Radiation

[timfinch]

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?

Will this obfuscation never end?  Deal with the elephant in the room and then we can proceed with the other jungle animals.  Is the flight paths similar?

[Abaddon]

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.

Well, obviously, TF does not, and indeed seems incapable of understanding that, but it fits well with the inability to comprehend three dimensions. Hence my question to tim. If he is indeed correct then it is impossible to insert your finger in a ring donut. This is quite obviously absurd, but it is the logical consequence of tim's assertions.

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

It's not an unsubstantiated position. Here is the discussion.

Really? This fact has been known for centuries, if not millennia. The Moon's orbital plane is tilted around 5 degrees to the ecliptic plane, and about 29 degrees from Earth's equatorial plane. The geomagnetic plane, which is the plane along which the Van Allen belts lie, is offset a further ten degrees from Earth's equatorial plane.

To quote Mr. Spock, "Captain, his pattern suggests two-dimensional thinking."  And while we can make all kinds of noise about spatial reasoning skills, a more fair assessment points out that nearly every rendition of manned translunar trajectories you find in public-relations materials puts everything roughly in the same plane.  If you do that consistently, you can't find too much fault if people wrongly get the idea that the actual problem is all coplanar.  That said, relying on public-relations material for technical accuracy is a mistake in and of itself.

Nope. The TLI and any mid-course corrections are designed to allow the craft to intersect the plane of the Moon's orbit at the location of the Moon  at the appropriate time in order to allow insertion into lunar orbit at the appropriate orbital inclination for the intended landing site. It is absolutely not necessary (or necessarily even desirable) to put the spacecraft on the same plane as the lunar orbit.

It's not even technically necessary for the transfer orbit to be in a plane that's compatible with the landing site.  Only the final lunar orbit has that constraint.  LOI-1 and LOI-2 can be used to change the lunar orbit inclination and ascending node to access the landing site.  I say "technically" because doing those as part of the insertion maneuver would be propellant-intensive.  MCC-1 and MCC-2 allow the insertion to be fuel-optimal.  All that a transfer orbit must technically achieve is that the spacecraft and destination coincide in the same point in space-time -- zero-order continuity.  That requires only the intersection of the transfer orbit plane with the destination orbit plane.  But first- or second-order continuity in the intercept is desirable for practical advantages.

[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.

It's not an unsubstantiated position. Here is the discussion.

Really? This fact has been known for centuries, if not millennia. The Moon's orbital plane is tilted around 5 degrees to the ecliptic plane, and about 29 degrees from Earth's equatorial plane. The geomagnetic plane, which is the plane along which the Van Allen belts lie, is offset a further ten degrees from Earth's equatorial plane.

To quote Mr. Spock, "Captain, his pattern suggests two-dimensional thinking."  And while we can make all kinds of noise about spatial reasoning skills, a more fair assessment points out that nearly every rendition of manned translunar trajectories you find in public-relations materials puts everything roughly in the same plane.  If you do that consistently, you can't find too much fault if people wrongly get the idea that the actual problem is all coplanar.  That said, relying on public-relations material for technical accuracy is a mistake in and of itself.

Nope. The TLI and any mid-course corrections are designed to allow the craft to intersect the plane of the Moon's orbit at the location of the Moon  at the appropriate time in order to allow insertion into lunar orbit at the appropriate orbital inclination for the intended landing site. It is absolutely not necessary (or necessarily even desirable) to put the spacecraft on the same plane as the lunar orbit.

It's not even technically necessary for the transfer orbit to be in a plane that's compatible with the landing site.  Only the final lunar orbit has that constraint.  LOI-1 and LOI-2 can be used to change the lunar orbit inclination and ascending node to access the landing site.  I say "technically" because doing those as part of the insertion maneuver would be propellant-intensive.  MCC-1 and MCC-2 allow the insertion to be fuel-optimal.  All that a transfer orbit must technically achieve is that the spacecraft and destination coincide in the same point in space-time -- zero-order continuity.  That requires only the intersection of the transfer orbit plane with the destination orbit plane.  But first- or second-order continuity in the intercept is desirable for practical advantages.

