Radiation

[nomuse]

I'm bowing to LO's wishes here. Not saying I'm not still getting a little flavor of dog in the nighttime.

As for Tim...more and more the flavor is IDW...with a profanity filter that works. Or is this just Standard Pattern A for hoax believers? Arrogant, mock-folksy...and mathematically illiterate?

[LunarOrbit]

Anyone who has questions for Tim that they feel he has ignored, please send them to me in a private message so that I can compile them into one post. Thanks.

[timfinch]

Let me set the record straight.  I am not who you think I am.  I am not a conspiracy theorist.  I can not answer the multitude of questions arising the from the conspiracy theories and I lack the interest to do so.  What I am is a an inquiring mind and a opinionated person.  I am not subtle and I am prone to offend.  I make no excuses for that .  I am honest and diligent in my pursuit of the truth.  I form my opinions starting from a neutral point and spend the effort to sort through the technical jargon and the attempts to distract and divert.  My own opinion is not spontaneous and is derived from logical deduction and careful evaluation of the available data.  I am a simple mind incapable of disseminating complex and dynamic situations and require simple problems and concrete solutions to move beyond any point.  I can and will entertain any questions that observe these simple boundaries.  Any attempt to expand the inquiry beyond a distinct and succinct point will be resisted by me.  I prefer  a serial approach to problem solving and insist upon solving individual problems before moving to the next problem.  I find it confusing to keep track of multiple threads expanding out and exponentially with convoluted questions that do nothing to clarify the original question.   I adhere to the time worn US Navy's principle of "KISS" keep it simple stupid.  I also adhere to the adage that if you can not explain it simply then you do not know it well enough.  I am sure your experience and expertise has merit but it means nothing if you cannot justify it with corroborating data.  In the absence of this corroboration it is merely an opinion lacking worth.  I will challenge you at every point and expect nothing less from you.  Victory means nothing unless it is won.  Anyone can be lucky but to be truly good you must be unbeatable.  The challenge lies before you.  Prove me wrong on any single issue.  Provide the data to support your assertion and make me change my opinion.  Then and only then can you be assured that your truth is sound and justified.  There are no freebies and no quarter given or asked.  Bring your "A" game or make yourself comfortable in the cheap seap seats and spectate.  Respect is earned not inferred.  Prove you deserve my respect.

[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.

The obvious problem with this illustration is it simultaneously displays two vantage points.  It shows the VAB from a 2d side view and the elliptical orbit from a top view.  Pick a single view and stick with it and there would be no confusion.

[timfinch]

Step away from this thread for a week and abandon all hope of catching up.

I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page and read up on the instrument's description:

CRaTER consists of six silicon detectors in thin/thick pairs separated by sections of Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP). The Tissue Equivalent Plastic (such as A-150 manufactured by Standard Imaging) simulates soft body tissue (muscle) and has been used for both ground-based as well as space-based (i.e. Space Station) experiments.

The thin detectors (140 μm) are optimized for high energy deposits and the thick detectors (1000 μm) are optimized for low energy deposits, in particular, for protons. In nominal operating mode, an event is triggered when the energy deposit in any single detector rises above its threshold energy. A measurement is then made of the energy deposit in all six detectors. Directional information can be inferred for events that deposit energy into more than one detector (detection coincidences). Endcaps shield the detectors from protons with less than ~13MeV. Extra mass placed around the edges of the detectors provides additional shielding from some particles which may be able to penetrate through the sides of the instrument.

Go to the web page for a proper diagram of the instrument, but here's some quick-n-dirty ASCII art:


============ --- Deep Space (Zenith) Shield
|||||||||||| --- D1 (148 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D2 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (54 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D3 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D4 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (27 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D5 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D6 (1 mm)
============ --- Lunar Surface (Nadir) Shield


So, several things that are obvious right off the bat:

• This is why you have combined readings for D1 & D2, D3 & D4, D5 & D6.  Each pair is at the same depth of "tissue", each sensor of the pair is optimized for different energies.
• This is why you don't sum up readings from all 6 detectors, because each pair is measuring energies at different "tissue" depths.  D1 & D2 give the "skin" dose, D5 & D6 give the "deep tissue" dose.
• As per the description, an event is recorded when the energy deposited in a single detector rises above its threshold energy.  Raw events are measured in keV/μm. Obviously, during analysis, these measurements are fed into a mathematical model that spits results out in cGy/day.

