Radiation

[timfinch]

Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on.  Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission?  This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no.  Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy.

No.

I am eager to see your refutation and a correction to the illustration.  Show me.

[Abaddon]

I don't want to seem impatient but does anyone have anything?

1.  Explain why the Apollo 3D trajectory would appear to be a straight line when projected onto 2D.

2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.

4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.

5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?

These are indeed all good questions but most distract from the focus of the original inquiry.

From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line.  As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.

Snigger. Tim thinks that TLI requires orbit in the "lunar plane". 3D spatial reasoning fail. Orbital mechanics fail.

Now that tim has me on ignore, it is quite liberating. I can point out the bovine errors and he can't answer. Bit of an own goal there , tim.

[bknight]

If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved.  So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations.  Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?

So what is it you expect of me?  Should I repeat the magic tick and call it quits?  Honestly, are you claiming the apollo craft was capable of shielding greater than 90% of the harmful primary and secondary radiation of the VAB.  Is that your claim?

Yes, clearly the calculations prove that, backed up by the total dosimeters that each of the crew wore.

Only if the assumption the dosimeters actually represent something more than an ELO mission.  Which is the heart of the debate.  We have yet to demonstrate that assumption is a valid one.

You have yet to show that the dosimeters are incorrect during the outward/inward journey to the Mon.  You specify fluxes recorded in less active solar cycle and then placed those values in a more active solar cycle(Apollo's) when clearly those taken in the less active cycle will generally be greater than those of the solar cycle during which Apollo traveled. In short you compare apples to oranges and declared they are the same.

[bknight]

Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on.  Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission?  This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no.  Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy.

No.

I am eager to see your refutation and a correction to the illustration.  Show me.

You have been shown, many times.

[Abaddon]

From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line.  As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.

That is a truly epic fail of an observation. The TLI flight path was 30 degrees to the ecliptic plane. The lunar orbit is inclined by 5.1 degrees and the only relevance this has is where it intersects the transfer orbit. Apollo flight paths are Earth orbits, as are the Orion.
Sadly for you that is all they have in common. The eccentricity of Apollo took it around the weaker areas of the belt and took it out to a path that intersected the Moon. Orion was only eccentric enough to allow it to travel through the inner belt.

How in heavens name can you say they are the same? They are completely different.

The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.

Saturn V had multiple stages. What's the problem? Oh, I know, you think direct ascent was the method.

And fuel efficiency was not the only mission goal, other things like survival of the astronauts was also a mission goal. Do you really think that NASA would say "**** the astronauts, this will save fuel"?

Well, maybe on planet sausage they might. Not in the real world.

[timfinch]

If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

No magic, but a bit of shifting involved, that is outward and inward with no shielding involved.  So what is the net benefit of the Apollo capsule?
It seems odd that you quote this number but refuse to accept the rest of the calculations.  Does this happen because those figures completely destroy your belief?

So what is it you expect of me?  Should I repeat the magic tick and call it quits?  Honestly, are you claiming the apollo craft was capable of shielding greater than 90% of the harmful primary and secondary radiation of the VAB.  Is that your claim?

Yes, clearly the calculations prove that, backed up by the total dosimeters that each of the crew wore.

Only if the assumption the dosimeters actually represent something more than an ELO mission.  Which is the heart of the debate.  We have yet to demonstrate that assumption is a valid one.

You have yet to show that the dosimeters are incorrect during the outward/inward journey to the Mon.  You specify fluxes recorded in less active solar cycle and then placed those values in a more active solar cycle(Apollo's) when clearly those taken in the less active cycle will generally be greater than those of the solar cycle during which Apollo traveled. In short you compare apples to oranges and declared they are the same.

How does your remark address the question:  Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the Apollo flight?

[timfinch]

Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on.  Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission?  This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no.  Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy.

No.

I am eager to see your refutation and a correction to the illustration.  Show me.

You have been shown, many times.

You have shown that they have dissimilar flight paths?  I missed that.  Please guide me to that nugget of wisdom that I might partake.  I am ready to concede this stage of the debate as soon as you do.  Show me the money!

[Mag40]

From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line.  As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.

