Radiation

[Jason Thompson]

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 I'm the one who's spatially challenged?

We know that is is closer to 18 degrees which would mean it passed right through it and not above it.

This is actually irrelevant to the point. I never contended it was an accurate model of Apollo. I didn't measure angles or create precise orbits. The point was to get you to understand that two ellipses on the same plane do not ave the same path and therefore cannot be compared in the way you insisted.
 

I meant no disrespect.

Crap. Your disrespect for me, my time and my efforts was clear. All because you cannot bear to admit you were wrong about something.

[Abaddon]

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?

No. It is not true. The VAB does not surround the earth completely. Even the most abject hoaxmonsters do not believe any such thing. The notion is horribly stupid. Even jack white would crawl out of his grave because that is simply a dumb idea.

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND A DONUT SHAPE?



How hard can this be?

[Jason Thompson]

Not even close to 90 degrees...

[Abaddon]

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 I'm the one who's spatially challenged?

Nope. we are the ones wondering how tim can put on his pants in the morning. The evidence suggests that they end up on his head.

We know that is is closer to 18 degrees which would mean it passed right through it and not above it.

This is actually irrelevant to the point. I never contended it was an accurate model of Apollo. I didn't measure angles or create precise orbits. The point was to get you to understand that two ellipses on the same plane do not ave the same path and therefore cannot be compared in the way you insisted.
 

I meant no disrespect.

Crap. Your disrespect for me, my time and my efforts was clear. All because you cannot bear to admit you were wrong about something.

Yup. There is a term for that. Well two terms, but you can select either or both. Tim ticks both.

[benparry]

ladies and gents.

firstly can I apologise again. everybody here has answered tim on every single point he has asked and I am now genuinely embarrassed by his responses. I invited Tim here to propose his theory and it is clear no amount of work by anybody will do.

Tim. you should be ashamed. people here have given a lot of their time to help you and you have trolled your way through well more than 100 pages. I intend to block you on facebook as I am very bored now with the conversation.

I read earlier that abaddon has asked the mod not to block you which is fine and I will continue to read this thread without commenting but I am genuinely embarrassed.

can I just say many thanks to everybody here for the responses. I have learnt a lot and I am very satisfied that I was correct in what I said to tim at the very start when we met which in a nutshell was it depends in what part of space they were in and for how long.

again sorry for wasting everybodies time.

[gillianren]

I was hoping for a concession speech but I won't belabor the point. 

You can't even admit a theoretical possibility that you're wrong, and you want concession speeches from other people?

[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?

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.

You do have reading comprehension issues, all of us are in agreement with the LEO inclination of around 30 degrees, but when the SIV-B fired it WAS NOT fired in the same attitude as the orbit.  They were changing the plane by those 7 degrees, from the moment of ignition they were NOT in the same plane.

[nomuse]

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.

Which is irrelevant as a 3D spaceflight problem. Different eliptical eccentricity = different path even if it is on the same plane. It also, incidentally, has a huge effect on time by virtue of speed. But no doubt you won't grasp that either.

Dancing like a butterfly.  Is it in your mind the path cannot be accurately described on a 2d illustration and if so then why the proliferation of such depictions?  NASA used a 2d representation and so did Braeuninig.  Why can't you?

Because it's really tough to ship a 3d model with a magazine subscription?

Materials designed for a lay audience simplify. People actually plotting orbits, however, don't use these kinds of simplifications. They use math.

An ellipse is an ellipse is an ellipse. You keep trying to find a way of simplifying the problem into a straight-line path at a constant velocity.

[Abaddon]

ladies and gents.

firstly can I apologise again. everybody here has answered tim on every single point he has asked and I am now genuinely embarrassed by his responses. I invited Tim here to propose his theory and it is clear no amount of work by anybody will do.

Tim. you should be ashamed. people here have given a lot of their time to help you and you have trolled your way through well more than 100 pages. I intend to block you on facebook as I am very bored now with the conversation.