One particularly amusing aspect of Tim's confusion (=coughtrollerycough=) is the idea that, because the measurements are reported in cGy/day, that you must sum all the measurements taken on the same day to get the proper cGy/day amount. 

cGy/day is a rate, not a total.  It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next.  It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph.

I love planting a seed and watching it sprout.  You now understand the data reflects multiple snapshots taken during the day and to provide a truly comprehensive picture one must collate those snapshots into a single daily dose .  Good!  the force is flowing through you Luke (JFB).  Let it flow.  You are on the right track.

[Allan F]

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?

You didn't just write that? Yes, you did. What a howler. Are you a flatearther? That is the only explanation left.

[nweber]

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.

They can select any orbit with an inclination of 28.4 degrees or higher.  Well, actually, they could select any orbit they like, but if the inclination is less than 28.4 degrees, then there will be a large cost in fuel to achieve it.

Let's take an orbit with an inclination of zero as an example.  Such an orbit is above the equator.  So if you launch from Cape Canaveral, how do you achieve an orbit with an inclination of zero?  The rocket takes off at 28.4 degrees, then it has to travel south to get to the equator.  That's a long way - the rocket will be in orbit by then.  So if it just coasts to the equator, then it will continue south to at least 28.4 degrees south.  If the rocket was launched straight east (or west, for that matter, although there are reasons not to do that) from Cape Canaveral, then 28.4 degrees south will be the southernmost point of the orbit (farther south than Rio de Janeiro, but not quite as far south as Buenos Aires).  If they launched it either southward or northward, then the most southerly latitude the orbit reaches will be more south than 28.4 degrees.

So if you don't do anything to change the orbit after launch, the spacecraft will be oscillating north and south of the equator each orbit, by at least 28.4 degrees (and possibly more, depending on the direction of the rocket when it was launched).

To get into an orbit over the equator, there would have to be a course correction when the craft reaches the equator, to stop the southward motion.  This can be done in theory, but you're going to need enough fuel to do it.  And the amount of fuel will be a lot.

So, yes, in theory, you can achieve any orbit you like launching from Cape Canaveral, but if the inclination is less than 28.4 degrees, you have to carry enough fuel to do the course correction (which will cut down on how much payload you can carry, and possibly exceed the carrying capacity of your craft), and you need to have an engine that can do the burn.  It's hard enough and expensive enough to get a spacecraft into orbit, that you don't want to choose suboptimal orbits (like having an inclination of less than the latitude of your launch site) unless you really need to.

The Soviet Union (and now the Russian Space Agency) were at something of a disadvantage in this regard, since their launch site is so far north.  This limited the orbits they could easily achieve.  (There is another reason south is better as well.)  There's a reason the US launch site is in Florida, and not in North Dakota or Alaska.  It's the same reason the Soviet (now Russian) launch site is as far south as they could make it, and the European Space Agency launches from the northern part of South America.

Cape canaveral is 28.4 degrees from what?  The equator?

Yes, the equator.

[timfinch]

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.

They can select any orbit with an inclination of 28.4 degrees or higher.  Well, actually, they could select any orbit they like, but if the inclination is less than 28.4 degrees, then there will be a large cost in fuel to achieve it.

Let's take an orbit with an inclination of zero as an example.  Such an orbit is above the equator.  So if you launch from Cape Canaveral, how do you achieve an orbit with an inclination of zero?  The rocket takes off at 28.4 degrees, then it has to travel south to get to the equator.  That's a long way - the rocket will be in orbit by then.  So if it just coasts to the equator, then it will continue south to at least 28.4 degrees south.  If the rocket was launched straight east (or west, for that matter, although there are reasons not to do that) from Cape Canaveral, then 28.4 degrees south will be the southernmost point of the orbit (farther south than Rio de Janeiro, but not quite as far south as Buenos Aires).  If they launched it either southward or northward, then the most southerly latitude the orbit reaches will be more south than 28.4 degrees.

