Radiation

[Mag40]

are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane?  If so, why and by how much?

That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.

Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.



Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.

[Jason Thompson]

I remind you that a circle, an ellipse and a straight line look the same when viewed along the plane of reference.  They all appear as lines of varying lengths.

And I remind you that this condition only holds true from that one single viewpoint. It doesn't stop a circle, an ellipse and a straight line from beng entirely different things in reality and from every single other possible angle.

[timfinch]

are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane?  If so, why and by how much?

No, and I never have. Are you being deliberately obtuse at this point?

I'll write it again to make it easy: orbits on the same plane do not have 'similar' flight paths. Is that not clear from the diagram? Even if those orbits are on the same plane they are clearly not similar in any sense when it comes to passing through the van Allen belts.
[/quote]
Then it is to say any geometric two dimensional depiction would appear as a straight line when viewed from the side view of the plane.  Is this not correct?

[Jason Thompson]

Then it is to say any geometric two dimensional depiction would appear as a straight line when viewed from the side view of the plane.  Is this not correct?

Correct but irrelevant, as explained. Move on.

[Mag40]

Apogee would reflect the length of the elliptical and has nothing to do with the plane of the elliptical.  From a side view each would appear as straight lines of different lengths on the same angle.

They both orbit on the same plane(the ground tracks show it to be near enough to make no difference). The apogee of Orion passes through the inner belt denser area. Apollo does not. This is really basic orbital mechanics, not even scratching the surface.

[Abaddon]

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.

Hahahaha. Tim still cannot fathom 3 dimensions.

[timfinch]

are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane?  If so, why and by how much?

That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.

Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.



Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.

Now if both orbits are on an identical plane and they enter the VAB at the same inclination will not their path mirror each other?  When viewed along that plane is not the entry point identical?  remember the VAB encircles the earth and as long as the inclinations are identical then the regions of the VAB are identical.  The center of the VAB is 360 degrees uniform.

[Jason Thompson]

Hahahaha. Tim still cannot fathom 3 dimensions.

Oh yes he can. Given the tone of his posts he can only be trolling at this point.

[Luke Pemberton]

The inmates have taking control of the prison?  We are warden-less?

... and there's one of the inmates barking at the moon from the confines of the asylum. LO doesn't patrol 24-7. I cannot speak for him, but I wouldn't irk him about the running of the forum. He's the only mod, he has a job, family and other interests. He runs the forum voluntarily. Do you run internet forums? No. So don't throw stones as the glass might fall around you.

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?

Talking about throwing stones. If you want to talk  about moderation, then I'll invoke it and ask LO for you to answer these questions tonight while Mag 40 is putting together a figure for you.

I won't accept flounce-Google time. They are one the table now, show you understand and support your claims about the radiation being prohibitive.

I led off with a question that you refused to address.  It was a simple question.  Did the Orion EFT mirror the apollo's path into the VAB.  If it did not show the facts to explain the differences.  You have provide no answers yet you demand your unrelated questions be answered in short order.  Tit for tat.  Show me yours and then I will show you mine.

Question 1 has been answered now, by multiple members. The orbits have different ellipses, different eccentricity, different positions, and the craft have different speeds. The issue is that you cannot transfer 2D to 3D.

The very fact that the Apollo craft has a higher speed changes the radiation dose. So the orbits aren't identical in any sense, either spatially or temporally. Now please answer questions 2-6.

[timfinch]

So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.  Exactly what are those two inclinations that would result in different paths through the VAB.  Remember from the side view  changes in elevation would result in line moving up or down.  How much up or down are the two paths and why?

[Jason Thompson]

Now if both orbits are on an identical plane and they enter the VAB at the same inclination will not their path mirror each other?

No, because the eccentricity of the ellipse means their obital paths diverge. They are only the same on one plane.

When viewed along that plane is not the entry point identical?  remember the VAB encircles the earth and as long as the inclinations are identical then the regions of the VAB are identical.

Wrong, because this is a 3D problem and cannot be reduced to a simple straight line issue as much as you desperately want to.

[Jason Thompson]

So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.

No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.

[gillianren]

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.

When you provide a satisfactory answer, I'll stop asking it.

You are not an expert in the field.  We all know that.  So is it not more reasonable to assume that you don't understand the numbers than that the numbers disprove Apollo?  Or is it simply impossible for you to ever be wrong about what the numbers show?

I gave you my answer.  Now if you want me to answer it in your voice then tell me what to say.  I will say it to remove the incessant ringing in my ears.

So your answer is "because the government is lying?"  Because that's not an answer.  That's a dodge.  That is not a simpler and more reasonable answer than your being wrong; it is extremely complicated, given everything they'd have to lie about.  "You are wrong" is a simpler answer, and you can't acknowledge that.

[timfinch]

So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.

No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.

We are making progress.  You admit the inclinations are the same.  What stands between us is the spatial recognition of the problem.  When discussing two dimension geometry then it is incorrect to think in 3 dimensional terms.  It is the two dimensions realities that we should be embracing.  Apples and apples.  Is it to safe to say that when viewed from a two dimensional perspective the paths are different only in length?  Can we say this is technically correct?

[gillianren]

So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.

No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.

We are making progress.  You admit the inclinations are the same.  What stands between us is the spatial recognition of the problem.  When discussing two dimension geometry then it is incorrect to think in 3 dimensional terms.  It is the two dimensions realities that we should be embracing.  Apples and apples.  Is it to safe to say that when viewed from a two dimensional perspective the paths are different only in length?  Can we say this is technically correct?

It depends on what angle you're looking at them from.  Once again, I'm quite sure my four-year-old would understand that.