Radiation

[timfinch]

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.

Yours is a much more global view than mine.  I am unconcerned with the whole.  I am only concerned with a single aspect.  I am not trying to win the war rather a single battle.  It is like cutting down a giant redwood.  It is not done in a single blow, rather is is one nick at a time.  This is my nick.

[Mag40]

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?

Absolutely not at all. One craft is travelling 7000mph faster. The ellipse it makes will be totally different to the slower craft.

Orion will start to curve in on its apogee whilst Apollo carries on curving outwards. That apogee passes through areas that the Apollo ellipse doesn't ever come near to.

When viewed along that plane is not the entry point identical?

 

No. One is travelling faster.

remember the VAB encircles the earth and as long as the inclinations are identical then the regions of the VAB are identical.

For the sake of argument, if you assume they both hit the VAB at the same point(they don't btw), that is the only point they will both pass through. From then on, their speeds determine the shape of the ellipse.

The center of the VAB is 360 degrees uniform.

And only Orion passes through it.

Come on, stop this act of yours. It is obvious even to layman that they aren't the same. You are just trying to faff about to cover up all the other errors you have made.

[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?

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

If it is dependent on the angle of perception then why have you such a difficult time with the 2d angle of perception?  It would be a simple matter to acknowledge that when viewed in 2d from the side perspective then the illustration is correct and add the caveat then it it not representative of a 3d perspective.    Instead you claim the two dimensional perspective is erroneous and that is disingenuous or an outright fabrication.  So the question remains unanswered.  Is the 2d illustration I posted correct?

[timfinch]

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?

Absolutely not at all. One craft is travelling 7000mph faster. The ellipse it makes will be totally different to the slower craft.

Orion will start to curve in on its apogee whilst Apollo carries on curving outwards. That apogee passes through areas that the Apollo ellipse doesn't ever come near to.

When viewed along that plane is not the entry point identical?

 

No. One is travelling faster.

remember the VAB encircles the earth and as long as the inclinations are identical then the regions of the VAB are identical.

For the sake of argument, if you assume they both hit the VAB at the same point(they don't btw), that is the only point they will both pass through. From then on, their speeds determine the shape of the ellipse.

The center of the VAB is 360 degrees uniform.

And only Orion passes through it.

Come on, stop this act of yours. It is obvious even to layman that they aren't the same. You are just trying to faff about to cover up all the other errors you have made.

Ask yourself this simple question:  Why would the Orion not simply enter the VAB on a zero inclination?  Why did they choose an inclination of a lunar plane TLI?

[bknight]

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?

tim you should have found out that the trajectory of a rocket propelled vehicle can and frequently do, change their orbital plane.  It depends on the direction of the pitch, roll and yaw of the vehicle.  For A11, the only one I have hard data the pitch of the vehicle was 7 degrees.  Not much but when you are speaking of 240000 miles it is a big deal, that is why the trajectories of Orion and Apollo are different.  Apollo traversed a less dense portion of the VARB, whereas Orion was directed toward the more intense portion to check out the radiation protection for the electronics.  The electronics are a couple of generations ahead of those in Apollo, but far more susceptible to radiation damage.

I would have hoped that your research would have enlightened you to this fact, but since it hasn't let this post enlighten you.  The two trajectories were far different for different reasons, Apollo was meant to minimize radiation from the VARB while Orion was meant to maximize the radiation from the VARB.

[Luke Pemberton]

Apollo traversed a less dense portion of the VARB, whereas Orion was directed toward the more intense portion to check out the radiation protection for the electronics.  The electronics are a couple of generations ahead of those in Apollo, but far more susceptible to radiation damage.

^This... precisely this.

[gillianren]

Yours is a much more global view than mine.  I am unconcerned with the whole.  I am only concerned with a single aspect.  I am not trying to win the war rather a single battle.  It is like cutting down a giant redwood.  It is not done in a single blow, rather is is one nick at a time.  This is my nick.

You missed the tree.

[Mag40]

Ask yourself this simple question:  Why would the Orion not simply enter the VAB on a zero inclination?  Why did they choose an inclination of a lunar plane TLI?

Lets out large sigh

Cape Kennedy sits at 28.4 degrees. It is the optimal flight path.

[Jason Thompson]

If it is dependent on the angle of perception then why have you such a difficult time with the 2d angle of perception?

Because it doesn't tell the whole story.

Have some fun pictures to think about, then tell me it doesn't matter if you only consider the 2D perspective from one angle. See how these two ellipses are on the same plane but pass through or around the ring entirely differently?

[Jason Thompson]

And the third image

[Luke Pemberton]

You missed the tree.

That's my beer over the screen then...

[timfinch]

You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception.  It goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on.  They all appear to be a straight line.  The only question that remained to be answered is are they on the same plane.  You all agree that they are.  This being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths.  This is a truism.  If you cannot see that then you are spatially challenged and any further discussion is pointless as you lack the ability to evaluate the information from the proper perspective.

[Jason Thompson]

You admit the inclinations are the same.

Stop acting like you've extracted some kind of great concession. Firstly, I have no admitted that Orion and Apollo were the same. Second, it would make no difference, for reasons already explained at length.

When discussing two dimension geometry then it is incorrect to think in 3 dimensional terms.

When discussing the very really 3-dimensional issue of spaceflight it is incorrect to consider it as 2-dimensional geometry. Space flight is not, and has never been, a 2-dimensional problem.

[Jason Thompson]

You guys strive mightily to keep your illusions from failing to the point of self-deception.

And you go through some impressive gymnastics to avoid acknowledging that which is in front of you.

It goes without consideration that an ellipse, a circle, and a straight line of the same length are identical when viewed from a side view of the plane that they are drawn on.

Not contested, here or anywhere else. However, that doesn't stop them being different things with different properties.

This being the case then the illustration is a technically correct two dimensional depictions of the two flight paths.

So is the one drawn from above. Reconcile that if you insist on staying in 2-dimensions.

If you cannot see that

No-one has failed to see that. The only thing being constested is the relevance when it comes to discussing the problems of space flight in the 3-dimensional space it took place in.

Care to address the pictures I put up?

[timfinch]

Ask yourself this simple question:  Why would the Orion not simply enter the VAB on a zero inclination?  Why did they choose an inclination of a lunar plane TLI?

Lets out large sigh

Cape Kennedy sits at 28.4 degrees. It is the optimal flight path.

What has the location of the launch site have to do with the inclination of the orbit>  They could select any orbit they would like.  Cape canaveral is 28.4 degrees from what?  The equator?