So if you don't do anything to change the orbit after launch, the spacecraft will be oscillating north and south of the equator each orbit, by at least 28.4 degrees (and possibly more, depending on the direction of the rocket when it was launched).

To get into an orbit over the equator, there would have to be a course correction when the craft reaches the equator, to stop the southward motion.  This can be done in theory, but you're going to need enough fuel to do it.  And the amount of fuel will be a lot.

So, yes, in theory, you can achieve any orbit you like launching from Cape Canaveral, but if the inclination is less than 28.4 degrees, you have to carry enough fuel to do the course correction (which will cut down on how much payload you can carry, and possibly exceed the carrying capacity of your craft), and you need to have an engine that can do the burn.  It's hard enough and expensive enough to get a spacecraft into orbit, that you don't want to choose suboptimal orbits (like having an inclination of less than the latitude of your launch site) unless you really need to.

The Soviet Union (and now the Russian Space Agency) were at something of a disadvantage in this regard, since their launch site is so far north.  This limited the orbits they could easily achieve.  (There is another reason south is better as well.)  There's a reason the US launch site is in Florida, and not in North Dakota or Alaska.  It's the same reason the Soviet (now Russian) launch site is as far south as they could make it, and the European Space Agency launches from the northern part of South America.

Cape canaveral is 28.4 degrees from what?  The equator?

Yes, the equator.

Why do you think it was chosen as the optimum site when a a norther location closer to the poles would have have allowed the VAB to be bypassed?  What was the logic?

[timfinch]

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA...

[timfinch]

I'm just thinking out loud.  Maybe it was chosen because it coincided with the lunar plane?

[Allan F]

No, you are not thinking.

Why are rockets launched eastward, and not to the west, north or south?

[timfinch]

No, you are not thinking.

Why are rockets launched eastward, and not to the west, north or south?

It takes advantage of the spin of the earth and reduces the required energy and or cost..

[jfb]

Step away from this thread for a week and abandon all hope of catching up.

I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page and read up on the instrument's description:

CRaTER consists of six silicon detectors in thin/thick pairs separated by sections of Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP). The Tissue Equivalent Plastic (such as A-150 manufactured by Standard Imaging) simulates soft body tissue (muscle) and has been used for both ground-based as well as space-based (i.e. Space Station) experiments.

The thin detectors (140 μm) are optimized for high energy deposits and the thick detectors (1000 μm) are optimized for low energy deposits, in particular, for protons. In nominal operating mode, an event is triggered when the energy deposit in any single detector rises above its threshold energy. A measurement is then made of the energy deposit in all six detectors. Directional information can be inferred for events that deposit energy into more than one detector (detection coincidences). Endcaps shield the detectors from protons with less than ~13MeV. Extra mass placed around the edges of the detectors provides additional shielding from some particles which may be able to penetrate through the sides of the instrument.

Go to the web page for a proper diagram of the instrument, but here's some quick-n-dirty ASCII art:


============ --- Deep Space (Zenith) Shield
|||||||||||| --- D1 (148 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D2 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (54 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D3 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D4 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (27 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D5 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D6 (1 mm)
============ --- Lunar Surface (Nadir) Shield


So, several things that are obvious right off the bat:

• This is why you have combined readings for D1 & D2, D3 & D4, D5 & D6.  Each pair is at the same depth of "tissue", each sensor of the pair is optimized for different energies.
• This is why you don't sum up readings from all 6 detectors, because each pair is measuring energies at different "tissue" depths.  D1 & D2 give the "skin" dose, D5 & D6 give the "deep tissue" dose.
• As per the description, an event is recorded when the energy deposited in a single detector rises above its threshold energy.  Raw events are measured in keV/μm. Obviously, during analysis, these measurements are fed into a mathematical model that spits results out in cGy/day.

One particularly amusing aspect of Tim's confusion (=coughtrollerycough=) is the idea that, because the measurements are reported in cGy/day, that you must sum all the measurements taken on the same day to get the proper cGy/day amount. 

cGy/day is a rate, not a total.  It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next.  It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph.