That is a truly epic fail of an observation. The TLI flight path was 30 degrees to the ecliptic plane. The lunar orbit is inclined by 5.1 degrees and the only relevance this has is where it intersects the transfer orbit. Apollo flight paths are Earth orbits, as are the Orion.
Sadly for you that is all they have in common. The eccentricity of Apollo took it around the weaker areas of the belt and took it out to a path that intersected the Moon. Orion was only eccentric enough to allow it to travel through the inner belt.

How in heavens name can you say they are the same? They are completely different.

The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.

I fail to see what that has to do with it! You claimed Orion and Apollo had the same paths. They are not even close.

Are you man enough to admit even one of your numerous blunders?

[timfinch]

From a side view perspective any deviation from the lunar plane would be a distortion of the straight line.  As long as the flight path remains on the lunar plane then it is correctly represented by a straight line.

That is a truly epic fail of an observation. The TLI flight path was 30 degrees to the ecliptic plane. The lunar orbit is inclined by 5.1 degrees and the only relevance this has is where it intersects the transfer orbit. Apollo flight paths are Earth orbits, as are the Orion.
Sadly for you that is all they have in common. The eccentricity of Apollo took it around the weaker areas of the belt and took it out to a path that intersected the Moon. Orion was only eccentric enough to allow it to travel through the inner belt.

How in heavens name can you say they are the same? They are completely different.

The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.

I fail to see what that has to do with it! You claimed Orion and Apollo had the same paths. They are not even close.

Are you man enough to admit even one of your numerous blunders?

I listed the fight paths of all the lunar flights and the Orion EFT.  Where is the disconnect?  Show me your rebuttal.  Show me where it says something different that the NASA figures I quoted.

[Abaddon]

Let's put this single point of contention behind us so we can move on.  Does the flight path of the Orion EFT mirror the flight path of the Apollo lunar mission?  This is a yes or no question deserving of only a simple yes or no.  Be warned, a no answer will require some splanning Lucy.

No.

I am eager to see your refutation and a correction to the illustration.  Show me.

You have been shown, many times.

You have shown that they have dissimilar flight paths?  I missed that. 

You ignored it

Please guide me to that nugget of wisdom that I might partake.

We did, you didn't.

I am ready to concede this stage of the debate as soon as you do.

This is not a debate. You came to a gunfight armed with a twig. You demonstrated that you fail at so much that it was an impossible mountain of ignorance to climb.

Show me the money!

We did. You refused to look.

[Jason Thompson]

The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.

This is a) crap, and b) already covered in this thread. The only requirement of a flight to the Moon is that it intersects the point in space where the Moon will be in order to go into orbit. It matters not one whit what plane that is on. What does influence the choice of plane is the latitude of the landing site and what plane you want to go into lunar orbit on. If getting to the Moon is the only requirement you can go there on any damn orbital plane you want.

[timfinch]

If no one can provide a rebuttal then let all concede the fact that The Orion's flight pat mirrored the Apollo's flight path.  There is much work to be done and yet we spend an enormous amount of time in denial.  Where is the intellectual integrity in this group and why is there no moderation?

[Allan F]

It is both but what has that to do with accepting the illustration or rejecting it.  You have eluded addressing this simple point all day.  Take a position.

Very good. The very first hit on google. Now, what is the EM part?

[timfinch]

The most fuel efficient path to the moon is to place the craft on a lunar plane and then fire the TLI rocket to extend the circular object into an elliptical one that intercepts the moon.  any other path would require multiple stages to correct the misalignment.

This is a) crap, and b) already covered in this thread. The only requirement of a flight to the Moon is that it intersects the point in space where the Moon will be in order to go into orbit. It matters not one whit what plane that is on. What does influence the choice of plane is the latitude of the landing site and what plane you want to go into lunar orbit on. If getting to the Moon is the only requirement you can go there on any damn orbital plane you want.

That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion.  If you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.

[Allan F]

If no one can provide a rebuttal then let all concede the fact that The Orion's flight pat mirrored the Apollo's flight path.  There is much work to be done and yet we spend an enormous amount of time in denial.  Where is the intellectual integrity in this group and why is there no moderation?

There IS a moderator. YOU are being watched by the moderator. Because YOU don't answer questions, accept evidence and use personal insults when you are backed into a corner.

You have been shown the evidence. You don't understand it or you disregard it.