I recommend a inquiry into the selection of the lunar flight plan that encompasses the theory  and benefits and limitations of all choices.  When it is known why they chose the method used it becomes obvious why all the missions have essentially the same flight plan.

[Jason Thompson]

That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion.

No, that is physics. What exactly would stop a craft from entering a lunar orbit on any plane with an apogee of 240,000 miles, if the Moon is there and the spacecraft performs a lunar orbit inserion burn to slow itself down to be captured by the Moon's gravity?

If you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.

Utter crap. You have demonstrated a total unwillingness to change your own opinion watever is provided.

[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."

Gillianren,  It is not that I cannot do the calculations.  Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties.

No.  You have not.  You have constantly evaded the simplest question, and until you answer it, I see no point in engaging further except to ask it again. 

How do you know that the answer is not simply that you have misunderstood what you're citing as evidence?

For what it's worth, I do not accuse you of misogyny.  I did, on the other hand, point out that your words about how I am "special in your mind" were creepy.  Which they are.  You never engaged on that point.  I mentioned that I have dealt with other men who treat me a certain way because I am female, but that was not relevant to you.  Others have decided that you're a misogynist, but your sexism is so mild that it's barely noticeable compared to what most women deal with on a daily basis.  So now that we've disposed of that, can you answer my question?  It's a really, really easy one.

[timfinch]

That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion.

No, that is physics. What exactly would stop a craft from entering a lunar orbit on any plane with an apogee of 240,000 miles, if the Moon is there and the spacecraft performs a lunar orbit inserion burn to slow itself down to be captured by the Moon's gravity?

If you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.

Utter crap. You have demonstrated a total unwillingness to change your own opinion watever is provided.

Fuel?  I noticed a lack of an alternate flight plan in yur rebuttal.  Was that an oversight or is it you have nothing tangible, only a gut feel?

[Abaddon]

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.

It's not an unsubstantiated position. Here is the discussion.

Really? This fact has been known for centuries, if not millennia. The Moon's orbital plane is tilted around 5 degrees to the ecliptic plane, and about 29 degrees from Earth's equatorial plane. The geomagnetic plane, which is the plane along which the Van Allen belts lie, is offset a further ten degrees from Earth's equatorial plane.

To quote Mr. Spock, "Captain, his pattern suggests two-dimensional thinking."  And while we can make all kinds of noise about spatial reasoning skills, a more fair assessment points out that nearly every rendition of manned translunar trajectories you find in public-relations materials puts everything roughly in the same plane.  If you do that consistently, you can't find too much fault if people wrongly get the idea that the actual problem is all coplanar.  That said, relying on public-relations material for technical accuracy is a mistake in and of itself.

Nope. The TLI and any mid-course corrections are designed to allow the craft to intersect the plane of the Moon's orbit at the location of the Moon  at the appropriate time in order to allow insertion into lunar orbit at the appropriate orbital inclination for the intended landing site. It is absolutely not necessary (or necessarily even desirable) to put the spacecraft on the same plane as the lunar orbit.

It's not even technically necessary for the transfer orbit to be in a plane that's compatible with the landing site.  Only the final lunar orbit has that constraint.  LOI-1 and LOI-2 can be used to change the lunar orbit inclination and ascending node to access the landing site.  I say "technically" because doing those as part of the insertion maneuver would be propellant-intensive.  MCC-1 and MCC-2 allow the insertion to be fuel-optimal.  All that a transfer orbit must technically achieve is that the spacecraft and destination coincide in the same point in space-time -- zero-order continuity.  That requires only the intersection of the transfer orbit plane with the destination orbit plane.  But first- or second-order continuity in the intercept is desirable for practical advantages.

I recommend a inquiry into the selection of the lunar flight plan that encompasses the theory  and benefits and limitations of all choices.  When it is known why they chose the method used it becomes obvious why all the missions have essentially the same flight plan.

We already know all of that, the simple fact is that you do not.

[Luke Pemberton]

Others have decided that you're a misogynist, but your sexism is so mild that it's barely noticeable compared to what most women deal with on a daily basis.  So now that we've disposed of that, can you answer my question?  It's a really, really easy one.

