicks, thinking we're jumping through hoops and getting all flustered.

There are a few possible scenarios. It has been said in this thread that dyed in the wool HBs would not even be debating the orbital mechanics. If Jarrah White was here now, I am sure he would agree with our explanation of the TLI orbit, but disagree on the radiation protection. I am beginning to question the true reason for Tim's presence. I find the obnoxious and condescending tone, punctuated with military maxims, tiresome now.

[bknight]

...

Could you kindly repost it it?  I scrolled back 4 pages and didn't see it and I don't remember you posting it.  Help me out here.

The link is in the very  nest of quotes you just quoted!
Still, here you go.

Bob has done some very astounding work in this area.  tim would do well to read and hopefully understand what the implications of the trajectory around the most dense areas of the VARB and no tim, Bob is not a NASA shill, nor is anyone on this board.

[gillianren]

Opinion?

You know that putting things in "glow" makes them harder to read, right?  Stick to bold.  But no, it's not my opinion.  It's simply an aspect of rhetoric.  Which is another thing you clearly don't understand.

It is a consequence and not an intention.

Perhaps.  But your decision not to admit that the simpler answer is that you don't understand the radiation issue does indeed bear with it consequences, and it means you take responsibility for those consequences.  "It could have been robots" is an affirmative defense, and it means you bear responsibility for explaining how those robots were launched and how samples completely unlike those taken by any other unmanned mission were acquired.  "They could have been in LEO" is an affirmative defense, and it means you bear responsibility for explaining how they hid the Apollo craft from the naked eye when it wasn't supposed to be there despite its visibility when it was supposed to be there.  "I don't intend to propose a conspiracy theory" is simply not the get-out-of-jail-free card you think it is.  People are willing to let you slide on that because they'd rather attempt to pin Jell-O to a tree by trying to get you to understand radiation, but I want it made very clear that you are still at least intellectually on the hook for all other aspects of your claim.  "They must have done it because it was done" is as much circular reasoning as you accuse any of us of showing.  In fact, it is exactly the same circular reasoning.

[gillianren]

What is that quote about hoisting and petards.

"Hoist with his own petard."  "Hoist," not "hoisted."  Means blown up, in this case.  A petard was a grenade.

[timfinch]

The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.

You have had this explained to you in excruciating detail. The plane the ellipses occur on has no significance to the way one intersects areas of the belts and the other does not.

You suffer from a gross conceptional error.  Rethink and repost.  I am embarrassed for you.

[nomuse]

Half of one, six dozen of the other.

[Mag40]

The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.

You have had this explained to you in excruciating detail. The plane the ellipses occur on has no significance to the way one intersects areas of the belts and the other does not.

You suffer from a gross conceptional error.  Rethink and repost.  I am embarrassed for you.

What is this? Already answered. Repeated below.

I rethought it and confirm that my findings were accurate. You are persistently wrong about everything you post and are afraid to admit you are wrong. There lies your real embarrassment.

You are quite clearly just typing anything except legitimate responses, with the obvious intention of covering up your appalling blunders. I suspect that you think, not many will wade through such a large thread.

[timfinch]

When viewed from the top (looking down at the poles) in a 2d drawing the VAB would look something like this drawing.  The spatially challenged, for some reason beyond my grasp, insist on displaying the VAB from a side view while displaying the elliptical orbits from a top view.  I'm just saying....

[Mag40]

When viewed from the top (looking down at the poles) in a 2d drawing the VAB would look something like this drawing.  The spatially challenged, for some reason beyond my grasp, insist on displaying the VAB from a side view while displaying the elliptical orbits from a top view.  I'm just saying....

This is where you explain why a polar view is relevant. The route tilts from the side view, commonly shown, by 30 degrees. Not 90.

[bknight]

When viewed from the top (looking down at the poles) in a 2d drawing the VAB would look something like this drawing.  The spatially challenged, for some reason beyond my grasp, insist on displaying the VAB from a side view while displaying the elliptical orbits from a top view.  I'm just saying....

Did you forget that you have been shown a top down path OF THE Apollo?

[nomuse]

It's weird. It's like doing it in 3d is too complex, so he has to snap to some plane that conveniently aligns everything he wants to see. "Equatorial plane?" Nope.  Rotate and, Snap! "Lunar orbit plane?" Nope...rotate again, snap! "Geomagnetic plane?" "Plane of the transfer orbit?"

He's like A Square being visited by the Sphere.

[timfinch]

I am sure you didn't mean what it appeared you said.  I heard you say that the angle of the plane of the ellipse has nothing to do with the amount of radiation received transiting the VAB. Did I state your position correctly?

[Mag40]

I am sure you didn't mean what it appeared you said.  I heard you say that the angle of the plane of the ellipse has nothing to do with the amount of radiation received transiting the VAB. Did I state your position correctly?

No. Your quite appalling understanding seems to know no bounds.

"The plane the ellipses occur on has no significance to the way one intersects areas of the belts and the other does not."

Should I explain it in simple terms for you!

Edit: you really are flannelling in an attempt to cover your embarrassing errors.