I love planting a seed and watching it sprout.  You now understand the data reflects multiple snapshots taken during the day and to provide a truly comprehensive picture one must collate those snapshots into a single daily dose .  Good!  the force is flowing through you Luke (JFB).  Let it flow.  You are on the right track.

=sigh=

I knw you’re pretending to be this dense (because otherwise there’s no way you could walk out the door without gravely injuring yourself), but even so this is getting tiresome.  No, you do not need to “collate” anything.  There’s no need to add readings together.  cGy/day is a rate at a given instant.  It could be cGy/hr, mGy/fortnight, kGy/sec, whatever.

Just do everyone a favor, take your bow, and piss off. 

[timfinch]

Step away from this thread for a week and abandon all hope of catching up.

I don't know if anyone's already posted this (most likely yes), but I went to the CRaTER web page and read up on the instrument's description:

CRaTER consists of six silicon detectors in thin/thick pairs separated by sections of Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP). The Tissue Equivalent Plastic (such as A-150 manufactured by Standard Imaging) simulates soft body tissue (muscle) and has been used for both ground-based as well as space-based (i.e. Space Station) experiments.

The thin detectors (140 μm) are optimized for high energy deposits and the thick detectors (1000 μm) are optimized for low energy deposits, in particular, for protons. In nominal operating mode, an event is triggered when the energy deposit in any single detector rises above its threshold energy. A measurement is then made of the energy deposit in all six detectors. Directional information can be inferred for events that deposit energy into more than one detector (detection coincidences). Endcaps shield the detectors from protons with less than ~13MeV. Extra mass placed around the edges of the detectors provides additional shielding from some particles which may be able to penetrate through the sides of the instrument.

Go to the web page for a proper diagram of the instrument, but here's some quick-n-dirty ASCII art:


============ --- Deep Space (Zenith) Shield
|||||||||||| --- D1 (148 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D2 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (54 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D3 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D4 (1 mm)
############ --- A150 Tissue Equivalent Plastic (27 mm)
|||||||||||| --- D5 (149 μm)
++++++++++++ --- D6 (1 mm)
============ --- Lunar Surface (Nadir) Shield


So, several things that are obvious right off the bat:

• This is why you have combined readings for D1 & D2, D3 & D4, D5 & D6.  Each pair is at the same depth of "tissue", each sensor of the pair is optimized for different energies.
• This is why you don't sum up readings from all 6 detectors, because each pair is measuring energies at different "tissue" depths.  D1 & D2 give the "skin" dose, D5 & D6 give the "deep tissue" dose.
• As per the description, an event is recorded when the energy deposited in a single detector rises above its threshold energy.  Raw events are measured in keV/μm. Obviously, during analysis, these measurements are fed into a mathematical model that spits results out in cGy/day.

One particularly amusing aspect of Tim's confusion (=coughtrollerycough=) is the idea that, because the measurements are reported in cGy/day, that you must sum all the measurements taken on the same day to get the proper cGy/day amount. 

cGy/day is a rate, not a total.  It's the rate of energy absorption at the time the measurement was taken, and that rate can change from one measurement to the next.  It's like saying that if I measure my speed while driving once every couple of minutes and I get 30 mph, 50 mph, 25 mph, and 60 mph, then I really must be going 165 mph.

I love planting a seed and watching it sprout.  You now understand the data reflects multiple snapshots taken during the day and to provide a truly comprehensive picture one must collate those snapshots into a single daily dose .  Good!  the force is flowing through you Luke (JFB).  Let it flow.  You are on the right track.

=sigh=

I knw you’re pretending to be this dense (because otherwise there’s no way you could walk out the door without gravely injuring yourself), but even so this is getting tiresome.  No, you do not need to “collate” anything.  There’s no need to add readings together.  cGy/day is a rate at a given instant.  It could be cGy/hr, mGy/fortnight, kGy/sec, whatever.

Just do everyone a favor, take your bow, and piss off.

what is the daily reading if the 24 snapshots are different?

[Allan F]

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA...

Please describe what a polar orbit is.