I made a jokey remark to Gillian that Tim engages in a bit of a causal misogyny, after he had ignored Gillian. I meant nothing by it other than a joke, hence the 'casual' prefix. It was intended more to joke with Gillian as she tends to be ignored in threads when the 'techno-geeks' are in overdrive, and she offers her alternative narratives that are non-science based.

If it has caused offence to any party, then I am sorry. Shall we drop it, and accept it was a joke?

[gillianren]

I will say--in addition to film and psychology, the field I understand that he's abused most is the English language.

[timfinch]

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."

Gillianren,  It is not that I cannot do the calculations.  Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties.

No.  You have not.  You have constantly evaded the simplest question, and until you answer it, I see no point in engaging further except to ask it again. 

How do you know that the answer is not simply that you have misunderstood what you're citing as evidence?

For what it's worth, I do not accuse you of misogyny.  I did, on the other hand, point out that your words about how I am "special in your mind" were creepy.  Which they are.  You never engaged on that point.  I mentioned that I have dealt with other men who treat me a certain way because I am female, but that was not relevant to you.  Others have decided that you're a misogynist, but your sexism is so mild that it's barely noticeable compared to what most women deal with on a daily basis.  So now that we've disposed of that, can you answer my question?  It's a really, really easy one.

Gillianren, the only reason I entertain this forum and the abuse it provides because I had hoped I was incorrect.  I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception.  I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be.  I  have been distracted, deceived and lied to.  I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with.  Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors.  Will you please stop asking the same question over and over?  It has become tiresome and it is distracting.

[Abaddon]

That sir, is an unsubstantiated opinion.

No, that is physics. What exactly would stop a craft from entering a lunar orbit on any plane with an apogee of 240,000 miles, if the Moon is there and the spacecraft performs a lunar orbit inserion burn to slow itself down to be captured by the Moon's gravity?

If you but provide reference to support your opinion then I can be induced to change mine own.

Utter crap. You have demonstrated a total unwillingness to change your own opinion watever is provided.

Fuel?

Yeah, fuel. Kind of important for a moon trip don't you think? Oh and the word is "whatever"

I noticed a lack of an alternate flight plan in yur rebuttal.

Really? You are unaware of any other flight plan ever? Do you expect that level of ignorance to be taken seriously? Oh and the word is "your".

Was that an oversight or is it you have nothing tangible, only a gut feel?

Nope, it is that we have facts and evidence and you have nothing. Oh and "gut feel"? That's called superstition. You have lots of that.

[Jason Thompson]

Fuel?  I noticed a lack of an alternate flight plan in yur rebuttal.  Was that an oversight or is it you have nothing tangible, only a gut feel?

I noticed that not one of the Apollo or Orion flights is actually 'on the lunar plane' either....

[Luke Pemberton]

I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with.  Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors.  Will you please stop asking the same question over and over?  It has become tiresome and it is distracting.

I asked you 5 questions that are relevant, they pertained to the primary and secondary radiation. Please answer those questions.

[Jason Thompson]

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."

Gillianren,  It is not that I cannot do the calculations.  Surely I have demonstrated and superior level of knowledge in he subject matter to all interested parties.

No.  You have not.  You have constantly evaded the simplest question, and until you answer it, I see no point in engaging further except to ask it again. 

How do you know that the answer is not simply that you have misunderstood what you're citing as evidence?

For what it's worth, I do not accuse you of misogyny.  I did, on the other hand, point out that your words about how I am "special in your mind" were creepy.  Which they are.  You never engaged on that point.  I mentioned that I have dealt with other men who treat me a certain way because I am female, but that was not relevant to you.  Others have decided that you're a misogynist, but your sexism is so mild that it's barely noticeable compared to what most women deal with on a daily basis.  So now that we've disposed of that, can you answer my question?  It's a really, really easy one.

Gillianren, the only reason I entertain this forum and the abuse it provides because I had hoped I was incorrect.  I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception.  I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be.  I  have been distracted, deceived and lied to.  I have not had a single question resolved in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with.  Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors.  Will you please stop asking the same question over and over?  It has become tiresome and it is distracting.

That is not answering the question.