Radiation

[timfinch]

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....

As demonstrated by?  Can you provide the lunar plane for each of the flights?  Do you assume it is a constant and does not reflect the irregularities of the earth"s orbit on the solar orbital plane?

[timfinch]

There is a large amount of barking but little biting in this dog.  Will someone post their version of the two flight plans so we can contrast them.  Why so much extraneous conversation and so few facts?

[Jason Thompson]

As demonstrated by?  Can you provide the lunar plane for each of the flights?  Do you assume it is a constant and does not reflect the irregularities of the earth"s orbit on the solar orbital plane?

When you can provide more than a few wikipedia articles and google hits I'll play your game. When you can admit you are wrong about anything instead of, say, insisting that the units given for the CraTER data must actually mean something other than what they say because you don't understand why they were presneted that way, I'll play your game. When you can stop being childish I'll play your game. For now I'm happy with my own understanding of orbital mechanics, which actually chimes with the reality of spaceflight in general, thank you.

[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?

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.

I just explained to you how they differed. You diverted by going about an irrelevant flight path.

Orion carves an ellipse that comes back on itself at 3600 miles out. It takes it straight through the heart of the inner belt.

Apollo ellipses extend out to 240,000 miles. They do not come through that region at any point. 

[timfinch]

As demonstrated by?  Can you provide the lunar plane for each of the flights?  Do you assume it is a constant and does not reflect the irregularities of the earth"s orbit on the solar orbital plane?

When you can provide more than a few wikipedia articles and google hits I'll play your game. When you can admit you are wrong about anything instead of, say, insisting that the units given for the CraTER data must actually mean something other than what they say because you don't understand why they were presneted that way, I'll play your game. When you can stop being childish I'll play your game. For now I'm happy with my own understanding of orbital mechanics, which actually chimes with the reality of spaceflight in general, thank you.

I thought we had moved on from the CraTer data.  I am more than willing to engage the subject but not before we resolve this sticking point.  You made a claim that I am asking you to justify.  If you can not then I am forced to regard it as an unsubstantiated opinion.

[Luke Pemberton]

There is a large amount of barking but little biting in this dog.

I take it that one is referring to oneself.

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?

Now answer the questions 2-6, tonight please. Not in flounce-google time.

[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.

I just explained to you how they differed. You diverted by going about an irrelevant flight path.

Orion carves an ellipse that comes back on itself at 3600 miles out. It takes it straight through the heart of the inner belt.

Apollo ellipses extend out to 240,000 miles. They do not come through that region at any point.

Show me on the graph where the bad man hurt you?  If both crafts entered into the VAB at the same inclination traveling in the same direction then they share a similar flight path.  The onus is on you to prove the numbers are incorrect.  Remember, they are not my numbers, they are NASA's numbers.  Show me something.

[Abaddon]

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.

Nope. You, I, gillian and everyone else are simply guests here. You only entertain this forum because a)it is the only one which has not chucked you out yet and b)so far you remain an amusing chew toy.

That is all. When you inevitably become dull and repetitive you will be gone. Are you unaware that more than a few of us have specifically asked the site owner to NOT ban you because you are so hilariously amusing? It seems not?

I don't want to believe that my government is capable of such a deception.

I don't care about your government. It means nothing to me, nor does it mean much to the other 96% of humans who are not americans.

I had hoped that I could be shown an alternative that resolved my issues but alas it was not meant to be. 

Nope. When presented with evidence you hurled insults and sprinted.
I  have been distracted, deceived and lied to. [/quote]By yourself.

I have not had a single question resolved

You had all of them resolved.

in a manner that my intellectual integrity can be satisfied with.

Truth has no neccesity to be either nice or to your liking. And neither of those words can be applied to you. 

Nothing to be seen here beyond the smoke and mirrors. 

For a given level of weed.

Will you please stop asking the same question over and over? 

Will you?

It has become tiresome and it is distracting.

Not at all. it is amusing to watch you make a pretzel out of your brain.

Sorry to step in gillian but this is outrageous bovine fecal matter.

[timfinch]

There is a large amount of barking but little biting in this dog.

I take it that one is referring to oneself.

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?

Now answer the questions 2-6, tonight please. Not in flounce-google time.

I say again. I will not acquiesce.  We must come to terms on the two flight paths before I surrender to a different discussion.  Either accept the illustration as fact or provide an alternative one.  We are at an impasse.

[Luke Pemberton]

Show me on the graph where the bad man hurt you?

Now now, you know that graphs aren't your friend.

If both crafts entered into the VAB at the same inclination traveling in the same direction then they share a similar flight path.

Why? Not when their eccentricity is different. That's simply not possible from orbital mechanics. The two ellipses are different both spatially and in velocity. That has an effect on the position in the VAB and time in the VAB.

The onus is on you to prove the numbers are incorrect.  Remember, they are not my numbers, they are NASA's numbers.  Show me something.

They aren't NASA's numbers, they are Newton's numbers. Now show us you understand Newton.

[Mag40]

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....

As demonstrated by?  Can you provide the lunar plane for each of the flights?  Do you assume it is a constant and does not reflect the irregularities of the earth"s orbit on the solar orbital plane?

That epitomises the poor understanding you have.

The lunar plane is the cross section 5 degrees above the ecliptic.  What you should have asked is their orbital plane. But even that is not even close to the full flight path.

Afaik, they both followed the same orbital inclination. One ellipse  out to 3600, one out to 240,000. The closer one Orion must pass through areas that Apollo does not or could not. I'll knock up a diagram if you are still confused

[Luke Pemberton]

I say again. I will not acquiesce.  We must come to terms on the two flight paths before I surrender to a different discussion.  Either accept the illustration as fact or provide an alternative one.  We are at an impasse.

So I take that as your refusal to engage in questions that I and others have asked regarding your claim about radiation in the VAB. I take this as you won't answer the questions as you cannot answer them with any credibility. I take that as a submission.

[Jason Thompson]

Show me on the graph where the bad man hurt you?  If both crafts entered into the VAB at the same inclination traveling in the same direction then they share a similar flight path.

Which part of 'one had an apogee in the belt and one shot right through' isn't clear in terms of describing their flight paths as different?

[Abaddon]

There is a large amount of barking but little biting in this dog.  Will someone post their version of the two flight plans so we can contrast them.  Why so much extraneous conversation and so few facts?

There were three fundamental plans. Name them. You can't.

[timfinch]

Show me on the graph where the bad man hurt you?

Now now, you know that graphs aren't your friend.

If both crafts entered into the VAB at the same inclination traveling in the same direction then they share a similar flight path.

Why? Not when their eccentricity is different. That's simply not possible from orbital mechanics. The two ellipses are different both spatially and in velocity. That has an effect on the position in the VAB and time in the VAB.

The onus is on you to prove the numbers are incorrect.  Remember, they are not my numbers, they are NASA's numbers.  Show me something.

They aren't NASA's numbers, they are Newton's numbers. Now show us you understand Newton.

Where are your facts and figures.  Not once have you posted a corrected illustration or even provided conflicting inclinations.  Show me something tangible.  I want to believe you but I need you to help me believe you.  I thirst for the truth.  Don't leave me parched and neglected.