Radiation

[timfinch]

If you were smarter than the average three year old you would realize that a side view 2d representation is repeated over 360 degrees.  What it is telling you that any point is identical at any other point around the circumference of the vab.

It's not though, the orbital plane is defined geocentrically with repsect to the ecliptic plane, the geomagnetic plane is not. The torus axis is inclined to the normal of the orbital plane. This has been explained to you several times now.

Your assumption would only apply if orbital plane, geomagnetic plane and ecliptic plane are all co-planar.

The torus you speak of is the VAB and it is centered on the geomagnetic equator which is 11.5 degrees above the equator.  Try to remember that.  it is useful knowledge.

[nomuse]

It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.

Are you aware that inclination is one orbital parameter that defines the orbital plane. If the spacecraft enters that plane at a higher speed, you map out an ellipse with a completely different eccentricity. The path is different through the van Allen belts.

The radiation in the VABs depends on radius, azimuth and polar angle, so does the ellipse on the orbital plane. It follows that the exposure of Apollo and Orion are different.

Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  Speed is only important because of the component of time.  The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received.The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone.  A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone.  Can't you see that?

No. Eccentricity matters.

And eccentricity is intimately tied to velocity.

Grab a copy of KSP and play around a little. Orbital mechanics are non-intuitive. Heck, I haven't make safe landing on the Mún yet! But getting your feet wet with a simulator helps.

[Luke Pemberton]

Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry.

The distribution of radiation is not uniform. Please define what you mean by uniform with appropriate metrics.

Speed is only important because of the component of time.  The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received. The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone.

No, push a ball with more speed up a hill it goes further up the hill. Apollo had a much greater speed on the orbital plane so went further up the hill on a greater eccentricity. Apollo took a trajoectry into the parts of the belt that are mainly electrons and avoided the high energy proton region.

A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone.  Can't you see that?

... there are no straight lines in elliptical orbits. The craft follows an ellipse on a plane. Look at Jason's model again. Really, do this, it shows you just how wrong you actually are.

Less time in each zone does not mean less dose. It depends on the type of radiation in the zone.

[timfinch]

It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.

Are you aware that inclination is one orbital parameter that defines the orbital plane. If the spacecraft enters that plane at a higher speed, you map out an ellipse with a completely different eccentricity. The path is different through the van Allen belts.

The radiation in the VABs depends on radius, azimuth and polar angle, so does the ellipse on the orbital plane. It follows that the exposure of Apollo and Orion are different.

Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  Speed is only important because of the component of time.  The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received.The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone.  A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone.  Can't you see that?

No. Eccentricity matters.

And eccentricity is intimately tied to velocity.

Grab a copy of KSP and play around a little. Orbital mechanics are non-intuitive. Heck, I haven't make safe landing on the Mún yet! But getting your feet wet with a simulator helps.

It matters in that it moves the transit from a straight line to a curved line and thereby increasing the time to transit across a zone.  it does not matter in respect to the zone that is encountered as only inclination determines that.

[nomuse]

At the risk of adding confusion instead of clearing it; Tim's unwillingness to work in 3D deprives him of the language necessary to define whether anyone (himself included) means to imply changes in composition of the VARB at an angle relative to the axis of revolution, or relative to the radius of the major circle.

I have to use these terms...definitions of parts of a solid torus...because of this lack of any agreed standard between Tim and everyone else on how to describe the geometry of the environment around Earth.

[timfinch]

Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry.

The distribution of radiation is not uniform. Please define what you mean by uniform with appropriate metrics.

Speed is only important because of the component of time.  The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received. The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone.

No, push a ball with more speed up a hill it goes further up the hill. Apollo had a much greater speed on the orbital plane so went further up the hill on a greater eccentricity. Apollo took a trajoectry into the parts of the belt that are mainly electrons and avoided the high energy proton region.

A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone.  Can't you see that?

... there are no straight lines in elliptical orbits. The craft follows an ellipse on a plane. Look at Jason's model again. Really, do this, it shows you just how wrong you actually are.

Least time in each zone does not mean less dose. It depends on the type of radiation in the zone.

Once again we are confronted with spatial impairment.  Think of a side view as a millimeter slice and then add these slices until a full 360 degrees has been completed.  You can see then any point on the 2d representation is repeated over and over again.  Any point is uniform around the circle.  if it is 10 at azimuth of zero it is also 10 at azimuth 180.  Work with me.  This is basic.

[nomuse]

It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.

Are you aware that inclination is one orbital parameter that defines the orbital plane. If the spacecraft enters that plane at a higher speed, you map out an ellipse with a completely different eccentricity. The path is different through the van Allen belts.

The radiation in the VABs depends on radius, azimuth and polar angle, so does the ellipse on the orbital plane. It follows that the exposure of Apollo and Orion are different.

Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  Speed is only important because of the component of time.  The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received.The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone.  A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone.  Can't you see that?

No. Eccentricity matters.

And eccentricity is intimately tied to velocity.

Grab a copy of KSP and play around a little. Orbital mechanics are non-intuitive. Heck, I haven't make safe landing on the Mún yet! But getting your feet wet with a simulator helps.

It matters in that it moves the transit from a straight line to a curved line and thereby increasing the time to transit across a zone.  it does not matter in respect to the zone that is encountered as only inclination determines that.

You don't move from a straight line. There are no straight lines.

Okay, I'm going to join everyone else here in trying out an analogy. Imagine a hula hoop and a basketball. Hold them up some distance from you (so perspective is unimportant) and aligned. If you turn the hula hoop so it is almost edge-on then that section of the ring can be hidden behind the ball. Turn it so the opening faces you and it doesn't visually touch the ball.