I read earlier that abaddon has asked the mod not to block you which is fine and I will continue to read this thread without commenting but I am genuinely embarrassed.

can I just say many thanks to everybody here for the responses. I have learnt a lot and I am very satisfied that I was correct in what I said to tim at the very start when we met which in a nutshell was it depends in what part of space they were in and for how long.

again sorry for wasting everybodies time.

Nope. Because
1. Everybody here gives freely and charity to the less abled is always a good thing to do.
2. Information that is not generally available has been raised so that others will not get suckered by the likes of tim.
3. Once again, tim has been exposed for his ignorance. If that happens on a single site, one might dismiss it, but on two sites? or 3? or 4? and what of the various bannings? No. Don't apologise. Just observe tim racking up the internet idiot points.
4. While tim may have mooched on to some new pasture, nobody cares. Tim had no clue which end was up and it showed. Someone else has to deal with his crap now.

[Luke Pemberton]

Because it's really tough to ship a 3d model with a magazine subscription?

Materials designed for a lay audience simplify. People actually plotting orbits, however, don't use these kinds of simplifications. They use math.

An ellipse is an ellipse is an ellipse. You keep trying to find a way of simplifying the problem into a straight-line path at a constant velocity.

Quite, and when Bob published his radiation page many members asked for an explanation of the 2D representation and its links to the coordinates that are employed by the radiation model. I actually felt quite sorry for Bob having spent all that work on the calculations, and then was quizzed by forum. It was only because people were struggling with the representation of the orbit with respect to the belts, and sought clarification. It's quite hard to visualise at first.

I actually quite like the two YouTube videos. They really show how the space craft avoided the most intense parts. Of course, even after bknight had posted this, Tim has to go away and somehow declare his diagram of Orion has equivalence with Apollo. Why, when it was there to see on the YT videos?

[Luke Pemberton]

You do have reading comprehension issues, all of us are in agreement with the LEO inclination of around 30 degrees, but when the SIV-B fired it WAS NOT fired in the same attitude as the orbit.  They were changing the plane by those 7 degrees, from the moment of ignition they were NOT in the same plane.

Yeah, but all that means is you draw the Apollo line at 7 degrees above the Orion line, in a straight line. 

[nomuse]

This is Tim, after all. Who misread a log graph. Rather than admit it, he decided it was a linear graph. Confronted with the impossibility, rather than admit he was wrong again he invented a whole new kind of graph and made up a new name for it.

All of that I could perhaps forgive (but not forget...oh, no, it is much too funny). His next move, however, was to start using it like a log graph...but instead of manning up and admitting his earlier error, he put on an arrogant air and pretended he was lecturing everyone else on how graphs work.

That's the point at which it becomes unforgivable.

[Luke Pemberton]

..but instead of manning up and admitting his earlier error, he put on an arrogant air and pretended he was lecturing everyone else on how graphs work.

Yeah, but if you get to make stuff up, then you get to lecture people on how it works; that's how it goes, right?

The universe is a giant sausage covered in boiled onions and American hot dog mustard. I've made that up, and now get to lecture you on the finer points of my cosmological model.

[bknight]

You do have reading comprehension issues, all of us are in agreement with the LEO inclination of around 30 degrees, but when the SIV-B fired it WAS NOT fired in the same attitude as the orbit.  They were changing the plane by those 7 degrees, from the moment of ignition they were NOT in the same plane.

Yeah, but all that means is you draw the Apollo line at 7 degrees above the Orion line, in a straight line. 

By my reading of the data the inclination is over 70 degrees by 36000 nautical miles.

[Abaddon]

So lets see. BP arrives out of nowhere with a mythical "friend ". BP introduces friend. Friend fights with own toenails and BP defends the undefensible. And pretends not to. Milk that for as long as possible and resign and resign the sock.

If this happened once, sure, I could be paranoid but we are the SECOND target and there may be others.