Radiation

[Abaddon]

So Jason, say the devil's name.  Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective.  Yes or no?

You are stating that you cannot  understand 3D representation so it must be reduced to 2D representation but we have already established that you are unable to even understand that.

[Mag40]

So Jason, say the devil's name.  Is the illustration technically correct from a two dimensional perspective.  Yes or no?

Jason has provided a concrete model. Two different ellipses, one avoids the torus, one does not. That's possible in 3D orbital mechanics.

The 2D representation is a coplanar issue dependent on rotation. The 3D model shows the problem in all spatial dimensions. That is not difficult to understand. Two different ellipses, two different flight paths.

There are truths and there are not so true truths and generally perspective is to blame.  If we all assume a 2d perspective as viewed from the side, is not the illustration I provide correct?  We can move beyond this as soon as we acknowledge it is a correct two demensional perspective of the flight paths of the Orion EFT and the Apollo mission.  Can we do that?  There has been no claims on my part that it is the complete picture.  My only claim is that it is technically correct from that perspective..  Break me off some crumbs.  Let's move beyond this.

I can run as fast as Usain Bolt for about 0.1 of a second. A comparable crumb. Admit you are wrong. Be that military man. I thought their watchword was honour  not evasion!

[bknight]

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.

You missed my point exactly, Apollo was on a different plane by those 7 degrees.  Do you really have reading comprehension issues?

[timfinch]

I was hoping for a concession speech but I won't belabor the point.  But let's move on.  If we change the perspective to a view looking down on the orbital plane is there a portion of the VAB that is skirted by the apollo craft?

There is nothing to concede because literally no-one challenged the similar inclinations, only the significance of that similarity. How about you deal with the actual 3D model that has been presented and stop trying to reduce 3D spaceflight to a 2D issue. You have ignored the spatial and temporal realities of the two spacecraft orbital paths. Let's have the same from you that you demand from us: do you acknowldge that in 3D it is possible for two orbits on the same plane to interact differently with a torus on another plane?

It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path.  It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it.  The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB.  If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether.  Is this not true?

[Jason Thompson]

It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path.  It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it.  The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB.  If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether.  Is this not true?

You have literally been given pictures of a 3D representation of why that is not the case. Two ellipses on the same angle, one passed through, one missed. THhs is getting boring.

[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.

You missed my point exactly, Apollo was on a different plane by those 7 degrees.  Do you really have reading comprehension issues?

The others disagree with you.  They accept the fact that the Orion and the apollo have very similar inclinations.  If you have data indicating otherwise please share it with the group.  The would love the opportunity to rub my nose in it.

[timfinch]

It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path.  It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it.  The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB.  If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether.  Is this not true?

You have literally been given pictures of a 3D representation of why that is not the case. Two ellipses on the same angle, one passed through, one missed. THhs is getting boring.

You are spatially challenged and find it difficult to transition between perspectives.  I understand and you have my sympathies.  I cannot fix that which is terminally broken.  I will just move on without you and hope you find success with your impairment.

[Luke Pemberton]

It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path.  It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it.  The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB.  If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether.  Is this not true?

This has been explained, in as simple terms as possible -  A higher speed means an ellipse with a higher eccentricity. You move through the VAB differently compared to Orion, both spatially and temporally. On TLI the Apollo craft was 'swinging away' from the Earth so avoided the most intense region of the inner VAB and skirted the outer VAB. The Orion swung into it's apogee sooner. Jason has shown you how the two different ellipses provide different paths through the VABs with his cardboard model.

[timfinch]

Did I mention I am just home from the hospital and that I am weak and in recovery?  This has been taxing and I must rest.  I will rejoin the conversation tomorrow.  I am optimistic that we are making progress.  I cannot wait to re-engage in the CraTer Data discussion but there still  remains work to be done on the path through the VAB.  Until tomorrow my fellow seekers.

[Jason Thompson]

You are spatially challenged and find it difficult to transition between perspectives.  I understand and you have my sympathies.  I cannot fix that which is terminally broken.  I will just move on without you and hope you find success with your impairment.

Please explain exactly what is wrong with the model I provided then. I do not need to transition between perspectives, I not only visualised it I created a model of it. Address that model.

[Luke Pemberton]

You are spatially challenged and find it difficult to transition between perspectives.  I understand and you have my sympathies.  I cannot fix that which is terminally broken.  I will just move on without you and hope you find success with your impairment.

Jason has spent his Friday evening making a model to show you, and it's obvious to anyone that two different ellipses can interect a torus differently. This was simply rude and uncalled for when a member has tried to help you with a model.

It's a tricky problem to get one's mind around, so cut the obnoxious tone.

[Mag40]

It is my understanding because the VAB completely surrounds the earth then the only thing of importance or difference is the incident angle of the path.  It maters not where you enter, what is important is what angle you enter it.  The higher the angle the closer you approach the limits of the toroidal shape of The VAB.  If the angle is steep enough the VAB can be bypassed altogether.  Is this not true?

What has that got to do with anything you have claimed. The whole concept of taking a higher path to skirt weaker areas is the very point that has been explained to you, in so many different ways and painfully so.

Apollo transfer orbits do not follow the same paths as Orion. Period. Why are you so afraid to withdraw incorrect claims? You now want to move on after all your arrogant posturing.

The elephant in the room has become a boomerang that just took your head off!

[Luke Pemberton]

Did I mention I am just home from the hospital and that I am weak and in recovery?

It's not the only thing that is weak about you. Believe me.

[Mag40]

Did I mention I am just home from the hospital and that I am weak and in recovery?  This has been taxing and I must rest.  I will rejoin the conversation tomorrow.  I am optimistic that we are making progress.  I cannot wait to re-engage in the CraTer Data discussion but there still  remains work to be done on the path through the VAB.  Until tomorrow my fellow seekers.

Your most powerful asset is your over inflated ego. The only things to resolve over the VAB include your stunning inability to understand simple concepts, your inability to attend to data models given to you, a lack of your own analysis and a concession that you are hopelessly out of your depth.

[timfinch]

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, I really need to rest but I will make one final attempt.  if you viewed your model from the side with the representation of your VAB being horizontal then your orbit would be at 90 degrees to the VAB and we know that is incorrect. We know that is is closer to 18 degrees which would mean it passed right through it and not above it.  Until tomorrow.  I meant no disrespect.  It was an impartial assessment that although insensitive I contend it appears to be correct.