So far, we are in agreement. Well, here is where the analogy is tougher. Squish the hula hoop, bringing two sides together. Now it can share the same PLANE it was on, but be hidden behind the ball again. The shape matters, not just the plane.

[timfinch]

At the risk of adding confusion instead of clearing it; Tim's unwillingness to work in 3D deprives him of the language necessary to define whether anyone (himself included) means to imply changes in composition of the VARB at an angle relative to the axis of revolution, or relative to the radius of the major circle.

I have to use these terms...definitions of parts of a solid torus...because of this lack of any agreed standard between Tim and everyone else on how to describe the geometry of the environment around Earth.

For the same reason architectural drawings are presented in multiple views so is space.  It is difficult to grasp conceptually some things in 3d that are obvious in 2d.  It requires an innate ability to shift one's perspective that is sorely missing from this group.

[nomuse]

late for work....need to check in later.

[timfinch]

It doesn't matter where around the earth you enter the VAB the only thing that varies is the incident inclination.

Are you aware that inclination is one orbital parameter that defines the orbital plane. If the spacecraft enters that plane at a higher speed, you map out an ellipse with a completely different eccentricity. The path is different through the van Allen belts.

The radiation in the VABs depends on radius, azimuth and polar angle, so does the ellipse on the orbital plane. It follows that the exposure of Apollo and Orion are different.

Luke, I have shown you that the only relevant factor is the inclination of the plane of orbit. Because the distribution of radiation is uniform around the circumference of the earth then it matters not the azimuth of entry.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  Speed is only important because of the component of time.  The less time you spend in each zone then the less the dose received.The larger the elliptical orbit the greater the time spent in each zone.  A straight line shot would result in the least time in each zone.  Can't you see that?

No. Eccentricity matters.

And eccentricity is intimately tied to velocity.

Grab a copy of KSP and play around a little. Orbital mechanics are non-intuitive. Heck, I haven't make safe landing on the Mún yet! But getting your feet wet with a simulator helps.

It matters in that it moves the transit from a straight line to a curved line and thereby increasing the time to transit across a zone.  it does not matter in respect to the zone that is encountered as only inclination determines that.

You don't move from a straight line. There are no straight lines.

Okay, I'm going to join everyone else here in trying out an analogy. Imagine a hula hoop and a basketball. Hold them up some distance from you (so perspective is unimportant) and aligned. If you turn the hula hoop so it is almost edge-on then that section of the ring can be hidden behind the ball. Turn it so the opening faces you and it doesn't visually touch the ball.

So far, we are in agreement. Well, here is where the analogy is tougher. Squish the hula hoop, bringing two sides together. Now it can share the same PLANE it was on, but be hidden behind the ball again. The shape matters, not just the plane.

everything is a straight line in 2d.  Perspectively challenged?  It is not natural to think in anything but 3d and it simply may beyond you pay grade.  I'm sorry.

[nomuse]

At the risk of adding confusion instead of clearing it; Tim's unwillingness to work in 3D deprives him of the language necessary to define whether anyone (himself included) means to imply changes in composition of the VARB at an angle relative to the axis of revolution, or relative to the radius of the major circle.

I have to use these terms...definitions of parts of a solid torus...because of this lack of any agreed standard between Tim and everyone else on how to describe the geometry of the environment around Earth.

For the same reason architectural drawings are presented in multiple views so is space.  It is difficult to grasp conceptually some things in 3d that are obvious in 2d.  It requires an innate ability to shift one's perspective that is sorely missing from this group.

Tim, I build scenery. Full-stage sets, from plans of various types. I also work in CAD, and have created complex assemblages of moving parts and electronics that had to be visualized in 3d using 2D tools. Shifting between different sets of cartesian coordinates is second nature for me. I can't do the math in my head, but I understand 3D space.

And I am probably the LEAST qualified in this forum of engineers and designers.

[Luke Pemberton]

Once again we are confronted with spatial impairment.  Think of a side view as a millimeter slice and then add these slices until a full 360 degrees has been completed.  You can see then any point on the 2d representation is repeated over and over again.  Any point is uniform around the circle.  if it is 10 at azimuth of zero it is also 10 at azimuth 180.  Work with me.  This is basic.

But the radiation does not vary with azimuth alone. It's defined by a space mapped out by a toroid, and that can be described in spherical coordinate according to a radial component, azimuthal component and polar component. Consider any small volume element in that toroid. Explain why the radiation is uniform.

[timfinch]

At the risk of adding confusion instead of clearing it; Tim's unwillingness to work in 3D deprives him of the language necessary to define whether anyone (himself included) means to imply changes in composition of the VARB at an angle relative to the axis of revolution, or relative to the radius of the major circle.

I have to use these terms...definitions of parts of a solid torus...because of this lack of any agreed standard between Tim and everyone else on how to describe the geometry of the environment around Earth.

For the same reason architectural drawings are presented in multiple views so is space.  It is difficult to grasp conceptually some things in 3d that are obvious in 2d.  It requires an innate ability to shift one's perspective that is sorely missing from this group.

Tim, I build scenery. Full-stage sets, from plans of various types. I also work in CAD, and have created complex assemblages of moving parts and electronics that had to be visualized in 3d using 2D tools. Shifting between different sets of cartesian coordinates is second nature for me. I can't do the math in my head, but I understand 3D space.

And I am probably the LEAST qualified in this forum of engineers and designers.

3d assembly has nothing to do with 2d visualization.  It is all information that if not properly processed is useless.

[timfinch]

It is interesting to note that science cannot prove that our existence is not a 2d existence.  It may very well be that 3d is a learned perception and our reality may actually be a 2d reality.

[timfinch]

All the information in the universe can be represented in 2d without a loss of accuracy.